Hi, Christian

This is one of your most entertaining essays yet- and the caveat of normal modes is actually quite on target as a serious issue

What I would like to know, as an extension of your ideas is due to the question of quantum entanglement. Do you view that as fundamental, and the entire EPR business, or do you have more of a semi classical treatment of gravity in mind?

If you could, please review my small essay. It was put in December 21st. i.e. materially it is very similar to what I have published with you earlier

    Thanks LC. I just read, commented and scored your nice Essay.

    Yes, I agree with you that quasi-normal modes are not the whole answer to the quantum black hole. On the other hand, they represent a remarkable semi-classic approximation!

    Cheers, Ch.

    Hi Andy,

    I am happy to meet you here in FQXi again. I am honored that you think that i wrote and entertaining essays and that you agree with me that the caveat of quasi-normal modes is actually quite on target as a serious issue.

    Concerning your question on quantum entanglement, I must emphasize that I am not an expert of the EPR paradox. In any case, it is my personal opinion that it should be fundamental. It is indeed crucial for the black hole information puzzle.

    It will be my pleasure reading, commenting and score your Essay soon. A fortiori, if it is connected to your papers published in my journal.

    Good luck in the Contest!

    Cheers, Ch.

    As I indicate in my response quasi-normal modes are necessary as an approximation because the full solution set is virtually impossible. Maybe to some other form of intelligent life in the universe where what might be called an IQ of 250 is considered by them retarded this is tractable. To be honest the full set of solutions in QCD are largely a blank unknown. Maybe some sort of perturbation series can be worked up.

    BTW, if Trump manages to win the next election here I am packing my bags. Not sure what is cooking out there in S. Europe, but it can't be as crazy as what is happening here.

    Cheers LC

    Dear Dr Christian Corda,

    Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Christian;

    Beautiful work. It makes you completely understand the analogy between Bohr's atom theory and your gravitational atom of BH theory. But you did not address the issue of the contest. That's why I have to disagree with herr Doktor Einstein.

    You are a great scholar in physics, I respect you for that, but some time we have to understand the very basic to come down to the level of children and be able to teach them. Otherwise they would not get it. And that's when you fail.

    Anyway, I wish you luck this time.

    Truly yours;

    Diogenes

      Dear Christian,

      I enjoyed very much reading your essay, you manage to transmit so much about the foundations of physics in such an entertaining way! I think you evoked Einstein so convincingly that maybe he visited you indeed :) Now, beyond the entertaining factor, I think the explanations are clear and the idea is excellent. I find very convincing the role of the oscillations of the horizon in this elegant explanation, which doesn't introduce new factors in the game, such as giving up an important principle of physics, as it is often considered the black hole information paradox implies we should do. I think both unitarity and the principle of equivalence are essential.

      I have some questions. (1) You refer to your solution as "Bohr-like", but you use Schrödinger's equation. Why "Bohr-like" and not "Schrödinger-like"? (2) The radiation takes place similarly to how an excited atom emits a photon. In the case of the atom, the spontaneous emission is described in a good approximation by the Weisskopf-Wigner model. How do you think this happens in the BH case? Of course, to calculate the transition amplitudes you don't need this, but I am interested what is your view about this. (3) Do you think your solution can be related with the BMS symmetry? (4) Your proposal seems to me very natural, and minimalist in the sense of not requiring changes to the laws of physics. Your articles about the subject collected a beautiful number of citations, considering that they are recent. But I think this model deserves more attention. Instead, various proposals of giving up one principle or another, or built by artificially patching solutions, or by counting states made of artificial hypothetical objects, seem to receive much more interest. I think most of these constructions work just because the bound of entropy of quantum systems, you can put there anything as long as this is quantum. But I think yours is much more natural and simpler. So I think this preference is rather sociological, considering that so many people have their own group agendas of quantum gravity. What's your opinion about this? (5) In the notebook Einstein showed you, the final unified theory has as central equation a formula whose left hand side is "something like the Einstein tensor". Did you get the time to notice whether or not there are some tiny hats on those symbols?

      Your essay made my day, I wish you success with the contest!

      Best wishes,

      Cristi

        Dear Diogenes,

        I am honored that you tell that I am a great scholar in physics, but, in all honesty, I do not understand your criticism. Do you really think that unifying physics is not a fundamental issue? I am puzzled. I read in your short biography that you are a chemical engineer. Thus, you should be aware of the fundamental importance of atoms in chemistry. The fundamental importance of the "gravitational atom" in quantum gravity and in the root to unify physics is analogous.

        In any case, I wish you good luck in the Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

        Dear Cristi,

        It is always a pleasure meeting you here in FQXi. Thanks a lot for your comments with very rich raised issues.

        I am honoured by your judgement on my Essay and I am happy to know that you have found it entertaining. Writing an entertaining Essay was indeed my first goal this time. As I previously told in one of the above replies,for this new Contest I preferred writing a less technical and and more educational Essay than in the past.

        Concerning the very interesting points that you raised:

        1) You are correct. Both of the approaches (by Bohr and Schrodinger) are present in my research on black hole quantum physics. The Bohr-like approach concerns the analysis of the "electrons states" while the Schrodinger-like approach concerns the time evolution of the system. I have in mind to write a new research paper soon and I will profit by it in order to clarify this issue. I am grateful to you for having raised this point.

        2) The Weisskopf-Wigner model is not the final model of spontaneous emission, but remains an excellent approximation better than Bohr model. Yes, I think that something similar should happen also for black holes. I will try to study also this issue in the future.

        3) I think it could be possible. In fact, differently from Hawking original claims, the issue that the final state is a pure state rather than a mixed one should imply the existence of a S-Matrix also for black holes. I know that also Gerard t' Hooft agrees on this issue. On the other hand, writing down, explicitly, such a S-Matrix and, in turn, verify the BMS Symmetry is not banal.

        4) I am honoured that you think that my model deserves more attention and I agree that it is quite natural. Yes, I know that various proposals of giving up one principle or another, or built by artificially patching solutions, or by counting states made of artificial hypothetical objects, receive much more interest. In all honesty, I do not like the majority of such proposals because they are too much abstracted, despite I strongly respect their proponents. I believe that there are subtle "political" motivations for such a major interest. In fact, as you correctly stressed, a lot of people have their own group agendas of quantum gravity. Clearly, all of them think that their proper proposal is the correct one. I also think that if the Bohr-Schrodinger approach should have been developed by some guy like Hawking or t'Hooft rather than by me, then it should have received much more interest.

        5) No, sadly the time was not enough!

        I am going to read, comment and score your Essay soon.

        Thanks again and good luck in the Contest!

        Cheers, Ch.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #14

        Dear Dr Christian Corda,

        All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Dr Christian Corda,

        Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Dr Christian Corda,

        All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Joe Fishe,

        Sorry, but this is not connected with my Essay. Please, kindly comment on it and it will be my pleasure reading, commenting and scoring your Essay asap.

        Good luck in the Contest, Ch.

        Dear Joe Fisher,

        Sorry, but this is not connected with my Essay. Please, kindly comment on it and it will be my pleasure reading, commenting and scoring your Essay asap.

        Good luck in the Contest, Ch.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #19

        Dear Christian,

        Thank you very much for the reply, I am very interested in the future developments of your idea. I'm a bit sad that you didn't see the right hand side of the Equation. At least it seems that no modified gravity is in the left side, so no f(R) or W^2, although I am interested in conformal gravity. Sadly, you didn't have enough time to see if the Einstein tensor is classical or a quantum operator. So in this case the next best thing is to ask you, what is your opinion about this?

        Warm regards,

        Cristi

        Dear Cristi,

        Well, extended gravity could enter, in principle, on the right hand side of the field equations if you wrote its form by adding a "curvature" stress-energy tensor to the ordinary stress-energy tensor. In my personal opinion, the Einstein tensor should enter in the final equation of the unified field theory as a quantum operator, despite Herr Doktor should not be happy by this... :-)

        Cheers, Ch.

        CC

        An elegant story that is well told. Personally I find that which is fundamental sometimes to be temporary and thus not eternal. I accept that level of looseness and eagerly look forward to the next level which can be called fundamental. Understanding a phenomenon and whatever it explains has the right to be treated as fundamental, at least as long as it is not dethroned.

        JK

          Hi dear Christian,

          Congratulations with your nice essay! I see you in some new style that is very attractive in my view. Moreover, the giant Einstein is there, who is very rich to advise every one of us! I will try study it more detailed to be take some important parts for me, and maybe - for some discussion also in future.

          My Best wishes!

            Dear John,

            Thanks for finding elegant my story.

            Your idea of "temporary levels of fundamental issues" is interesting and seems connected with Einstein's idea that it should not exist a definitive theory, but only subsequent level of better approximation (i.e. non-definitive theories) to explain Nature.

            Cheers, Ch.

            Dear George,

            It is very nice meeting you here in FQXi again.

            Thanks for your congrats and for your kind words. Potential future discussions are warmly welcome. I will read, comment and score you Essay soon.

            Thanks again and good luck in the Contest.

            Cheers, Ch.