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.

      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.

        Christian,

        Many thanks for an interesting read. I knew you would wake up on the floor and that you would not get to see the final form of AE's work.

        I have sometimes mused about the possible analogies between an atom and a BH. However, I certainly don't know the Math or the Physics well enough to even make a mark on a piece of paper:-) Well done. I would have never imagined that the event horizon might oscillate.

        I've also occasionally mused about the analogies between a BH and the visible universe. Maybe you'll discuss that in a future work? BTW, what would you infer regarding a BH if its temperature was 2.7 K?

        I definitely agree with AE regarding prizes and such. Don't fret over it at all. There are much bigger things to worry about.

        BTW, maybe next time you might add a few paragraph breaks?

        Best Regards,

        Gary Simpson

          Dear John R. Cox,

          Thanks for your kind comments. I am happy that you considered my Essay an interesting read.

          That the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the surface of its event horizon was conjectured by Bekenstein in the '70s of last century. Such an entropy must be assigned to the black hole in order to have consistence with the laws of thermodynamics as they are interpreted by an external observer. More in general, Bekenstein also showed that it exists an upper limit on the entropy which can be contained within a given finite region of space having finite energy. Black holes exactly saturate such a bound. In general, more are large the black holes and less are high their density and temperature.

          Cheers, Ch.

          Hi Don,

          Thanks for your kind words and for finding my Essay fundamental.

          Having a conversation with Heisenberg, especially on quantum mechanics, should be really intriguing.

          That my Essay uniquely shows how Einstein's fundamental thought experiments evolve into today's fundamental thought experiments is a great compliment, thanks a lot.

          Yes, maybe that combining our approaches could have some interesting synergy.

          I will read your approach in considering the universe a black hole. I know that there are some approaches in that sense, see here, but one must be careful in this approach.

          It is a real treat to be in another essay with you too. Thanks again.

          Cheers, Ch.

          P.S. Yes, Sardinia's sea is really heavenly

          Chrstian,

          Your essay certainly was creative writing and an enjoyable way to introduce your ideas. I take it that this "gravitational atom" concept is the key insight into your BH model. I have studied BH theory a bit but find little about it that is truly fundamental. However, it is clear from Hawkings acceptance of information-preserving BH that some finite geometric representation of the throat of a BH is required.

          I think that there may be some conceptual agreement with my essay, in which I argue that the kernel of a BH must be tetrahedral (simplest geometric shape in 3-space). This geometry allows construction of an information-preserving BH, as well as offers explanations for unsolved problems.

          I look forward to finding whether there is further agreement between these fundamental concepts.

          Wayne Lundberg

          ref https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092