Restoration of predictability in gravitational collapse by Christian Corda

Dear Christian:

I enjoyed reading your paper as it addresses the important topic of predicting the collapse of the wave function via gravity.

You may be interested in my paper - https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3440 entitled -"Unravelling the Missing Physics behind Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability" presenting a predictive model for gravitational collapse.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Christain,

Good to meet again here on the FQXi contest,

While reading your essay I had the following remarks and questions:

Quote "the foundation of the BH information problem is that BHs seem to do not obey Schrödinger equations, which would allow pure states to evolve only into pure states." Unquote. The Total Simultaneity Interpretation", as I introduce, states that BH' are emergent phenomena (illusions) or could you say "PURE STATES". Not pure quantum mechanical and time-dependent seems to be supporting my interpretation. Probable Emissions and absorptions are all time and space-related emergent phenomena of ONE PURE STATE. The jump between two levels caused by an emission is the jump between one Pure State and another. In my perceptions, ALL jumps are sparkles of reality that is originating from the source of ALL emergence: Total Simultaneity. Each jump is like a split-up where one part is continuing (in another emergence(reality)) and the other slipping back into the womb as just an available probability.

I am interested in " effective Regge-Wheeler potential of the time-independent Schröedinger-like equation which governs QNMs, see [4, 5, 10, 11] for details" and going to see the details. (you may understand now why)

(17) on page 5 "represents a pure final state instead of a mixed final state", A pure final state is a past moment (compressed in our memory as a point of a time-line) and a mixed final state is the state from the unknown future where the observer has still to choose?

The "collapse of the wave function" I already interpreted In paragraph 2 of my comment.

"an electron's excited state is entangled with all the Hawking quanta emitted at that time [3, 5].",.An electron's excited state is again just a time-less moment of the emergent reality and is actually entangled to the WHOLE of the emergent phenomenon of this timeless moment.

I learned again a lot from your essay and so valued it high.

My essay is more of a philosophical approach, but I hope that after reading this remarks you will find some time to read my participation and tell me what you think about it. It is a whole new approach to reality.

Best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Christian.

Thanks for your comments on mine. For ease I post my reply here. As for Mr Sorli I do understand doctrine is quite different, but don't have the peer pressure you have to endure to regimentally 'toe the line' and stick close to it. Studying AGN had suggested the old 'black hole' concept is quite wrong and a recycling model and Mexican Hat potential where ALL accreted matter re-emerges in quasar jets are far more consistent with observational data, though I understand you may not dare comment on that!

My response on mine is below.;;;;

"Thank you kindly, Yes, common views on Bell are quite different, but I'm careful to actually quote him accurately not 'interpret', which shows familiar interpretation quite wrong.

And Pauli/Boscovich 'exclusion' is indeed extended here, as 'relative motion' implies each party has one definable kinetic state only at any gauge (but a translating body MAY also rotate).

It seems Bosons may be essentially mathematical descriptions of helical motions of smaller change 'states', and photons only quantized on absorption & re-emission (including 'measurement'). Can you think why not?

The revised foundations proposed seem to allow far more consistent physics!

Very best."

Peter

Ch. I have added 3 posts to the thread of your comments on my essay. I think you will find them interesting and (perhaps) useful. John Crowell

Dear Christian

Thanks for the excellent question regarding the absoluteness of mathematical reality. I have answered your question under my essay. I would appreciate your fedback on my answers.

I would like submit my essay to the JHEPGC. Please advise how to proceed. You can email me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu. I am attaching two other papers for possible submission to the journal and would like your feedback.

Thanking you in advance,

Best Regards

Avtar SinghAttachment #1: Published_Paper_in_Phy_Essays_Origin_of_Motion_Part_2_4Singh.pdfAttachment #2: Published_Paper_in_Physics_Essays_Origin_of_Motion_Part_1_14Singh.pdf

Dear Christian:

Thank you for your time in reading my essay and providing valuable comments.

Regarding the mathematical basis of the Heisenberg uncertainty, it must be integrated with the physical aspects of the measurement that alters the physical characteristics of the phenomenon being measured. The original mathematical formulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty ignores the relativistic aspects of the quantum phenomenon being measured. My paper shows that integrating the relativistic aspects into the mathematics reveals that the measurement error or uncertainty is caused by the destructive nature of the classical measurement method of an inherently relativistic phenomenon. Hence, the uncertainty is inherent in the measuring method and not in the nature itself.

In summary, incomplete mathematical formulations ignoring the wholesome physical effects could lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the true nature of reality. Similarly, mathematical conclusions leading to multiple universes and dimensions are artifacts of incomplete mathematical formulations ignoring relativistic effects.

Best Regards

Avtar

Dear Christian:

Some additional thoughts -

Physics without mathematics is blind, mathematics without physics is lame, and without consciousness both are dead or lifeless.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Christian

Reposting:

Thanks for the excellent question regarding the absoluteness of mathematical reality. I have answered your question under my essay. I would appreciate your fedback on my answers.

I would like submit my essay to the JHEPGC. Please advise how to proceed. You can email me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu. I am attaching two other papers for possible submission to the journal and would like your feedback.

Thanking you in advance,

Best Regards

Avtar SinghAttachment #1: 1_Published_Paper_in_Phy_Essays_Origin_of_Motion_Part_2_4Singh.pdfAttachment #2: 1_Published_Paper_in_Physics_Essays_Origin_of_Motion_Part_1_14Singh.pdf

Thank Christian.

Indeed you need to read my essay to understand the "Total Simultaneity Interpretation".It is a new interpretation that I introduced in 2012, and that has evolved through thinking.

I hope you can value the new insights that I am trying to introduce.

I await your comments.

Thank you very much.

Wilhelmus

Dear Christian Corda,

Very happy to see you again. I have downloaded a number of your papers, including your 2018 GRF essay, and find your proposal of quasi-normal modes fascinating. Several years ago I derived the key results of Verlinde's holo-model by discarding the idea of 'information' and deriving Bekenstein's "area quantization" based purely on energy. The addition of photons distributed over the black hole change as the hole grows, and the computation is simplified by adding photons in the right order. Nevertheless, they could conceivably come in any order, and this would be expected.

After reading your work on quasi-normal modes, I think this approach is compatible with your theory, and realize that emission as well as absorption occurs, and particularly, as you say:

"The emission of a particle...causes a decrease in the horizon..."

and, more specifically, that:

"The correspondence between emitted radiation and proper oscillation of the emitting body is a fundamental behavior of every radiation process in Science."

I have not tied my results to your equations, but if I manage to obtain anything that I think you might be interested in, I will surely contact you.

Meanwhile, I invite you to read my essay, Deciding on the nature of time and space, and welcome your comments.

Warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Christian,

Your essay did hit to the main problems as of black hole physics. What I am worried about is that your excellent points will not be understood mathematically by much of the FQXI community as they involved actual foundational structure of space-time issues. I will off this forum raise them privately so I am certain I understand them fully as well

Great work on statistical work on blackholes.but is there a human element to measurement and how empirical units came to be.please read/rate my essay here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks in advance.all comments will be appreciated

Dear Christian:

Great analysis and you take on hawking radiation is pretty good,

Please take a look at my essay A grand Introduction to Darwinian mechanics

Hello again Christian,

I am pleased to come back and offer my rating. I found this paper well-written; your point is well-explained, and it does address the question. I find some of the other papers do not clearly articulate a stand on the subject. I continue to find value in your model, and I admire as Cristi says above, that you have avoided some of the wilder assumptions that dominate the conversation about black hole entropy and horizons.

You have clearly shown that at least some of the uncertainties can be managed.

Kudos,

Jonathan

Dear Christian,

I read with great interest your essay with extremely important ideas, a clear approach and well-grounded conclusions aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, restoring unity in the philosophical basis not only of physics, but of knowledge in general. I consider these conclusions to be very important not only in the epistemological, but primarily in the ontological sense:

"Hence, the states are written in terms of an unitary evolution matrix instead of a density matrix and this implies the fundamental conclusion that information is not loss in BH evaporation. The result agrees with the assumption by 't Hooft that Schrödinger equations can be used universally for all dynamics in the universe and dismisses the famous claim of Hawking in."

"Therefore, we have shown that BHs, which are considered the fundamental bricks of quantum gravity, are well dened quantum mechanical systems, having ordered, discrete quantum spectra, which preserve physical information by restoring predictability in gravitational collapse."

I hope that physicists, mathematicians, and cosmologists will gradually, overcoming the crisis of understanding and mutual understanding, develop an ontologically and gnoseologically sound picture of the Universum as an holistic process of generation of meanings and structures. With such a picture of the world, it will be easier for us, Earthlings, to overcome the growing existential threats and risks together. I wish you further success in your scientific research and invite you to see my ontological ideas. In search of truth, we all must always remember the philosophical covenant of John Archibald Wheeler: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".

With kind regards,

Vladimir

Christian, Your essay seems well-informed with current thinking about BH physics. So I'm eager to ask:

How does a quantum of Hawking radiation escape from the event horizon when the gravitation just above the horizon is only a tiny bit less intense than that which can capture light? Is the necessary escape velocity considered in the calculation for Hawking radiation or is it, as it seems, ignored?

Why is the loss of information when mass falls within an event horizon considered a paradox when any decay of an atom anywhere in the universe will produce particles with universal properties, and when with the expansion of the universe ever-greater portions of the universe go beyond informative? And presumably, from the time of the Big Bang to some time after, there was a vast increase in information created as different types of particles formed, as atoms and molecules combined. Isn't that a problem for the "conservation of information"?

How does mass infalling past an event horizon not disintegrate, having entered an elevation with gravitation so intense that light cannot escape, with tidal effects so severe that atoms and even nuclei would be spaghettied? And if c goes to zero going out doesn't v go to c going in?

Thank you for any assistance.

Jim

Christian, Your essay seems well-informed with current thinking about BH physics. So I'm eager to ask:

How does a quantum of Hawking radiation escape from the event horizon when the gravitation just above the horizon is only a tiny bit less intense than that which can capture light? Is the necessary escape velocity considered in the calculation for Hawking radiation or is it, as it seems, ignored?

Why is the loss of information when mass falls within an event horizon considered a paradox when any decay of an atom anywhere in the universe will produce particles with universal properties, and when with the expansion of the universe ever-greater portions of the universe go beyond informative? And presumably, from the time of the Big Bang to some time after, there was a vast increase in information created as different types of particles formed, as atoms and molecules combined. Isn't that a problem for the "conservation of information"?

How does mass infalling past an event horizon not disintegrate, having entered an elevation with gravitation so intense that light cannot escape, with tidal effects so severe that atoms and even nuclei would be spaghettied? And if c goes to zero going out doesn't v go to c going in?

Thank you for any assistance.

Jim

Christinel.

I wrote the following on my blog area:

Thanks for the boost. Try to read Szangolies' essay on a related development, and Palmer's on the fractal geometry.

Your paper works with the connection between Gödel theorem or self-reference and consciousness. I have thought that consciousness is a sort of epiphenomenology that is an illusion having an illusion of itself. I have not read it in its entirty, and I do see you connect with what look like fractals.

I have been slow. I have had Covid-19. It hit me at the 3rd week of March and lasted about 10 days. It relapsed in April and the fatigue part of this was serious. I still sleep more than I used to, but the most pernicious aspect of this has been dogging me. It is as if my brain has been rewired, or maybe hormone setpoint levels changed. I am not quite the same person I was; I feel as if I am an abruptly changed person. The worst part of this change is that I am more depressed and irritable than I was. It has been hard for me to participate much in this contest.

Cheers :LC

Christian, I believe invoking quantum tunneling in low-energy situations as possible at an event horizon is symptomatic of a focus on mathematics at the expense of physics. A related idea is that a BH might thereby dissolve away into its gravitational field from a barrier even light cannot overcome. Others include the idea that an inflalling object will appear to slow as it approaches a horizon (a simple conflation of relativity: clocks slow as bodies accelerate, not the bodies themselves), and the idea that an object will appear to freeze at the horizon (first, the wavelength of the image there will already be way below the visible spectrum, and second, the last photon emitted by the object will fade from the eye of the observer as the object falls through the horizon).

Dear Professor Christian Corda!

Today we reviewed your text. You dare to compare Microcosm and macrocosm - a black hole and an atom! It's great! Your work is grand in design. We are in awe! Your essay makes think. It has promising thoughts that we liked. In our opinion, modern physics should move in this direction, trying to cover conceptually real information processes in the Universe.

Thanks!

Sincerely yours,

Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Dear Christian,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir