Dear Readers,

I would like to thank all the people who have read and have rated my Essay. Today, I am going on holidays for some days. I will bring my i-phone with me in order to follow the Contest's evolution, but it will be very difficult for me to read pdf files with such an i-phone. In any case, when I will bring back at home on next week, I will restart to read and rate all the various Essays for which I have been requested to give my own views on.

I wish good luck in the Contest to all of view and I hope that you will continue to enjoy with this intriguing FQXi Competition.

Cheers,

Ch.

Christian,

Your conclusion, 'The assumption by 't Hooft that Schröedinger equations can be used universally for all dynamics in the universe is in turn confirmed, further endorsing the conclusion that BH evaporation must be information preserving." I find fascinating.

You speak of states as commonly understood in physics, but I was unable to find 'how' you determined such states came to be? I believe the findings from the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded will be of interest to you and may also substantiate your conclusions. I hope you find time to review my findings at:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

    Dear Joe,

    Thank you very much and good luck for the Contest.

    Best wishes,

    Ch.

    Dear Manuel,

    Thanks for your kind comments.

    At the present time I am on holidays. When I will return at home on next week I will surely read, comment and rate your Essay.

    Best wishes and good luck in the Contest,

    Ch.

    Dear Hoang,

    Thanks for your comments.

    I will surely read your Essay when I will return at home from my holidays on next week.

    Best wishes and good luck in the Contest,

    Ch.

    Christian,

    If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

    Jim

      Dear Jim,

      Thanks for your kind comments.

      I will surely read your Essay when I will return at home on next week

      Best wishes and good luck in the Contest,

      Ch.

      Dear Christian Corda,

      Did Wheeler really already coin "the phrase "It from bit or Bit from It?" in the 1950s"?

      If so I have to correct my essay and perhaps also my tendency to see the pendulum of my judgment that has so far swung in favor of Shannon's view.

      If you are a coward, just join those who scored me one without taking issue in public.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      Hello, Christian Corda,

      Thank you for a very informative and physics based essay. I'm very interested in black holes and their use in developing the Holographic Principle. I may wish to email you in the future after I fully digest all this. Thank you for sharing your teaching,

      Matthew

        Hi Matthew,

        Thanks for your kind words on my Essay.

        I am interested on the Holographic Principle too. Be free to email me when you like. Maybe we can collaborate in the future.

        Thanks again.

        Cheers,

        Ch.

        Dear Dr. Corda,

        Thanks for your well written essay and in which you have tried to solve one of the outstanding problems in black hole (BH) information paradox that the information is not lost in BH evaporation but that it is preserved. I hope your effort sustains and will be rewarded in due course.

        Wishing you all the best and I am going to rate your essay with a very good score.

        Sreenath

        Dear professor Cristian Corda:

        I am a physician specialized as a psychiatrist. I'm clarifying this point, just to also make understandable that I don't know almost nothing of physics and also of mathematics. But when I read the title of your essay: "Time dependent Schrödinger equation for black hole evaporation: no information loss" I ask myself how physicists can work for years and years, on and around something, than no physicist since the discipline began as such, knew or know what "time" is, your essay refer to a subject, that supposedly depend on "time". I know that physics don't know its definition neither its more important experimental meaning. So how a physicist can understand Schrödinger equation if they don't know what is "time" from which the equation suppose to depend.

        I know that physicists when referring to "time" they in fact are referring mainly to the measuring of "duration", they can't take "time" as a physic entity and relate its properties with any other physical entity properties like gravity for example, just because nobody know what "time" properties are.

        I know that you also can depend of something that you don't know and that you don't understand, but become workable for you all, because the reliable and exact measuring of "duration". Medicine also used plants to cure people without knowing why these were effective, and even that, they kept using it.

        But physics is not like medicine, is among the exact sciences. As I said when in physics people refer to "time", they mainly believe they are referring to measuring "duration", the problem is, that they don't know what is "duration" either, because this one is define as a period of "time" and if you don't know the meaning of "time" you don't know the meaning of "duration" either.

        So you don't think that could be useful to know from what is depending Schrödinger equation. As a physicist you think that could be possible that depend from a quality or property of every physical existing thing like "motion", which when is "constant" or "uniform" as in celestial bodies and clocks, can be use to measure now days, with great precision, the periods of change and transformation allowed by "motion"? That now on we can call "duration"?.

        With my best whishes

        Héctor Daniel Gianni

          Dear Héctor Daniel Gianny,

          Don't blame Christian Corda for using the notion time as it has been understood in physics so far.

          I expect him merely taking issue concerning my question on Wheeler. He might read this as a reminder.

          If you are interested in what I consider Newton's almost correct distinction between the two notions of time, you might just look at Fig. 1 of my previous essay.

          I personally share the suspicion by many that his holistic approach, while appealing, is not feasible for all past and future time, even if Schwarzschild's solutions to Einstein's equations exhibit time before and after the end of time.

          Eckard

          Dear Eckard,

          Actually, I did not know when Wheeler coined the phrase "It from Bit or Bit from it". Also, you can check that I do not use it in my Essay. Thus, I think that you should ask your question to the lots of people that use Wheeler's phrase in this Essay Contest.

          I do not usually score Essays without reading them before. Thus, I will surely read and rate your Essay on next week when I will return at home from my holidays.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

          Dear Hèctor,

          Thanks for your kind comments with the interesting point on time.

          Hawking claimed in his book "Brief history of time" that we do not know what time is. In Special Relativity it depends on observer's motion. In General Relativity it also depends on the presence of a gravitational field. Yes, in general we use the motion of bodies to measure it. An extremely precise way to measure time is by using bouncing photons in interferometry.

          For further information I suggest you to give a look to the first FQXI Essay Contest dedicated to time.

          Best wishes,

          Ch.

          Dear Ch.,

          I wish you pleasant holidays. Don't hurry. I referred to your utterance "I also think it is not a coincidence that the great scientist who coined the phrase "It from bit or Bit from It?" in the 1950s, i.e. John A. Wheeler, was the same scientist who popularized the term "black hole" in the 1960s."

          I wrote "Following Edwin T. Jaynes, Frederick W. Kantor, Carl F. v. Weizsaecker, Edward Fredkin [3], and others, Wheeler offered his "it of bit" when the practical superiority of digital methods for noise-independent data transmission was obvious, and a digital world seemed to be quite natural." See also my Ref. [1] J A Wheeler (1990) Information, physics, quantum: The search for links, in W Zurek (ed.) Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.

          I cannot derive from this rather late application of ideas by Shannon that Wheeler was "the great scientist". Admittedly, there was a reason for me to strive for a fair comparison between Shannon's rather common sense view and Wheeler's - as I tried to show - rather closely related to Einstein belief:

          The current physics follows Einstein, Hilbert, and Wheeler in assuming a block universe without a now that separates the past from the future. Wheeler and Feynman did even offer a theory that allows going backward *in* time.

          Your name is Christian. Did you expect a fair score from a strongly believing Israel or Mohamed in a competition concerning belief related matters? If an essay like mine merely disagrees with what you were told then you should perhaps abstain from rating it accordingly. On the other hand, your factual criticism will be highly welcome.

          Cheers,

          Eckard

          Dear Eckard,

          Notice that I wrote that Wheeler popularized, not conied, the term "black hole". People commonly think that he conied that term also because Hawking claimed this issue in his book "Brief history of time". Maybe he also popularized instead of conied "It from bit".

          In any case, I consider him as great scientist neither for coning nor for popularizing terms, but for his research work and for being the mentor of a lot of excellent theoretical physicists.

          My name was chosen by my Parents to honorate Christian Barnard. In fact, I am not religious and my family has old Jews origin. In any case, I consider people all equals, without discriminations due to religion because I hate any type of racism.

          I will read your Essay asap.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

          Dear Ch,

          My English is shaky. That's why I am confused by your wrote "conied" three times. Perhaps you meant coined in the sense of Wheeler invented these phrases.

          Most likely, Wheeler's It from bit was indeed inspired by those who I quoted. In particular did Fredkin believe "that atoms, electrons, and quarks consist ultimately of bits--binary units of information, like those that are the currency of computation in a personal computer or a pocket calculator. And he believe[d] that the behavior of those bits, and thus of the entire universe, is governed by a single programming rule.

          If your name Christian was chosen after the surgeon Christiaan Barnard then you are pretty young as compared with me. This means you are at the beginning of your scientific carrier, and you must not utter any doubt whether Einstein's theory of relativity is possibly flawed. Meanwhile I prefer the opinion of Michelson who was also a Jew.

          Just today I read that Einstein's questionable Poincarè synchronization was not only correctly used by telegraphers to take into account delays in Transatlantic cables, which was largely known to me in principle, and this synchronization method was still reasonably used under the wrong assumption of a light-carrying aether by Poincarè but Einstein might have adopted it from a Swiss patent application for synchronizing clocks when he reviewed it at the patent office in Bern. I gave the reference in reply to Paul at topic 1793.

          While I did not derive from your name that you are a Christian believer, a strongly believing Mohamed will perhaps suspect that. I did not by chance refer to the word belief in the title of my essay: Shannon's (and to some extent my own) view on Wheeler's (and Einstein's) belief. Einstein confessed that for him as believing physicist the distinction between past (present) and future is merely an albeit obstinate illusion. I do not believe that.

          Cheers,

          Eckard