Discussing on "What Is Fundamental" with Albert Einstein by Christian Corda

Dear Christian Corda,

I see that after Einstein left my Tavern, he managed to find you in Italy and to extract from you a number of details of your theory, analogous to Bohr's 'atom'.

You've designed a Bohr analog and applied it with seemingly good success to a number of issues, each of which Einstein was good enough to draw out of you. I am impressed with your creativity. I do feel analogy is an excellent guide to theorizing.

A major thesis of mine these days is that once physicists project mathematical structure onto physical reality, they come to believe in this physical structure very strongly. Cristi Stoica has written about mathematical isomorphisms and I commented on his thread to the effect that mathematicians easily switch between isomorphic structures, but physicists, once having projected structure onto physical reality, have a tendency to get stuck there.

As an example, I believe one can derive Bekenstein's 'area' relation without ever using the concept of information. It can be derived based on nothing but energy. Yet all physicists believe that the holographic principle depends on information.

As I understand your essay, you posit quantum normal modes of the black hole and consider these the states of the BH 'atom'. Analogous to Bohr, you consider state changes to emit radiation and derive the corresponding formulas. I think this is very clever.

I'm not an expert on black holes, so I have no strong opinions. Like you, I do not put much stock in singularities. As noted above, my main focus these days is review of the math structures that have been projected onto physical reality and used to build on. The question is whether other isomorphic structures are better suited to reality.

Is always a good exercise, in my mind, to analyze one's theory in terms of how many such structures it assumes. For example, 'entanglement' depends on 'qubits', so if one wishes to analyze 'lost info' entangled with parts of the inner and outer 'wave functions' [another structure projected on to reality) then one implicitly brings qubits into the picture.

Most physicists are quite happy to assume the structures are real, and they may be, but I think it is eye-opening to ask just how many such "supporting actors" one is bringing along with him in any particular theory. This can be followed by the question, "How would it affect my theory if one or more of these structures failed?"

These final remarks are not targeted at you but apply to everyone who brings a theory of physics to this contest. I believe it is the best way in which we might all move forward.

Like you, I write on ideas that Einstein himself treated, with the above focus in mind. I hope you will read and enjoy my essay.

Anyway, congratulations on an enjoyable and impressive essay and good luck.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

You are welcome, no I don't make it, It is nice, perhaps the next essay contest if my mind permits it,I try to solve serious problems in Belgium.

Best Regards

Hi dear Christian

I read your wonderful essay and was pleasantly surprised with your new style of presenting the most complex problems of advanced science to ordinary people. In my opinion, the great master Einstein greatly helped you in this noble cause. Thus, we can say that you presented a successful and attractive work deserving the highest evaluation.

At the same time, I see a remarkable problem of gravity in the completely initial level of its origin. Therefore, I try to define first for myself what is the physical cause, or the nature, of what we call gravity, leaving aside intriguing questions as, for example, the behavior of the hair of black holes, how they scream before of death, etc. I naively think that, first of all, we must be able to clearly answer to such a primitive question, for example, where from arises the force that presses us to a chair? When we will able to say this, then it will naturally become clear to us whether we really need in general to think on above mentioned all other issues or not.

I mean the created very doubtful situation - we recognize on the one hand that we absolutely do not know about the physical essence of gravity, but on the other hand we try to somehow connect it with the quantum theory, forgetting that the quantum theory also remains for us something inexplicably-dark thing from cognitive view!

The Great maestro also have talk something very important on this matter in the end of his dramatic life that I mention in my work. So, with all my best wishes on the success in the contest!

Best Regards

Dear Christian,

Here we are again all together.

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Enjoyed your essay. BH entropy has got to be near to the fundamental. Things should simplify and perhaps reduce. Here is a link to something I found that calcuates a quantised step like spectrum of Black hole entropy. It is really simple in that only Planck masses are utilised in the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula. This calculates a growing or reducing Black hole entropy sequence 4pi 16pi 64pi 100pi and so on. The title of the link is 'Black hole entropy and order of even squares sequence'. http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2012-09/msg00498.html

Dear Christian

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Christian Corda

Discussing on "What Is Fundamental" with Albert Einstein

Christian,

I enjoyed your notion of a conversation with Einstein. Imagination can often be inspirational, as it was in your case.

Your statement 'that, at the fundamental level, Nature is inherently random ... due to (the) Heisenberg uncertainty principle' leaves me in awe.

Use of the terms 'random' and 'uncertainty' are generally attributable to a lack of comprehension concerning causes of events due to complexity.

It is the human being that is uncertain and randomness is our comfortable explanation for the vast realms of the unknown or unknowable.

The main body of your essay is too technical for the non-specialist reader, which leads the reader inevitably to identify with Maria's question: "Christian, what's happening?"

Forgive me for being wonderful but I can't see the sky due to the blue veil masking it.

Go well fellow. Fundamentally we are all talking to ourselves.

Gary.

Greetings Christian,

I assume you have seen the paper in PRL about Quasinormal modes and cosmic censorship, by Cardoso et. al, but it is worth a look for sure. It looks like things are really starting to heat up in that area of inquiry.

At Physical Review Letters:

Quasinormal modes and Strong Cosmic Censorship

And on arXiv:

Quasinormal modes and Strong Cosmic Censorship

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Christian

I really appreciated your writing style, warm and personal with Big Al. I also had a great appreciation for the relationships you drew upon, a Black Hole being a quantum of the gravitation field in comparative of the atom and its associated fields.

I have to admit a personal limitation. A good portion of your content is part of a curriculum I have not studied, and therefor is unavailable to my comprehension. I wanted to understand more but I can tell that would require an enormous amount of study. There are plenty here more accomplished in your references than me, but I still rate your work highly based on what I did understand.

Would have been nice to make Einsteins acquaintance, I certainly did come away from your essay feeling that.

Perhaps I will try my luck asking technical questions of you some time :) I dont know many gravity physicists.

I hope we have occasion to discuss our mutual interests more

Thank you & kind regards

Steve

Dear Christian,

Your light-hearted, self-deprecating approach certainly made your essay fun to read. As your "Bohr-like" approach is still a bit hard for me to follow (GR is only something I study on the side), let me just throw some questions at you which perhaps others might have thought but not asked.

1. In your equation 2, the permittivity of free space seems to be part of the expression, but I thought you were discussing a Schwarzschild BH. I know that in your subsequent discussion of QNM's you need it, but where did come from in the first place if the BH is assumed to be chargeless?

2. Does your approach shed any light on the differece between stellar and supermassive galactic black holes?

3. Does your theory in any way affect the radiation of gravitational waves? If so, how, and can that be used to make novel predictions?

All the best,

Armin

Dear Dr Corda,

I found your essay entertaining and informative to read. I particularly liked the little trick you did on the reader by starting with what seemed to be a tangential complaint about how the FQXi Essay process has not treated you fairly, then transitioned into the dream conversation with Einstein. I was caught completely off guard by that one, and got a chuckle out of it.

Incidentally, dream format or not, at one point in that opening you said this:

"Remarkably, ... an Essay [similar to my 2013 FQXi submission that won the popular rating that year] was later published in the prestigious and peer reviewed international journal Annals of Physics [3]. Hence, that publication guaranteed the correctness of my 2013 FQXi submission."

No. Publication of a paper in a prestigious journal only proves that the paper has passed their minimum review standards for being well-argued and plausible. If what you just said were true, then every black hole erasure paper they have ever published or will publish is also "correct", even when those other paper are in direct contradiction to yours. It is the role and duty of any good journal to publish plausible papers. It is not their role to decide which of those papers is "correct." That judgement can only be made by the physics community as a whole, and it seldom happens until long after a new idea is first published.

Apart from the dream presentation format, your essay this year is primarily about your theory for how to resolve the long-running feud about whether black holes do or do not erase information from the universe. I like that you brought out that Hawking has been feuding with himself on this point; it makes it clearer just how contentious this issue has been. You are in the "does not erase" camp. Just so you know my perspective, I also happen to be strongly in that camp.

To get a more direct presentation of your theory I downloaded your reference [3]:

Paper: Corda, Christian, Time dependent Schrödinger equation for black hole evaporation: no information loss, Annals of Physics, 353, 71-82 (2015).

For interested readers, a PDF copy of Dr Corda's paper can downloaded from arXiv by clicking on this link.

It's a good paper. The Bohr idea is... unexpected? but well argued. Here is my heavily edited quote of a sentence from the above paper that (I think?) captures your main concept for resolving the paradox:

Location within paper: Page 13, Section 4, Paragraph 1, Lines 20-24:

Quote: "... [in a virtual particle pair that is undergoing the Hawking radiation process at the event horizon], the particle [that is falling into the black hole with] negative energy ... transfers its part of the wave function and [wave function] information ... to the [black hole quasi-normal mode, which is a radial spin-j perturbation frequency that obeys a time independent Schrödinger-like equation]. [Thus] the emitted [particle becomes] entangled with ... oscillations of the [black hole] horizon."

In short, entanglement saves the day, in combination with these interesting oscillations you define. I like the idea that entanglement plays such an important role in your theory; it just feels right. My own reasons for preferring non-erasure ad much more geometric and time based, but lead to the same conclusion.

Assessment of your essay

-- Nice theory, and well-argued, especially in your reference paper such as the one above.

-- Nice and amusing format for presenting your argument for your theory.

One rather specific opportunity for improvement, one that I truly think could help get better traction for your theory in future papers and essays, is to work on reducing sentence redundancy in your paragraphs. You have a tendency (as do I incidentally) to take "multiple tries" at explaining the same idea, which bloats your paragraphs by leaving a trail of similar sentences. That can be confusing to readers, who may not be able to tell whether one particular sentence is a new idea or just a different way of saying the same idea. You might try sitting down for an hour or two with a really good technical editor to get some tips on how to figure out exactly what you want to say in each paragraph, and how to say it only once, as clearly and pointedly as possible.

I should also at least mention that the FQXi question this year was pretty much "how do you tell if a theory is fundamental?" Your essay pretty much just ignores that, and instead interprets the essay contest as an opportunity to publish your theory again. Yes, black hole information erasure is a pretty fundamental topic... but so are any number of issues in general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

Dear Christian,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words, interest shown in my work and for excellent questions.

You wrote: «Beyond your Essay, I am interested on your device for the detection of gravitational waves. Can you give me some detail?»

Brief description of the experiment can be read in my Research notebook «The deterministic gravitational waves» https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VMlesBfYVVa-Fp6bIr1I-uzU-Vnq3FFY/view pages 53-60.

I will tell only the history of the experiment that in 2006 I read a lot about the gravitational waves of LIGO and I had an idea that gravitational waves from stars can be recorded with the help of the Casimir effect on the surfaces of bodies. Then I hung on a torsion balance a package of many sheets of writing paper between framed by frames of the same paper. I assumed that such a package should be a similarity to a gravitational telescope with a flat radiation pattern, and signals from stars should be repeated every day, but I did not see it. But what I saw turned all my ideas about physics.

When I processed the data and plotted the graph for 2 weeks of measurement https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MvF-AefpMmOWx2SkE0ZjJXTG8/view , I realized that some neutrino matter is registered from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit, obviously those detected by Michelson and Morley.

I assembled the second installation, where I placed just a packet of writing paper without frames. There were practically no variations. But when I replaced it with a package with frames, I got the same variations of large amplitude as in the first setup. Those. The package of paper with frames was approximately 100 times more efficient when receiving gravitational waves than a packet without frames.

The most vivid impression of observations on the monitor in real time was stable periodic signals of large amplitude with a period of 72 seconds. For me it was a enigma. I thought I was on the verge of a great discovery. It is now known to us that such the periodic signals of 72 seconds are recorded in the LISA project in million kilometers from the Earth. This is now I brought in the essay the simple relationships for the calculation, in practice, of all possible resonance frequencies of gravitational waves.

These experiments were not intended for publication, they were for me.

So, I realized that:

1. Gravitons exist. Flows of gravitons can be focused and manage them.

2. Gravitational waves can be easily registred with the help of packets of parallel planar bodies. X-ray telescopes can easily be converted into gravitational telescopes.

3. The space is filled with neutrino rigid and superfluid matter.

4. The Earth does not fall from the orbit, not because space is empty, but because there is a toroidal gravitational wave in orbit that pushes the Earth along orbit from the eastern quadrature of the orbit, compensating for the resistance.

I understood many other interesting points.

It is difficult to persuade people. Stimulus can only be the desire to know the truth.

You wrote «that the abstract distortion of space-time is equivalent to a non-ideal medium of the physical vacuum-the variable velocity of propagation of the gravitational fundamental interaction. But, if it is equivalent, how can be also an incorrect use of ideals properties? Equivalent means that we have two ways to interpret a phenomenon and that both of them are correct».

Yes, formally, they «that both of them are correct» - the result of the calculations is the same.

For example, the force of gravitation on Earth can be calculated through the gravitational coefficient (the empirical form of recording the law of gravitation), but can be calculated by the physical form, through the gravitational potential, which has the dimension of the square of the velocity.

However, very few people know the very simple truth that the gravitational potential is equal to the square of the equilibrium orbital velocity. And, practically, no one knows that the equilibrium orbital velocity is equal to the change in the speed of propagation of the gravitational interaction, which is equivalent to the derivative of spatial coordinates in time (to the formal equivalent - to the distortion of space-time in general relativity). Mechanisms are different - the result is one.

For example, the speed of propagation of gravitational interaction increases from the surface of the Earth to the periphery of its gravisphere. Near the surface of the Earth, the speed of propagation of gravitational interaction is on 8 km/s less than on the periphery of the gravisphere. Gravitons in toroidal gravitational waves accelerating near the surface of the Earth form the reactive force of gravity for terrestrial bodies.

You wrote «that the abstract distortion of space-time is equivalent to a non-ideal medium of the physical vacuum-the variable velocity of propagation of the gravitational fundamental interaction. But, if it is equivalent, how can be also an incorrect use of ideals properties? Equivalent means that we have two ways to interpret a phenomenon and that both of them are correct».

I can quote Valery Morozov: "The formulation of the energy-momentum parameters of a gravitational field in general relativity can not be a tensor, but it is a pseudotensor, a quantity that transforms as a tensor only under linear coordinate transformations. This means that in GRT the energy of the gravitational field can not in principle be localized (which follows from the weak equivalence principle). Various authors introduce their own energy-momentum pseudotensors of the gravitational field, which possess certain "correct" properties, but one their variety shows that the problem does not have a satisfactory solution".

However, these problems are not mine, but GRT, dig into mathematics, and not in physical mechanisms. I have nothing against the very principle of equivalence. The force of gravitation and the force of inertia have a single mechanism of action. My conclusions are based on a comparison of facts that can be observed, and on phenomena that have analogs around us.

In my essay 2017, I clearly demonstrated in the example of phenomena in space that there is, assumedly, the only mechanism for the formation of force with the help of toroidal gravitational waves, which minimize the force of gravitation and inertia.

The gravitational field in a toroidal gravitational wave is a vortex of the medium of a physical vacuum. I suppose the solar system is a vortex of a medium of a physical vacuum with spherical equipotential surfaces having the same speed of rotation and same gravitational potential. Despite the fact that the Earth in orbit is not moving relative to the medium of the physical vacuum, the large vortex gravisphere of the Earth has a resistance.

However, the gravisphere of Earth in orbit is in the potential well of stability of the orbital soliton gravitational wave, which pushes the Earth along of orbit and compensates for the resistance force.

The gradient of the gravitational potential of the orbital wave is equal to the gradient of the gravitational potential in the region of the Earth's orbit in the solar system and is directed in the opposite direction. Therefore, the forces of gravity of the Earth to the Sun and the forces of its inertia do not exist

On the tides, you can see my answer to the question of Peter Jackson.

If the force of attraction was, the Earth would emit X-ray radiation of enormous power in accordance with the Unruh effect, but the Earth does not radiate, and the comets radiate, because they are attracted to the Sun.

By most powerful X-ray radiation 1 GW was possessed by a small comet Hyakutake, which moved around the Sun against the motion of the planets.

For comparison, Jupiter, which is in a circular orbit, has the same power of 1 GW X-ray as Comet Hyakutake, although the masses of these bodies are not comparable.

Consequently, GRT and Newton's law of gravitation are not valid for orbital bodies. Those. these laws are not fundamental, they are valid only for the surface of the Sun, the surfaces of planets and satellites in the solar system. Fundamental is the assertion that all fundamental interactions have potential stability pits, and are easily combined by a single formalism.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080