Interferometric detection of gravitational waves: understanding if Einstein\'s General Relativity is the correct and definitive theory of gravity will be Ultimately Possible in Physics by Christian

Dear Christian Corda,

As per your article I think there is probability of concluding a Coherent cyclic universe model by Lagrangian mechanics on exploring the Gravitational waves by Interferometry.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Dear Christian,

Why do you claim that "understanding if Einstein's General Relativity is the correct and definitive theory of gravity will be Ultimately Possible in Physics",

when, already many decades ago, with the development of quantum mechanics, it became clear (including to Einstein himself) that general relativity is *not* a "definitive theory"? Wasn't that the reason why Einstein spent the last decades of his life looking for a new unified field theory?

Dear Leshan ,

Why did you say that ,I don't agree ,read with more analyzes .

The critic are not a play of business but must be pragmatic and fundamental .

Thus now you must detail a little I think .

The cyclic Universe and finite is evident and all evolves towards a perfect harmony between mass systems ,spheres .

The gravitational spherical waves due to the rotating quantum and cosmological spheres are fundamentals .

The superimposings are so relevant in the two sense .

The information in this case is relevant ,the idea of Amrit is very interesting too about the transfert and its velocity .

We can't deny the evidence, all goes to the sphere .I have many works to do still but it's the universal road ,any people ,any system ,any idea will change this reality ,The spherisation by rotating quantum and cosmological spheres .

The strings ,finished,the extradimensions ,error ,the inutile extrapolation error and lost of time .

If the scientist global community don't accept this reality ,thus I understand the H BOMB ,the multiverse .....and others .

Can we live in autarcy ,yes ,shall accept the autarcy ,no evidently.

Yesterday I bought a phone ,an apple ,and boom ,it's beeter to buy a microsoft thus ....and after the codes shall return in a closed party of son of Princeton .

Here is the truth .

Steve

The two main problems of our Gaia Earth ,you know this beautiful spheroid in rotation in the solar system .It's weapons and its business and the monney and the computer check thus the monney and capital .

They wan't loose their advantages since many years and the entrepreneurial mind in harmony is evidently a dream ....thus we understand our actual global results .

The truth is like that ,they don't make a succes in this strategy because the time and our young evolution is a reality and the universal truth is everywhere .

Thus in conclusion ,some silly human inventiona are dedicated to disappear in Time space evolution ,the weapons ,the monney ,the differences ,the borders ....shall disapear ....on the other side the universal creations ,were ,are and shall be with their agreement or not because the universal ideas rest and increase their forces .

It's like that ,

Steve

Hi dr Corda ,

I have seen your physics departments and the link of GR19 in Mexico .

It's very interesting .I am going to try to go there if it's possible with my economic situation .

The gravity is so important ,Copernic ,Newton ,Galileo ,Einstien ,Kepler....all is there in fact .

Kinds Regards

Steve

Christian,

Why is it that we are looking for GW by measuring space, which is excruciatingly difficult.

Why not measure the local variation in the rate of passage of time

as the wave passes us? Some desingrating nuclide could be used as

a perfect clock while a alpha or beta emitter avoid the artefact of coincidence of the wave causing the same effect on the timing instrumentation at the same time...

Marcel,

The quantization of gravity is one of the holy grails. There are a number of ways it might be quantized. The loop variable people stick pretty closely to general relativity. There is string theory which expands the Einstein field equation in a form

R_{ab} - 1/2RG_{ab} αR_{ac}R_b^c ... = 8πGT_{ab},

where the Einstein field equation is a low energy term in string excitations (gravitons etc). Sacharov proposed that gravitation was only quantized in pregeometric terms, or according to "atoms" or sorts which on some coarse grained sense gave rise to geometry. So general relativity in some sense is not quantized, but its underlying "atoms" are.

I am less certain about ideas about deterministic physics under QM. I think it is unlikely these ideas will go far. It would also strike me as strange if gravity is not quantized, even if in some pregeometric sense.

Cheers LC

I want to mention one point regarding various 'quantizations', including quantization of gravity, which is, unfortunately, not understood at all, except possibly by Einstein, Schrödinger (see their quotes on p. 2 of my essay) and several other scientists.

My point--which was also the departing point of my research work during the last twenty five years--is that, as Einstein intuited, 'physics cannot be based on the [conventional] field concept, i.e., on continuous structures'. Why? Because classical mathematical models cannot be *properly* discretized: the continuity is built into their *underlying* formal structure, including their geometry (and topology). After studying the situation for a number of years, I came to the conclusion that, if we wish *properly* 'quantized' formal models, as demanded by much experimental evidence, the only way out is to start developing fundamentally new mathematics and from the very beginning (although I know, these days this is probably the last thing people want to do ;-) ).

Lev,

I don't include this in my essay, but what I have generally been laying down is a sphere packing or quantum code model where spaces in various dimensions are cyrtallographically discerete with various polytopic tessellations. The vertices of these are quaterions or roots of exceptinal or sporadic groups. So I think in some manner one needs to have a discrete system as an integral aspect of quantum gravity.

Cheers LC

Dear Dr Corda ,

Yes of course I will tell you ,the complementarity is essential .I am persuaded what all is linked by these rotations of quantum and cosmological spheres.The rotating spheres imply all for me in a universal sphere in complexification.

Congratulations for your works ,it's very interesting .

Sincerely

Steve

Lawrence,

I guess I should have also mentioned that practically everything under the conventional adjective 'discrete' is not the 'discrete' we need, since during the last century a lot of 'stuff' has been labeled discrete (e.g graphs). We need a new 'discrete' formalism for *representing* physical processes.

Lev,

I am not sure what can be more discrete than say the integers. So anything indexed by integers is also discrete, at least in the standard sense. Tessellations of manifolds with polytopes is a discrete structure, at least for something with an overlying continuum structure. If the vertices or subcells of the polytopes correspond to root vectors for different groups, say the Gosset polytope for E_8, or the 120 cell for "half" of E_8 ~ H_4 then the root space defines a discrete structure to a manifold. The half E_8 is reference to the Weyl group W(E_8) ~ diag[H_4, H_4] plus some combinatoric stuff.

Much of mathematics is really an interplay between the continous and the discrete.

Cheers LC

"Much of mathematics is really an interplay between the continuous and the discrete."

Lawrence,

This popular statement, which I used to like, actually hides the main reality of the applied mathematics: the absolute dominance of continuous/spatial considerations over the discrete. Take for example integers: their discrete, or counting/cardinality, role plays much less important part in applied math., including physics, than their role as imbedded in the real numbers (e.g. note the noun 'space' in 'the root space' in your message). So the *spatial/measurement* considerations for quite obvious reasons dominate all other considerations, especially in an applied setting.

What I was suggesting in my message (and in my essay) is that we need a fundamentally new, non-spatial, representational formalism, which is a *relational generalization* of integers. It appears that such generalizations cannot be properly attempted without some commitment to the primacy of a particular side of 'physical' reality: e.g. in case of our generalization, we view all objects as processes that are composed of (temporally) related events, and thus commit ourselves to the primacy of the purely relational/temporal side of reality.

About the closest there is to a purely nongeometrical system of relationships is number theory. In what you are saying it appears there persists one continuous space called time. You figure #2 looks similar to a logic diagram of C-NOT or Hamamard gates. In that sense what you write about is not that far off from some theory of quantum computation.

Of course for my self I am not particularly out to rewrite the foundations of mathematics to be employed in physics. There have been a number of ideas like this in the past. I am not sure I could rise above what has already been done.

Cheers LC