Dear Mr. Corda,

I found your essay very interesting and original.

I would be glad if you find a moment to go through my essay, and look forward to a nice discussion on our works.

Best wishes,

Flavio

    Christian,

    A clever FQXi tour de force conversation with the Grand Master scientist. Indeed, "Physical theories which permit us to understand Nature can be considered really fundamental." Of course "your legs were shaking," anticipating the theory of everything equation. My essay references anticipation of such a moment in our attempts to simulate (LHC) and indeed seek the BB with an imagined greatly enhanced LIGO detection of the BB. Hope you get a chance to read my essay.

    Wishes for a challenging contest.

    Jim Hoover

      Hi Christian,

      1. Thanks for your link on the universe as a black hole ... very informative. Thanks!

      2. In this essay I attempted to show how mass curves space-time by creating density gradients of gravitons.

      I would also like to develop an understanding on why the speed of light is the same for all observers. My postulate is that light can only go "piggyback" on top of "gravitons". The net of gravitons that is space-time is an "ether" connecting everything in the universe. When objects move on this net the gravitons change their relative distances but the speed of light piggyback on the gravitons remains c!

      In other words gravity in the form of gravitons keeps the speed of light constant for objects that move with respect to each other. Michelson and Morley showed that a static background ether did not exist ..... but they never considered the ether being a graviton net.

      What do you think? Too crazy....

      Theorizing is easy ... good experiments are the hard part.

      Don Limuti

      Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

      Thanks for giving the highest score to my Essay. I am grateful to you and honored by this.

      Thanks for clarifying points 1, 2 and 3. Concerning Einstein's Equivalence Principle, its main consequence is that gravity is not a force. It is inertia instead.

      Thanks again and good luck in the Contest!

      Cheers, Ch.

      Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

      Please, give a look to my above reply. Concerning to your question, it depends on the reference frame we chose.

      Cheers, Ch.

      Dear Flavio,

      Thanks for finding my Essay very interesting and original. I will read, comment and score your Essay soon.

      Thanks again and good luck in the Contest!

      Cheers, Ch.

      Hi Jim,

      It is pleasant meeting you here in FQXi again.

      Thanks for finding my work clever.

      I often worked on gravitational waves due to the BB in the past. Thus, it will be my pleasure reading, scoring and commenting your Essay soon.

      Thanks again and good luck in the Contest!

      Cheers, Ch.

      Hi Christian,

      I rated your essay February 2. Highest, of course.

      There's so much of substance here, that I don't know where to begin commenting. So let me choose one area -- your equations 1 & 2. Whatever the units, entropy has not been seen to decrease on its own, and Bekenstein-Hawking are expected to lead with that premise for black hole surfaces of not less than 2 dimensions.

      Bekenstein-Mayo, however (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0105055) in their one-dimensional black hole picture, used Pendry's formula for 1 channel entropy flow (their equation 6) to show that it does not differ in form from their eqn. 10, leading one to conclude " ... a black hole in 3-D space is more like a 1-D channel than like a surface in 3-D space. We have checked that these conclusions are not qualitatively changed when the entropy is carried by neutrinos." Thus my suggested neutrino experiment, eliminating the distinction between past and future entropy. Soliton waves pass through each other regardless of origin.

      Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

      All best,

      Tom

        5 days later

        Dear Christian;

        I am so proud to be friend with someone who is in such a good relationship with doctor Einstein and above all the entanglement you found from the interior of "the Heaven of Scientists" and its exterior outside the its event horizon, so the information of the inside of this heaven has become available for us in our emerged reality. I quite understand the reason why he wanted to see you, once the bridge was opened because the model you are developing is quite harmonious both for the mind and for the maths.

        A Heaven of Scientists is already a long sought for the reason to find solutions about the origins and development of our experienced reality. The big question of course "Is there a beginning as introduced by the BB theory or is the HoF just eternal? I don't think the BB is relevant, but who am I? I neither like singularities in our emergent reality. The expansion theory may explain the cosmic background radiation, but it is the same kind of solution as the MWI asserting the objective reality of the universal wave-function...

        "the countable character of subsequent emissions of Hawking quanta", is one of the conclusions you are taking in the comparing of the BH with a hydrogen atom. Indeed the electron cloud around a nucleus of an atom can be compared to the BH Hawking radiation, only the difference is that a nucleus is not the origin of the energy state of the electron-cloud, or am I understanding you quite wrong here? Because on page 7 you say " BHs cannot strictly emit thermally" but also "backreaction" is the origin of fluctuations in the event horizon, together with the Hawking radiation it means that any BH is sending out quite some energy. Does this mean that "Herr Doktor" could not be a thermal emission? Could we interfere with him, could you have written this essay?

        "BH evaporation is time-dependent." Is it time dependent only on our emergent reality, and maybe not with reference to the inside the BH "structure? This opens indeed the question of the question of BH space-time. "If "there is an "entanglement structure of the wave function associated with the particle pair creation (outside -inside entanglement ), the time structure is also entangled with the inside of the BH and this explains "the emitted radiation results have to be entangled with BH QNMs, which represent the electron states of the gravitational atom" and indeed you could accept that: "a BH is a well-defined quantum mechanical systems with an ordered, discrete quantum spectrum".(The "Herr Doctor" has time consciousness and so it can be reached)

        "Rigorous mathematical details of my solution to this part of the BH information paradox can be found in a couple of papers of mine" I think that the information paradox is no longer a paradox once you are implementing my own model of the "Foundational Quantum Reality Loops" in my essay. I really loved reading your creational interview with Grand Master Einstein and hope that you can submit him my contribution to this fuzzy FQXi contest and ask his opinion, remarks and maybe rating. At this side of the HoS I rate your interview as high as possible being aware that the FQXi professionals won't be impressed (but I am).

        Best regards

        Wilhelmus de Wilde.

          Dear Christian Corda,

          Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, "spooky action at a distance" cannot occur and that, "God does not play dice". Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

          I also request you to read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

          Kamal Rajpal

            Dear Tom,

            Thanks for your kind and interesting comments. I am honored that you rated my Essay highest, thanks a lot!

            Reading, commenting and scoring on your essay was my pleasure.

            Cheers, Ch.

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            I am very happy to meet you here in FQXi again. Thanks for finding my approach quite harmonious both for the mind and for the maths.

            You said: "a nucleus is not the origin of the energy state of the electron-cloud". Also in the current case, the "nucleus", i.e. the singularity, is not the origin of the energy state of the electron-like cloud. Such an origin arises from the quantum fluctuations near the BH horizon.

            Concerning the time-dependence of BH evaporation, here I implicitly refer to Painlev́ and Gullstrand coordinates, where Parikh and Wilczek developed their tunnel approach. In those coordinates the time is the same as Schwarzschild time. Thus, in my approach BH evaporation is time dependent with respect to Schwarzschild time.

            OK, I will read comment and score your Essay soon and I will submit it to Grand Master Einstein in order to ask him is opinion (and possible score) in my next dream. In the meanwhile, I wish you good luck in the Contest.

            Cheers, Ch.

            Dear Kamal Rajpal,

            Thanks for your comments.

            Einstein's opinion on the EPR experiment conclusions is still argument of a large debate. Thanks for signaling your Vixra paper. I will read it with interest. I will also read, comment and score your Essay soon.

            Good luck in the Contest.

            Cheers, Ch.

            Dear Christian,

            Concerning gravitational waves, this may be of interest to you: On the a. a. Faus Arxiv Article, The Speed of Gravity: What a Theory Says viXra: 1706.0525

            Concerning the Bohr-like approach: it is interesting that it is maby somehow opposite of forming matter from non-expanding points - photons - gluons - protons - Bohr atoms - stars. Then the opposite is the process from the star to the non- expanding points.

            Concerning general relativity and quantum mechanics, I consider that understanding the role of the mathematical constant exp (2pi) in my papers can be of great help. It should be kept in mind that my works speak about relationships, and that the problem of movement is not considered.

            Regards,

            Branko

              Dear Christian,

              Your research on Black Holes is of real importance I think, once it will be acknowledged by the scientific community.

              Thanks a lot for your comment on my thread I will give the answer also here:

              quote

              Dear Christian,

              The Reality Loop approach is actually a kind of proof for the Anthropic Principle.

              The Reality Loop "we" are experiencing is one where it seems as if EVERYTHING is made for us...

              However this loop is only ONE from an Infinity, each agent in his own loop will have the same experience, and these agents may differ just a little or a whole lot, each one is at HOME in his own loop. Those other loops are until now unattainable for our specific sort.

              Each time an agent makes a choice "the reality is not splitting up" (like in MWI) but all other Loops representing other choices become "unattainable", they "withdraw" in the behind Planck limits...

              So the fine-tuning of our reality is a logical effect for the specific loop that we are calling REALITY. If our kind of agents were not in our specific loop, the loop is of no use, each reality has to be experienced (conscious of) to be a reality. A loop without consciousness is no loop...

              I hope this explains your question.

              best regards

              Wilhelmus

              Dear Wilhelmus,

              Thanks for your kind and interesting explanation. Yes, now the connection between your Reality Loop approach and Anthropic Principle is clear.

              Cheers, Ch.

              • [deleted]

              • Post #67

              Dear Christian Corda,

              Thank you for reading my Essay and giving your views. To get a complete picture of my work please read: Wave Particle http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0170v1.pdf .

              Regards,

              Kamal Rajpal

                Dear Kamal Rajpal,

                Thanks, I will read your vixra paper soon.

                Cheers, Ch.

                Dear Branko,

                Thanks for finding interesting the Bohr-like approach and for the above clarifications.

                Cheers, Ch.