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

Dear Sreenath B N.,

Thanks for your kind comments.

I am going to read your Essay.

Thanks again.

Best wishes,

Ch.

Hello Dr Corda,

I have difficulties to resume my works :) But the most important is to improve it.So I continue to learn and to share.

The gravitational collapse is an extrapolation of the mind. The singularities are so numerous.In fact all is singular in its pure meaning, so the central sphere of all entanglement, ultim. I agree so about your words, it is very relevant even, because we cannot have a singularity if the sphere does not turn, so implying the rule of the mas for an evolutive complementarity.I beleive that we cannot really reach these singularities , but we can appraoch them by our extrapolations. In this line of reasoning, we have an interesting differenciation between the sapce, the mass and the light. In my model of spherization, the rotations imply the rule of comportment of evolution, so the fermions and the bosons turn. The space is intriguing, the quantum space and the cosmological space.In my logic, the spheres of space does not turn. It is relevant considering this space between spheres.Furthermore this space can disappear in the perfect contact if the serie of uniqueness is inserted with its finite groups.With volumes decreasing from the main central sphere. It is relevant if we extrapolate by our mind a zero absolute, implying a non rotation of all spheres.It implies a simple logic, the space, the mass and the light are the same relativistically speaking.Of course we do not insert the volumes of evolution. In this line of reasoning, we have singularities everywhere. In all serie of uniqueness.If we take the main central spheres as singularities, it is paradoxal and fascinating. Where are our main codes, in our main central spheres.

A gravitational collapse implies that the smaller spheres are attracted towards this main central sphere. It becomes very relevant if we insert the idea cited above about the lattices between spheres, at the quantum scale and cosmological scale. If the fractal is a decreasing of volumes, the lattice disappear in the perfect contact. The gravitational collapsing so can be correlated with these lattices between quantum and cosmological spheres.

Best Regards

Sorry I forgot to put my name.

Does God play Dice?

Yes,but when He play, always falls the same 3:1

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Christian,

I had never really thought of the principle of equivalence as other than a general physical law. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems are existence theorems, after all, so should not be an absolute barrier to the singularity-free theory of gravity that Einstein sought.

Therefore, I appreciate your view that restores relativity to its primary role in fundamental physics -- nice job. I take a different approach to the same goal (my essay, "The Perfect First Question"), in showing that the result of every measurement function continuous from an initial condition is nondegenerate near the singularity. So in any physical sense, the singularity is a fictitious calculational artifact without independent reality -- and, consistent with Wheeler's information-theoretic view, the source of all information is a point at infinity.

Best wishes in the contest! Your dedication to a deceased colleague is heartwarming.

Tom

Hi Christian,

thank you for rating my essay Elementary Time Cycles

As I wrote above, your idea is also intriguing, as well as 't Hooft studies on black holes.

It has fundamental relations with my description of elementary system as periodic phenomena, though this is link is not trivial and it is not mentioned in my essay. I hope we will find occasion to share our ideas. I have given you positive rating as you deserve.

Good luck to you,

Donatello

Hi Tom,

It is me the parano.:) I am not really ok with your words.Why a point at infinity for the singularities.It is not foundamental at my humble opinion. The serie of uniqueness is a finite group. It is not a fictional calculation. It is a real road towards this singularity.

Now I can agree if we considering the source with the adds or multiplications.But not for our uniqueness number. It is not rational considering the encoding of these informations. If these informations are correlated with the central spheres.So the volumes of stability become very important and very relevant. So the main central sphere are the most important volume for the two 3d scales ,at the walls. It is relevant for these singularities and the singularity.I beleive that the informations must be classified with these volumes. With the prime number 1 like the main code. If we interpret the infinity, the infinities and the finite groups without a real universal spherical domains, so it becomes moredifficult for the real quantization of this mass.This mass is a coded system in evolution with sortings and synchros. The volumes, I am repeating, are essential.

Wheeler is relevant about the informations but the domain of taxonomy of infinities , constants,....must be rational about these sortings and synchros.Correlated with these spherical volumes of this universal serie of uniqueness. It is relevant also when we consider the same number of uniqueness for the cosmological number of spheres and the quantum number of spheres of this finite group.

The informations are an interesting subject in all case. The main central spheres are the secret of main codes. The fermions polarize the informations and the bosonic complementarity.Without finite groups for the quantization, it is not possible to reach these singularities.

What do you think Tom ?

Regards

Steve

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your kind words. Actually, the dedication to Darry Leiter has been right and proper. He was a great scientist and lots of ideas on our Essay are due by him. In fact, last year I promised to his widow that such ideas would be used to realize an Essay for this Contest.

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

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Donatello,

Thanks for giving us positive rating.

I also hope that we will find occasion to share our ideas.It will be quite interesting as I think that such ideas should arise from a common "Einstenian" point of view.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Steve,

"Without finite groups for the quantization, it is not possible to reach these singularities.

What do you think Tom ?"

This is the only part of your post that I understand, and I think you're right. That's why my model is finite in space and unbounded in time -- i.e., a continuously evolving wave function is infinitely quantized and so not quantized at all. This is perfectly consistent with general relativity -- except that GR, conventionally interpreted as finite in time and unbounded in space, cannot avoid the singularity, and this model must.

Best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Tell me Tom. My english is so bad? I don't learn it but I evolve ,No?

Tom, is it my english or is it my reasoning that you do not understand ?

There is a thing that I don't agree with your words. Why you say that the GR considers an unbounded space. Never the GR says that. At my knowledge, the GR tells us that the mass curves this space. So the spheres spherificates the Universal sphere. Furthermore the spherical volume of this universal sphere evolving , changes in time. The time is a constant of evolution implied by the rotations of spheres.A pure irreversible duration. So I don't understand why you say that the Sapce is unbounded. The universal sphere is a finite system in evolution of mass. The mass curves this space. The SR tells us that c is constant and is the maximum velocity for bosons. These two gauges permit to undertand the evolution, so this light becoming mass. For a real quantization, we must have a bounded universal sphere. Furthermore the finite groups also are essential.

It is simply a deterministic interpretation of this relativity. I don't understand why you say that in fact Tom about our GR ?

That said, the time can be considered indeed like infinite.But with real proportionalities in 3D so !

ps I am going to search a good teacher for my engligh.

ps2 I dislike to study languages :) it is not my force this matter .

Regards

"Why you say that the GR considers an unbounded space. Never the GR says that."

Yes it does, Steve. The curvature of spacetime in 4 dimensions means that if one were to (hypothetically) travel in a straight line at the speed of light, one's path would follow a geodesic of the curve and return to the starting point. That's what we mean by finite and unbounded. The GR model is finite in time (bounded at the singularity of creation) and unbounded in space.

Please, though, let's not impose any more side discussions on Christian's space.

Tom

I am sorry to tell you it, but no Tome you are the most the time not rational and general.In fact Tom, you are not really deterministic in fact. I think that you confound a lot of things, don't teach but learn so .I am sincere and I am right you know, each person at its place after all when we speak about our foundamental universal 3D sphere.It is better for the people. You interpret the relativity bizarelly.

The space is curved by the gravitation !!! the spherization Tom.

the singularity of creations, it is the central main sphere, cosmlogical, the main central spheres, quantic, are the singularities. You interpret the infinity bizarelly.It is the reason why your domains, limits are not correct.

Dr Corda has interesting ideas. I don't impose, I just show him several foundamental roads. You can also learn from these ideas, and relevances in a pure finite universal sphere witha spherical volume in evolution.

Don't make also too much publicity! The sciences and its determinism are better.

You know Tom, I am shocked by several comportments of several persons.It is not that the USA. Have you seen the film "an on a ledge" om. I am in the same state of mind you know. I have faith in my theory with or without the approvements of jealous, envious or vanitious or full of hate. It is in fact not my probelms their states of mind. My universal faith is my reason of being.

You must differenciate a lot of things Tom. It the war against the bad Tom. With or without their approvements, they shall fall down ! You want really seeing this spherization in its generality Tom. Don't worry you shall understand what is the universality.We are young you know.

Please Tom, don't teach !!! you are not general and foundamental in your doamins !!! The students cannot learn these things said to all. It is not complicated to understand. I critic simply.

Regards

Steve,

The meaning of "finite and unbounded" in relativity theory is not controversial.

As long as you brought it up, however, it will be necessary to know what that interpretation means in order to understand what Christian Corda et al are saying:

The singularity theorems (Penrose, Hawking) conclude that either:

1. (Penrose) A light path is restricted at the limit of the black hole; i.e., it cannot complete a geodesic circuit; therefore (as Einstein himself in fact knew) general relativity fails at the singularity to be a complete theory, and can only apply in a limited way to the large scale structure of the universe. (A geodesic is the longest path on the circumference of a sphere.)

Or

2. (Hawking) The rules of quantum mechanics forbid a singularity at creation; this imposes an impossibility condition on infinite energy density at the Big Bang. Therefore, the minimal 2-dimensional analysis that quantum mechanics requires allows unphysical phenomena such as negative time. General relativity fails not at the singularity; it fails at the Planck time.

Corda et al, using the principle of equivalence (or as they say, the strong principle of equivalence, SPOE) -- which is central to relativity -- go back to the fundamental nature of dynamics. That is, a classical (or what has come to be known as semi-classical) explanation has to give a top-down accounting of quantum phenomena, such that time (as in the Hawking theorem) is conserved, and geodesic incompleteness (as in the Penrose theorem) is therefore obviated.

When these conditions are satisfied, Corda et al show, no quantum mechanical effect prevents relativistic observers from realizing locally all the effects of physics in all of spacetime. Global uniformization is identical to local physical dynamics. As a consequence, not only are "naked singularities" prohibited, so are the event horizons that hide them, even for extremely compact astrophysical objects.

So if you want to stay on topic here, address these issues rather than whether you think I am rational. As far as generating "publicity" -- yes, I am happy to promote any and every framework that plausibly leads to a comprehensive and fully relativistic explanation of how nature works.

Tom

o :) Make surf Tom in 8 dimensions and make a bridge between 7 and 8, more 12 and also stop to check my pc and also learn from real generalists.and also stop your obliged publicity of frustrated. You want what with Jonathan and Ian, what? it is what your problem, the vanity, the money, what, the faith. A man on a ledge my friend, kill me it is better. A real circus of strategists.

You are ironical.You do not understand neither the works of Penrose, nor Hawking, nor Riemann, nor Einstein,....in fact you are a false generalist. Your interpretation of the ether, or the relativity or the gravitation or the evolution is subjective and irrational. You search hidden variables without determinism and causality. It is ironical in fact.

In fact people speaks about the singularity and the singularities and the ether and they have not even the faith, let me laugh Tom and friends. With your beautiful words in english. Parallelizations, yes of course, an academic parrallelization. It is that ? for the private airplanes paid by the whom?You know the intrinsic pseudo integre politeness of private circle will not change the universality you know. Abraham Lincoln and Kenedy shall agree if they were here no? I know better the story of your country that you I am persuaded. If you were a generalist and a rationalist or an universalist, never you shall have made all this strategy.In fact don't search like excuse that it is the competition.It is too easy Tom ! I know the persons vanitious and angry agaisnt me, just because I critic with transparence. I know the jealous, the vanitious and the envious,and the strategists.It is easy in fact.

ps I am sorry to tell it but you do not understand the real meaning of singularities.

The prinnciple of equivalence is rational !!! your reasoning Tom, no!

Never a gravitational collapse does not insert singularities.

Let's discuss about this principle of equivalence and the entropy principle and the anthropical principle and the finite groups and the kissing spheres.

ps we are here to critic with logic and rationality, we are not here to take gloves when we critic the works.We cannot violate the principle of equivalence !!! The competition is not foundamental even in darwinistic point of vue or Lamarkist. So the critics on the essays are essential. It permits to show them their errors and so the next essays shall be better.

Don't teach Tom, your interpretation of relativity is false, you cannot teach your subjective reasonings.

Regards

Dear Christian:

I enjoyed reading your well-written and intuitive essay.

My paper -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" strongly vindicates the conclusion of your paper - "....black holes could have a different nature with respect the common belief. In fact, even remaining very compact astrophysics objects, they could be devoid of horizons and singularities.......quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, a way to find solutions to the problem of black hole horizons and singularities at a semi-classical level, i.e. without discussions of quantum gravity, becomes a fundamental framework."

My paper even goes further in describing a detailed model of the missing physics of spontaneous decay based on the above suggested framework and successfully predicts the observed data at all scales from below Planck scale to beyond cosmological scales. The proposed model not only resolves black hole singularities but also the unresolved paradoxes of physics and cosmology. It also explains the inner workings of QM and eliminates its inconsistencies with relativity.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best of Luck and Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Avtar,

Thanks for your kind comments.

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

Cheers,

Ch.

Intersting!

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.pdf

Dear Hoang Cao Hai ,

Thanks for your kind comments.

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

Cheers,

Ch.