Bohr-like model for black holes: the route for quantum gravity by Christian Corda

Hi Christian,

In the endnotes you point out that gravity is the only theory whose interactions are not quantized. Let me point out also that gravity is the only theory with a boundless energy function, and therein lies the problem.

The Newtonian potential energy function is the source of the difficulty. In my 2012 fqxi essay there is a re-derivation of potential energy using special relativity and the Einstein equivalence principle. The essential difference in the derivation is that a relativistic approach requires multiplication instead of integration. The resulting function can be normalized by the rest energy of a test particle yielding Mach's principle. Plugging the potential energy function into Gullstrand-Painleve coordinates gives an exponential metric.

Vladimir Majernik's arxiv paper also arrives at an exponential metric but using a substantially different technique.

Abandoning Newton's boundless energy function and adopting Mach's principle necessarily means abandoning black holes.

Best Wishes

Colin

Welcome to the contest

I also had to consider : seeks unity of Attraction and Quantum, and found that : irreconcilable for things that we can not identify a specific and detailed way - especially the by measures of mathematics.

Anyway, wish you success along with the highest score for the passion and enthusiasm of you

Hải.CaoHoàng

Hi Ch,

I am reading your paper now. I will try to finish it in today. It appears to be dropping a bit since a few hours ago when it had a 10. I have to read it first before giving it a score.

Cheers LC

Hie Christian

Your essay touches one of the most interesting subject area of theoretical physics which is my area of interest. I have a paper( http://worldscientific.com/toc/ijgmmp/0/ja ) accepted for publication on this topic. My questions are

1) what is the energy/mass of the graviton in your paper?

2) What testable predictions does your theory make?

3) Do you consider Dark Energy and Dark Matter as manifestations of Quantum Gravity

I would like to rate your essay and answers to the above questions would help.

Best regards

Stuart

Dear Christian,

The point is that the Einstein-Hilbert action is unbounded because it is based on classical Newtonian gravitational potential energy. I have no idea how to incorporate relativistic gravitational potential energy into general relativity (I was hoping you might) but it ought to be clear that an unbounded energy function is unphysical and could be the source of considerable difficulty.

As it stands, general relativity has been tested to first order. A decisive second order test, LATOR, is feasible with current technology, and that will tell whether blacks holes have any basis in reality. LATOR is the modern version of measuring the deflection of light passing the Sun using lasers.

You may have to look at the links provided previously to understand that black holes do not occur with a suitably bounded energy function. Here is a link to an updated version of my 2012 fqxi essay which should be more readable.

"Abandoning black holes", as I put it, is clearly not something a black hole expert is eager to do. On the other hand, the bounded potential energy function that comes from a relativistic treatment might appeal to someone wanting to quantize gravitation.

Given all the current essays and your work, I know it is hard, but please take the time to investigate this little-known possibility.

Best to you,

Colin

By the way I do not rate any essays until the end.

My Dear Professor Corda,

I found your essay so thrilling to read I may not be able to sleep for some time due to the excitement it aroused in me. I do have one minor quibble that I hope you do not mind me mentioning. It is physically impossible to unify abstract general relativity and abstract quantum mechanics because they are unreal.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at the constant "speed" of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent "speed" that is less than the "speed" of light. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract.. As a surface can only travel at the constant "speed" of light, and that speed cannot be exceeded, a surface cannot peel away from a sub-surface. As a sub-surface is attached to a surface by a random fluctuating energy field, a sub-surface cannot reduce its inconsistent speed to the point where it becomes inertial. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

I use the term "speed" of light merely to make it easier for the reader to understand my theory. Actually light cannot move because it does not have a surface. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the "speed" of light. When it strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

With appropriate regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Christian,

I greatly agree with your comment that "Realizing a complete theory of quantum gravity, which will unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, is unanimously considered one of the most important tasks which steers the future of science in general and of theoretical physics in particular. In fact, such a fundamental result will steer humanity towards a better understanding of the universe" as well as in the endnote when you said, "obtaining an ultimate theory of quantum gravity will represent a cornerstone for our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature."

The Black Hole Information Paradox has been solved. It is a rather simple solution. The solution is that matter falling into a Black Hole converts into Space, causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. It comes back to the Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Black holes are the transformation of matter to an inverse state of energy that is subspace (otherwise known as the Aether). Much Electromagnetics is based upon the Aether such as Maxwell's Equations that contain the Parameters of Space. See the c-constant is defined by the Parameters of Space. Did you know that the Magnetic Constant was arbitrarily set to 4PI x 10^-7 m*kg*s^-2*A^-2. The 4PI was half of 8PI and the 10^-7 comes from a decimal shift in the definition of the meter. A meter is One Ten-Millionth (10^7) the arclength of a quadrant of the earth's Meridean. Actually the Magnetic Constant is not constant and neither is the speed-of-light. While the c-constant is an Energy Constant (like a natural base-unit), the speed-of-light entirely depends upon the Parameters of Space. What we call Gravitational Lensing is actually Gravitational Refraction. Light passing through a gravitational field slows down and curves its pathway just like light passing through a glass of water (which has a high refractive index). The Parameters of Space are symmetrical inverses of Space and Time, which are based upon wavelength and frequency. The string in String Theory is the photon and an Electron is a ball of string that vibrates and rotates. The Photon is the fundamental component of all Matter and Space.

The reason that I know so much about this is because I derived the Unified Field Equation. First I linked Mass-Energy Equivalence to the Lorentz transformations of Mass-Increase and Time-Dilation to form the Tuck-Einstein Equation as Energy = (Space * Mass * Time) / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5, where the variables of Space and Time are initialized by the c-constant. This Multivariate Calculus equation not only mathematically finishes the equation of Special Relativity, it correctly replaces the Dirac Equation of Quantum Mechanics. In fact, Maxwell's Wave Equation is a Partial Differential Equation of inverse form using fields. Finally, I integrated a variant of Ampère's Force Law with the right-hand side of Einstein's Field Equation of Gravitation (throwing out the Riemann Geometry). However, the inverse form of this equation was even more interesting because it is the Quantum Entropic Force Equation.

Physicists made a lot of mistakes in Science. For starters, they use Partial Differential Equations that are little more than approximations and wonder why they run into singularities and infinities. If they had all the variables then they would have much simpler Multivariate Calculus Equations. Instead they use mathematical tricks like Perturbation and Renormalization. They also don't treat Time correctly as a kinetic-energy but rather as a spatial coordinate that leads to Light-Cone mapping and Imaginary Numbers. Then don't get me started on the flawed Logical Positivism used in conventional Quantum Mechanics. The universe is Deterministic. I don't know why probability was favored when all probability is based upon a deterministic systems.

I applaud your use of the Bohr Model as I am successfully applying it relativistically to the atom. It is interesting to see things like Keplar's Law of Areas for Planitary Motion at the Quantum Level. Now that I am understanding the Electron Magnetic Dipole Moment and seeing large-scale Electromagnetic phenomena rooted in Quantum Mechanics, I am posed to model an atom (with accurate electron spin and orbital motion) and hopefully move on to the Chemical Reactions and Biological Interactions of molecules. You can view a summery of my scientific work in Theoretical Physics in the essay "How Should Humanity Steer the Future by Stephen Tuck."

Dear Christian,

Thank you, I don't always get such a cordial response from academics. Quite frankly, I don't see a Theoretical Physicist with a career admitting the possibility that someone has discovered the Unified Field Equation. After all, most make it their life-long pursuit that is just outside the grasp of human understanding. Personally, I see new opportunities for Physicists to branch into the Physics of Chemistry and Biology through such unification. I believe that it will mean working on things of even greater precision and complexity, which will drive innovation within the commercial industry. I will give you more information that would be beneficial towards your task of verifying my Unified Field Equation. I can supply you with whatever you need. The derivation and integrations are relatively straightforward. I think the real proof is in crunching numbers with the equation. The easiest way to do this is with an Equation Solver. It is a tool that I use extensively myself. You can enter the text version of the equation (as supplied in my paper) into a Texas Instruments calculator or if you use an iPhone like me, you can use Formulaic. You may already have your own (I don't know). The Energy, Mass, and c-constant are all pretty basic physics. You would want to use the earth's mass and energy for one of the objects and then use the mass and energy of another object like for instance a 1 kg calibration weight. I personally like using the Tuck-Einstein Equation, but it takes a special procedure to get the energy from Time-Dilation to shift into the Mass-Increase. It is likely because I am working two equations simultaneously within that integration (that map within the range of c^2) and have to work within the limitations of current equation solvers. The q-variable is equivocal to PI in the Equation of Everything because it is dealing with the Quantum Level. It is similar to how the Velocity-variable in the equation within my paper is the Frequency of the Electron (which matches the size of an Electron in comparison to the Electromagnetic Spectrum; see Wikipedia for an EM Spectrum Chart). The Radius is 1 (or unity in the initial non-adjusted equation) and then you might start with Velocity as zero. You will get PI^2 for the Force, which is based upon a Perfectly Spherical Earth. You should look at the Inverse Form of the Equation which is the Quantum Entropic Force Equation (which I supplied variable values). It seems to contain a quantum version of the Lorentz Force Equation on the left-hand side. You might be interested to know that I was able to integrate Ampère's Force Law and Einstein's Field Equation through the Parameters of Space (specifically 2X the Magnetic Constant; 2 micro-0). There is a lot of evidence that supports this equation as being correct. I have even been able to map fermions to a subset of the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Temperature. You should see where I link the values of Farads and Microgaussians to the Fermion Temperature Range of the EM Spectrum. However, my explaination of charge being Rotational Kinetic-Energy equal to 2PI Radians (1 rotation) and what the 8PI in Einstein's Field Equation represents should go a long way in understanding. I think the fact that all the mathematics fits flawlessly together and that Inverse Equation Forms are themselves other Physical Laws of the Universe proves a lot in and of itself. If I had not derived the Tuck-Einstein Equation then I couldn't have integrated the equations because of the substitution required. Now I have even figured out how Elementary Charge comes from the Electron Spin Moment. This is hidden by the fact that the Coulomb was arbitrarily increased by 10^4 and the Tesla was shifted by 10^-4. This is due to their mathematical relationship in Lorentz Force Law that states, "a particle carrying a charge of 1 Coulomb that is passing through a magnetic field of 1 Tesla at a speed of 1 meter per second perpendicular to the field experiences a force with a magnitude of 1 Newton." I tried to include a lot of my mathematical work into that paper so it should be an interesting read for someone of your great knowledge and experience. Anyways, I really hope you will give my work a fair and honest review!

Best Regards,

Stephen Tuck

Dear Christian,

This is Stephen again. I have given your essay a very high rating. I release you from the obligation of publically reviewing my essay if you decide that it would be in your best interest not to comment. If I were wrong then there would be nothing to worry about since I would be just another crank claiming the impossible. However, assuming I am right then it places a career-minded Ph.D. such as yourself in a precarious predicament of having to chose between embracing or denying such an accomplishment. I can tell you that I have worked incredibly hard for several years now and it has brought me nothing by knowledge and a certain amount of pride. I don't see a way for someone like myself to receive any type of recognition, funding, or support for my work in Theoretical Physics. I feel like I am on the verge of making incredible breakthroughs in modeling the dynamics of atoms and molecules as well as Chemical and Biological Interactions. I was hoping that I could convince a biotech company of the technological advancements I could achieve in mathematically decoding the finctionality of Recumbent DNA Nucleotides. Ultimately that's where I would like to see my scientific work advance because of the great beauty and complexity that is within the processes of biological organisms.

On a cautionary note, your colleagues would probably not like me too much. I have entirely disproved the Higgs Mechanism. I figured that they would try something like that some months before the Higgs Boson announcement. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking explains nothing. What really gives rise to mass is the same mechanism that causes a relativistic Mass-Increase, which is the Lorentz Mechanism. Mass is due to an increase in Wavelength or Photonic-String Length. In the Lorentz transformation, frequency-energy is converted into wavelength or mass. I have been able to explain the seasonal aberration in the Gravitational Constant by noting that our orbit is elliptical, which means that our velocity changes along the earth's orbit. This small change in velocity does affect the Mass of objects through this mechanism. If you would like to contact me confidentially in private, you may email me through gmail as my username is stephentuck25. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

Dear Christian,

It occurs to me that the present theory of black holes still applies to elementary particles, which are essentially indivisible.

The exponential form I find for the relativistic gravitational potential energy function comes from the nonlinearity of special relativity when merging two objects to form a larger object. That is to say, my theory probably deals only with aggregate matter, not particles or anything at the Planck scale.

As the aggregate problem may not be worth trying to quantize, it seems less interesting even to me, although it still makes a nice prediction.

If any one has ideas or questions please let me know at my essay, Democracy of the dice people

Why quantize gravity? It could be the best way to get off this planet, which seems to be the theme of many essays.

With greatest respect,

Colin

Ch

Have you tried to apply Wannier functions to your model? That is considering an orbiting particle like an electron moving in the presence of noise in solid state physics. If you try that I think you get airy coeffiencts Ai(r) inwhich the higher quantum numbers are close to the source of gravity.This is the basis of my quantum theory of gravity inwhich I see the Wannier functions as a spacetime wave packet.

Best regards

Stuart

I think the expert judges are aware of trolling activity and will judge your essay according to its merit so don't be concerned with trolls throwing mud at you it won't stick!

Trolls could be folks who have had their pet theories rejected by journals and may have an axe to grind with anyone in the academia. They will consider it their lucky day if you happen to be an editor of a scientific journal!

regards

Stuart