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,
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.
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.
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.
Christian,
Good essay. Informative, interesting, entertaining and probably important, though by the end I was desperate for a paragraph break! I sympathise on the matter of judging as the apparent criteria used often seems at odds with fqxi's mission statement & raisen d'etre.
I said 'probably' above as in my main world of astronomy, astrophysics and observational cosmology a supermassive black hole has long been an active galactic nucleus (AGN). These have increasingly been closely studied with billions worth of instruments in all ways and now have far better understood dynamics. Smaller versions at stellar scale are typified by the Crab Nebula core.
I thus have difficulties with theoretical treatments of 'black holes' seemingly ignoring recent findings. It's a little like theory developed on a different planet long ago! The accretion disc, toroidal counter-wound acceleration paths, precessing cusps and opposing helical collimated jet outflow structures I'm familiar with in some detail (even from the 1980's Rees etc!) makes the theoretical objects still 'guessed' about now seem rather alien or from some dream!
I try hard to find greater consistency between theory and observation, but suspect AE was correct; the original conception doesn't exist! As you know I've published on the part the mechanism seems to play in galaxy evolution. I hoped to find more convergence than I did, but then much of the theoretical description is beyond me so I'm sure more exists. Can you help there?
Having said that, scoring criteria don't include 'agreement' on approach or theory so that takes nothing away from the value and quality of your work and essay.
On the matter of playing dice; if you interact at the equator of a spinning body and had to decide if the spin is clockwise or counter clockwise, how reliable would you answer be? Is that not a universal truth of momentum transfer?
Very well done, and glad you were inspired to enter. I had to smile about your ('pain in the ar**) on waking. Best of luck in the judging.
Peter
Thanks for your kind words, Peter. Concerning your ideas on the existence or non-existences of black holes, I paraphrase Einstein on the existence or non-existences of gravitational waves:
"If you ask me whether there are black holes or not, I must answer that I
do not know. But it is a highly interesting problem"
In any case, I do not like the idea of singularity. I attempted to find solutions on this problem in the past, see for example this paper.
Cheers, Ch.
Dr. Corda,
This is all too far above my level to rate, and competency to comment. But I can glean enough to gain a little more understanding of what 'quantization' entails, and why. Intuitively however, I have to ask why entropy must operate inside the gravitational extremes of a BH. Would it not be physically reversed to some extent? The crush of quantized matter accelerating perturbations to a frequency where the that velocity would be undifferentiated from the time dilation on particle horizons, and fusion of matter be of the entire inertia of the otherwise separate closed systems ("As a consequence of SR, the energy of a closed system is equal to its inertia." AE) ? Or is that somewhat like what is meant by 'information loss', the loss of quantized differentiation?
It seems to me that there must exist a proportional density that is the greatest density any self-gravitational field needs to attain for inertia to translate throughout the whole field, whether a Quantum Unitary Particle or an aggregate field, and in Stellar and Galactic centers that proportion would also hold whether as a material BH or an amalgamated gravitational field Perfectly Transparent Well.
Thanks for an interesting read. jrc
And Pete,
Hello again. There has been a number of arguments that dispute Relativistic Time in favor of a Newtonian absolute simultaneity, but GR would argue that the speed of time on the surface of a body is equivalent to the corresponding escape velocity. So given the wide range of masses, it wouldn't matter how fast a second is on any surface, a relative simultaneity could be found for corresponding moments in time. It kind of suggests that motion is inevitable if all those different time speeds were trying to sync to a realistic absolute simultaneity, look at the equatorial rotation velocities of gas giants. I'm not going to attempt the math, but its fun to think of. I liked your essay too, jrc
Hi Christian,
I like this essay very much. I would like to use this style in a conversation with Heisenberg.
Your essay is fundamental and uniquely shows how Einstein's fundamental thought experiments evolve into today's fundamental thought experiments.
Our approaches to quantum gravity are very different in that do not put much attention on black holes. Nevertheless, I think combining our approaches could have some interesting synergy.
Have you ever considered the universe a black hole.
http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/22_The_Schwarzschild_Radius.html
It is a real treat to be in another essay with you.
Don Limuti
PS: Really, you were born on a small island off the coast of Sardinia! I am jealous.