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 Gary,

            Thanks for your kind comments. I am happy that you enjoyed my notion of a conversation with Einstein.

            Actually, quantum mechanics laws imply that Nature is intrinsically random beyond our lack of comprehension concerning causes of events due to complexity, despite we can detect such a intrinsic random behavior only when we interact with it.

            I regret that you can't see the sky due to the blue veil masking it.

            Good luck in the Contest.

            Cheers, Ch.

            Dear Jonathan,

            Thanks for your kind message. Yes, I was aware of that paper. Maybe it could inspire a future research of mine. Let me know if you are interested in joining me to write a paper. In fact, I agree that things are really starting to heat up in QNMs area of inquiry.

            Cheers, Ch.

            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

              Dear Christian,

              I read with the big interest your excellent essay. It's time to "serious fight" in basic science , which was expressed by laureate of the Fields Award Vladimir Voevodsky (1966-2017): "The crisis of russian science is not only a crisis of russian science. There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will be in a very serious fight between science and religion that will end their association."

              I believe that the key metaphysical postulate of Einstein, his philosophical testament to physicists: «God does not play dice with the universe.» Overcoming the crisis of understanding requires the development of competition of fundamental ideas, primarily in cosmology .

              «THE FINAL UNIFIED FIELD THEORY» can not be built without an answer to ontological questions: What is the nature of the "laws of nature", fundamental constants, time, information, consciousness?

              Pavel Florensky made a good conclusion, which is topical for physicists and mathematicians: "Мы повторяем: миропонимание -- пространствопонимание./ We repeat: world understanding is spaceunderstanding." ... The crisis of understanding in fundamental science is the ontology crisis, overcoming it on the basis of a constructive method that will lead to ontological structure of space. Physics was on the path of unification and geometrization. This path requires today a deeper ontology. We need a total unification of matter in all levels of the Universeum existence in the spirit of Plato. This is prompted not only by problems in fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology), but also by the modern Information Revolution. Therefore, fundamental science needs the deepest and all-encompassing Conceptual revolution, based on a new ontology. In the fundamental physics it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard of the justification (basification ) of theories that pretend to be fundamental.

              You give an important guiding conclusion of A.Einstein:

              « It is instead given by the insight into the mystery of life [49]. Knowing what is impenetrable to us manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty [49]»

              Physicists and poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl). Look at my ideas .

              Best regards,

              Vladimir

                Hi Steve,

                Thanks for your kind words.

                Yes, I understand what you mean that a good portion of my content is part of a curriculum you have not studied. Today, physics is very specialized and it is not simple understanding details of a particular research field if ones does not work on such a research field. In any case, I am grateful to you for your rating my Essay highly based on what you did understand. Please, be free to ask me technical questions when you want. In fact, it will be my pleasure discussing our mutual interests more.

                Thanks again and good luck in the Contest.

                Cheers, Ch.

                Dear Armin,

                Thanks for your message. I am happy to know that you find my Essay fun to read. Concerning your questions:

                1. Actually, the permittivity of free space is not present in Eq. (2). I added it when introducing Planck units for the sake of completeness. The quantity 2pi in the RHS of Eq. (2) comes from the relation between the horizon area A and the mass of a Schwarzschild BH, see this technical paper for details.

                2. No, it works for both of them when they will start to emit Hawking radiation.

                3. In general, QNMs emit gravitational waves. Also the recent detections by LIGO are partially due to QNMs in the ring-down phase of the final BH after the merging of the initial ones. But QNMs due to Hawking radiations are too small in order to emit detectable gravitational waves. In any case, neither stellar nor super-massive galactic BHs are currently emitting Hawking radiation. They will start to emit Hawking radiation when the temperature of the cosmic background radiation will became minor than their proper Hawking temperature, that is, in a very very distant future.

                Thanks again and good luck in the Contest.

                Cheers, Ch.

                Dear Dr. Bollinger,

                Thanks for your message. I am happy that you found my essay entertaining and informative to read.Concerning the points that you raised:

                1) The " tangential complaint about how the FQXi Essay process has not treated me fairly" was not a trick, but my real feeling before starting this new FQXi adventure. In any case, I decided to follow Einstein's advice to donot give too much importance to Prizes and Awards. I am enjoying in this FQXi Competition, and this is my main interest now.

                2) Your criticism that "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" is absolutely correct, but this works for alls the papers in the whole history of Science!

                3) I am happy to know that also you are in the "does not erase" camp concerning the black hole information problem.

                4) I disagree on your statement that FQXi question this year was pretty much "how do you tell if a theory is fundamental?" I think indeed that FQXi question can be interpreted in a more general way. In any case, also admitting that you are correct and the FQXi question is "how do you tell if a theory is fundamental?" I stress that my Essay does not only limit itself to the black hole information problem. In fact, it is also important in the framework of black holes as being the fundamental bricks of quantum gravity which is, in turn, fundamental in order to arrive to a unified field theory. Is there a theory more fundamental than the unified field theory?

                Thanks again and good luck in the Contest.

                Cheers, Ch.

                Dear Vladimir,

                Thanks a lot for your kind clarifications. I will surely read your Research notebook on your experiment soon.

                Again, I wish you good luck in the Contest.

                Cheers, Ch.

                Dear Vladimir,

                It is a pleasure meeting you here in FQXi again.

                Thanks for finding my Essay excellent, I am honored by this.

                Thanks also for the very interesting comments. In particular, I find very nice the last one concerning complementarity between physics and poesy. Laws of Nature are indeed highly poetical.

                It will be my pleasure to read, comment and rate your Essay soon.

                Good luck in the Contest.

                Cheers, Ch.

                Hi Christian...

                In that Einstein, claimed that "Energy can not be destroyed, only changed in form", and he raised no objection to your input of Hawking's assessment that "physical information is ultimately lost in BH evaporation", it is possible that either, as I state in my essay, "a gravity collapse disassembles Physical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, freeing Metaphysical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, which a gravity collapse apparently has no influence upon", or someone was impersonating Einstein in your Metaphysical encounter.

                Thanks Christian for contributing your insights, and your comments on my essay will be read with those insights in mind.

                Sue Lingo

                UQS Author/Logician

                www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

                  Dear Christian Corda, sorry, I will intervene in your conversation with albert Einstein. I want to remind you about the principle of the identity of space and matter Descartes, on which is based the New Cartesian Physics. This Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give your assessment there.

                  I hope on your highly appreciate her ideas.

                  FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

                  I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

                    Dear Sue,

                    Thanks for your message.

                    I think that Einstein raised no objection to my input of Hawking's assessment that "physical information is ultimately lost in BH evaporation" because he was waiting to listen my solution on that problem. In any case, your Essay seems interesting. I will read, comment and rate it today. Good luck in the Contest.

                    Cheers, Ch.

                    Dear Boris Dizhechko,

                    Thanks for intervening in my conversation with AE.

                    Your Essay seems interesting. I will read, comment and rate it today. Good luck in the Contest.

                    Cheers, Ch.

                    Dear Christian,

                    Thank you for your interesting and inspiring essay.

                    It deserves highest estimation

                    With the best regards

                    Maxim Khlopov

                      Dear Chorda.

                      This makes me smile.

                      Clearly, the research work on the gravitational atom is not ended. In fact, Bohr model was an approximated model of the hydrogen atom with respect to the valence shell atom model of full QM. In the same way, your Bohr-like BH approach should be an approximated model with respect to the denitive, but at the present time unknown, BH model arising from a full TQG. After a moment, Einstein continued: OK, I sincerely hope that this time you will be considered for a Prize by the FQXi Expert Judges. I wish you good luck in this new FQXi Essay Contest. In any case, you have to do not give too much importance to Prizes and Awards, despite they could be very important and prestigious. The profound beauty of our job of scientists is not given by Prizes and Awards. It is instead given by the insight into the mystery of life [49].

                      See what mysteries of Life I have with

                      What is Life? A theory of "More than everything"!

                      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093

                      Hope for a good vote, after you have read it, also comments welcome.

                      Amazing story you have. About my quote I may have some ideas. It is important what frame you use to get the results.

                      Thanks.

                      Ulla Mattfolk