Dear Steve,

I appreciate your feedback, and it was pleasant to hear your viewpoint, and to have the opportunity to share mine. I hope we are both enriched by this experience.

Best regards,

Cristi

Erratum:

At the page 4, the equation before the equation system (4) should be

[math]\hat H_{int}(|\psi_1\rangle\otimes|\psi_2\rangle)=[\hat H_{21}(|\psi_2\rangle)|\psi_1\rangle]\otimes[\hat H_{12}(|\psi_1\rangle)|\psi_2\rangle]

[/math]

  • [deleted]

  • Post #43

Dear Cristi ,

Thank you very much ,Me too it was likeable ,it's important to share different point of vue .

Best Regards

Steve

9 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #44

A few comments for your kind considersation:-

1. Classical and quantum physics are truly the two extreme theories in the present day physics. That is why the problem arise in connecting gravity with quantum physics. There has to be a comprehensiveness witht he evolvement of a difficult in between region, called mesomorphic region by Tejinder Singh in this forum. It is now experimentally evident that the early universe can not be understood by current day Physics. Constants are not constants and even force field strenghts varied in the early universe, closer to birth.

2. The explanation of dark holes using quantum gravity has met with lot of opposition. Also, the picture is not that simple, as experimentally such objects have been observed to leak out some radiation, instead of the earlier belief of total absorption. The other thing against sych explanations lie in the increase in the size of such black holes, as reported recently on a website that a huge black hole comprising million of our sun like stars has been isolated just at the boundary of our galaxy 9milky way). i suspect that more cosmological studies conducted on the early universe will help solve many of the current difficlties in Physics that we face.

Dear Narendra,

Indeed, the problems you mention are important, and we need to understand them. Perhaps you are right, that new physics is needed. Or at least we need a fresh understanding of the present theories. Anyway, I think that the safest way is first to try understanding better our present theories, their limitations, their strengths, and then to change their parts which are not so well, to release the assumptions which are not really necessary. This way, new understanding and even radically new theories may emerge.

Best regards,

Cristi

  • [deleted]

  • Post #46

Hi to both of you ,

I agree ,the theories must be centralized in the fundamentals .A gauge is necessary .

It is evident that it's essential to well superimpose with rationality .It is not necessary to have many theories ,just a good gauge and inside the good datas in accepting our limits of perception and our young age .

A new physic in necessary in a whole point of vue ,there are too many losts of time in fact due probably to our global system and the individualism .

Our micro meso or macro systems are linked .To encircle our past ,firstly we' must understand our local perception .

It's logic that our cfonstants aren't constants due to the evolution ,the increase of mass ,the complexification and optimization.Thus the decimals evolve indeed but is it important to find that actually ,personaly no.

Our BH are there with a rule of complemenatrity ,a balance .The center is a sphere too with a specific rule for the dynamic of evolution and placement of spheres .All turns around the universal center .The BH are in rotations too ,several rotations .And they balance the gravity and the electromagnetism with sortings .

For the early Universe ,a specific dynamic exists too ,a placement of spheres and a increase of mass with time near cosmological spheres .In fact it's simple all is light and gravity ,two senses between the gauge ,one stable ,the other liear in evolution ,thus BH has a specific rule with light ,the re diffuse it by centers .The light is infinite thus and becomes gravity ,mass thus .All mass system are balanced in a spherical system .The centers are thus very very important in their ultim code of becoming .The gravity polarises the light due to its intrinsic code of gravity ,thus mass .....therr is thus an ultim physical aim.Thus all systems are in synchronization of gravity ,light ...we we divide a gravity system thus we take the light garvity particl association ,there I return about the sense of rot ,one stable and one linear .

If we analyze our early universe ,it's very difficult to know the real topology and volume thus impossible to see a correct variability of the constants .It's possible if we class in a real limited system where the volume of the universal sphere is considered .We can considered this volume with variables but how is the variability of the volume since the begining .The galaxies evolve too ,thus when we see our past with our datas ,it's essential to class with the rotations of galaxies around the centers ,in this logic ,we can see a galaxy and its evolution .If all turns around the center of our Universe thus all must be rethought about the datas of galaxies .Furthermore ,they spherisize themselves .All our perception in this case is different .

Sinerely

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #47

Steve,

Your english has made me abit tizzy. o fault of yours, it is natural. Communication and comprehension of the same is hardly ideal the world over. people have their social and cultural and linguistic attitudes while science need to be independent of all these factors as these are not needed to understand Nature/Universe , that is common to us all. Thus, misunderstandings between us crop up and formality of friendly attitude tempers us to seek reconciiation at the cost of even hard held beliefs. Our imperfections will ensure the same in the science that we conduct. That is why i propagate the importance of Human mind and somehow discipling hte same so that has quietness when we think deeply and remove our individual biases.

Cristi,

i am not much for go on reforming existing thoeries as these modifiacations tend to be superficial/surface ones. The entire new set of concepts/precepts help build innovation that may clear up the picture better. One gets trapped in the intricacies of the existing theories and tend to make them more complex whle Nature has simplicity!

Dear Steve, thanks for your comment.

Dear Narendra, you said:

"One gets trapped in the intricacies of the existing theories and tend to make them more complex whle Nature has simplicity!"

This is nice, and I confess that I strongly believe that the laws of Physics are simple. But I want to emphasize that this is a belief, so I have no proof. I don't know these simple laws, and nobody proved me that he or she knows them, or at least that they are simple, although we don't know them. So I don't really know that they are simple, I just believe this, and I will not use this as a precondition to analyze the current theories. The first condition I ask is that we find a consistent description of all physical laws. Then, I will require that this description doesn't add stuff which doesn't exist. Then, we will see if we can simplify it.

Is Nature simple? If so, it manifests so complex, that we don't understand it, and we don't know how it will work in different situations. So, even if Nature is simple, the most complicated things you can imagine are obtained from this simplicity. The same holds for a theory: from a simple set of principles, we develop unimaginable consequences. Is Newton's theory simple? Now we say yes. Is the Newtonian motion of three bodies (viewed as points) which interact gravitationally, simple? Now we understand that the answer is definitely no. Aren't the (only) three rules Feynman presented in his book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" simple? But are their consequences simple?

Assuming that we obtain a theory of all physical laws, how do we decide that it is simple enough? Can it be simple and still use high mathematics? Or should it be simple in terms of concepts we learn as children? For example, it is hard to imagine something simpler than General Relativity: it is just a space with 4 dimensions, which admits differentiability, has a Lorentz metric at each point, and its curvature is related to matter via Einstein's simple equation. That's all. Incomprehensible consequences follow from this. What is "a space with 4 dimensions, which admits differentiability"? We have to know differential topology. Can we avoid this? No, if we really want to use curved spacetime in our theory. We can't. There is nothing to replace with, so if the definition of a differentiable manifold looks to us complicated, it is because we don't understand it. After that, it will look simple, but nobody will believe us that it is so simple. It is something more primitive than the Euclidean space, and it relies on fewer assumptions. Yet, it allows/forces us to construct vector and tensor fields. If we add a small ingredient, the metric, we are led to a natural connection and a natural curvature, which are very difficult to grasp, yet they are simple and natural. And so on.

So, it is simple to say "the Nature is simple and our theories are not simple, therefore they must be wrong". General Relativity and the Quantum version of the Standard Model explain almost all what we see. Are their consequences more complex than the natural phenomena are? Which part would you throw away? Which part would you simplify? Can you find something simpler than Semiriemannian Geometry to describe spacetime and gravity? I think that, if spacetime is continuous, we need to use a sort of space. The vicinity is described by topology. The distances by metric. Space provides 3 dimensions, time 1, even if you don't accept the connection between them, as it is done by Theory of Relativity. Can we find something simpler than this? If spacetime is discrete, we need to use some discrete structure: a lattice, a graph, a spin network etc. Are these simpler than the continuous description?

Can we find something simpler than Gauge Theory to describe the forces? The fields are just ways to associate a vector at each point of spacetime. So, if we accepted that spacetime is continuous, we need to use vector bundles to represent the fields. The simplest/most natural objects constructed on a vector bundle are the connection and its associated curvature. (They are the simplest and most natural objects, but this doesn't mean that we can grasp them easily, especially without using math. Because the vector fields are nothing like the corn fields, which we have seen enough to conceptualize them. Yet, vector fields are much simpler than corn fields.) And these are just the potential and its associated force field. Can we find something simpler than this, having the same explanatory power? Are we sure that Nature obtained the same results by using a simpler mechanism?

So, what do you mean when you say generically "Nature is simple"?

  • [deleted]

  • Post #49

Dear Narendra Nath ,dear Cristi,

Dear Narendra Nath ,

Sorry for my english and my lack of re writing in fact .You know I always write too quickly .I need to take some lessons about english .I writre with the distionary .Thus my grammatical technic is bad of course .

I liked your definition of sciences .Indedd they have not differences .The communication with music ,art or sciences is universal .We understand each other with this universal language ,the sciences .A flower is a flower ,a bee is a bee ,and the wind is the wind ....

It's always a pleasure to see your spirituality and your wisdom.

Dear Cristi,

You are welcome.

You speak about very interesting things .

I think the same ,simple in its whole ,complex in its details and localities and their specificities .A thing important is the simplicity of the whole ,the gauge .

It's logic to have a proportional link with forces .Like all has the maximum energy ,thus the potential is incredible .Of course we need some imprivements in the whole of our gauge .

Best Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #50

Dear Christi,

I enjoyed your essay and appreciate your insistence that discontinuous collapse of the wave function is nonsense.

You earlier commented that "Some particles don't feel the strong force, some don't interact electromagnetically, or weakly. But they all interact gravitationally. The three forces of the Standard Model are based on the degrees of freedom of "internal" spaces -"

It would be good to keep in mind that the requirement for QED and QCD to make sense is that the Higgs boson be found, else there is no mass in these theories. While that has been admitted by a number of 'big dogs' it is generally treated as if it is not a big deal. It *is* a big deal.

As your bio indicates that you engage in independent research, I invite you to read my essay, and to note that I predict no Higgs will be found. In fact, in other comments, scattered around, I go further to predict that *no new particles* at all will show up at LHC. Thus, within a year we should have very good indication whether QCD (based on the degrees of freedom of "internal" spaces ) is still the best approach. At that time I hope you remember that there is another approach, and one that I believe you will find quite in line with your emphasis on continuity.

You further state: "They are united by the fact that the fields' Lagrangians have energy-momentum tensors, and these are, via Einstein's equation, sources of gravity. There is no need to try to unify the Standard Model forces with gravity in the same way electromagnetic force was unified with the weak one. Gravity's source is the energy, and electro-weak and strong fields have energy, like all matter fields. This is the way they are united: all fields are sources of gravity. I see no reason to try to unify the field with its energy-momentum more than they are unified by the relation"

I focus on the rotational aspect of gravity, which has recently been measured to be many orders of magnitude greater than expected (expected purely on the grounds of symmetry, no physical reason) and on the consequences of assuming a limit to curvature of this field. Rather than a charge-based theory that must (and cannot) explain mass, I assume a mass based theory and derive charge. Once the Higgs is realized not to exist, I expect a mass-based theory to attract more attention.

Finally, the aspect of field "volition" provides an "unpredictability" that is supports more of a "hidden variable" approach, with the exception that, in my theory, the hidden variable field is not deterministic.

For elementary particle theory, you can generally ignore consciousness aspects of the theory. Biology and Cosmology are where this aspect comes to the fore.

Thanks for your consideration

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Thank you for your kind appreciation.

I have my own doubts about the Higgs boson, which I did not shared in the essay. You seem to believe that not finding the Higgs boson rejects the gauge theory, but the truth is that Higgs boson is not predicted by the gauge theory itself. It is added by hand, for two reasons. First, is that the gauge fields appear initially without masses, from the gauge principle, and the Higgs field can provide mass. The second reason is that it may provide a mechanism for the electro-weak symmetry breaking. For the masses, we should consider also other mechanisms. There is a component of the mass due to the field's energy, which should be considered. In curved spacetime, we need to calculate it differently, and for this we need to know better what the particles are, because we may need to consider both geometry and topology. Maybe this will provide the masses we observe. In the case of the electro-weak symmetry breaking, there are also some alternative mechanisms proposed. My guess is that the electro-weak symmetry is not exact, and there are fundamental reasons (possibly geometric) for the split in the two forces. So, I don't rely on the finding of the Higgs boson. But even if the alternative mechanisms I mentioned are true, I cannot rule out yet the possibility that the alternative mechanism may manifest as something which looks like Higgs' particle (only that it is no longer fundamental). I hope that someday clear predictions may be made, to distinguish clearly between the alternatives. In the meanwhile, for those who want the "standard Standard Model" (including the Higgs boson) be confirmed, there is always available the "ripples from the future" explanation of not observing the Higgs boson.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Christi,

Thanks for your quick response.

"You seem to believe that not finding the Higgs boson rejects the gauge theory, but the truth is that Higgs boson is not predicted by the gauge theory itself."

But in fact, the gauge theory depends on equal massless and indistinguishable bosons. An exact symmetry cannot relate particles with different properties.

You say: "It is added by hand, for two reasons. First, is that the gauge fields appear initially without masses, from the gauge principle, and the Higgs field can provide mass. The second reason is that it may provide a mechanism for the electro-weak symmetry breaking."

But the theory that I outline in my essay provides a more natural mechanism for electro-weak symmetry breaking.

You say: "For the masses, we should consider also other mechanisms. There is a component of the mass due to the field's energy, which should be considered. In curved spacetime, we need to calculate it differently, and for this we need to know better what the particles are, because we may need to consider both geometry and topology. Maybe this will provide the masses we observe."

In my theory the self-interacting C-field vortex provides the mass condensation and the chiral symmetry breaking.

Finally you "hope that someday clear predictions may be made, to distinguish clearly between the alternatives."

As I noted, I predict no Higgs will be found, and go further to predict that *no new particles* at all will show up at LHC. I do not believe anyone else is making this prediction, so you might wish to keep it in mind. As i said, I believe you will find my theory quite in line with your emphasis on continuity.

Thanks again for you essay and your comments,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #54

i am enjoying going through as many essays as i can & also enjoy postings. I am feeling light hearted and simply do not want to denigrate any approach unless it seems to be superficial and away from sensed reality. i believe that all three tools of science develop continually, viz. concepts/precepts, mathematics and experimental techniques. There is no such thing that one or the other conditions the growth of the other, in fact the three reinforce each other. Superiority of approach does not interest me as it is like giving emphasis to personalities. It is like not knowing the future. We really do not know which approach will evntually help solve the problem in Physics in the best way. What i feel is significant, based on my personal experiences, lies in a kind of attachment to work but non-attachment to the consequences thereof. It helps reduce bias and enhance freedon of appraoch in both thinking and execution.

In fact, i was surprised to find that i will be able to get some design and processing ideas worth Patenting when i happen to visit some industries in a friendly manner, without having any such expertise in their functioning and their background of manufacture. Knowing little helped me isolate problems and then associate the solutions from a wide background of development work that i happened to have carried in my active career , associated with the research work. It was then that i understood the significance of the synonimum ' Research & Development, called R & D popularly!

It is such a spirit of working that i recommmend to young bright scientists like Cristi and others on this forum. I suspect it may bring great laurels to their potential, instead of remaining steadfast to the task and technique they may be using to solve a particular problem in Physics. Theoreticians friendship with experimentalists and philosophic thinkers in their circle/team at the place of research/teaching can help greatly.

Dear Dr. Klingman,

I think that there is something better than the Standard Model. Some of the current GUTs seem to improve the things, but I hope for more. When we will understand better, maybe we will find that there is no need for the Higgs boson. As I said, there are already several alternatives. So, there are people who believe in a Higgs-free Standard Model, which does not predict new particles. Most GUTs predict indeed new particles, and perhaps they will never be found. But the future will say.

Best regards,

Cristi

.

Dear Narendra,

Probably you have nice intentions and good advices. I assure you that I am trying to make the things as simple and clear as I can anyway. But maybe I am unable to extract help from your generic statements. First, you affirmed that I am hurried to "earn publications" and "have my name on board!" with "half-cooked ideas". Then, you recommended me more conceptualization, more connection with experiment, more simplicity, and more of the outsider's freshness. In order to make your ideas useful, do you have clear examples where the things can be made simpler, more conceptual, more connected with experiment? Why can't you point the precise examples? How am I supposed to learn from your precious advices? Could you provide me the clear examples where I am too "steadfast", as you said in your last comment, and what precisely are the alternatives you recommend? If you cannot give precise examples, then from what facts do you derive your remarks?

Best regards,

Cristi

  • [deleted]

  • Post #56

Very nice response. You recollect i am no longer an active physicist and i never worked in Physics in your area of resaech when i was in tha acive career till 15 years back. i only reflect my own experience od doing Physics in my own days. Basics are the same but the topics change. Never mind that much an old foggy like me giving broad hints towards what i feel are the ways of going about research. Your sensitivity to my general comments has made me worry that i am unnecessarily, poking my nose in your nice attempts to harmonise Gravity and quantum mechanics. In fact, i have a hunch that the search for Higg's particle may just be invain. I am more for doing accurate and precise cosmological experiments specially for the early period of the universe, where new Physics may be found through unravelling the current mysteries of dark matter/energy and black holes ( without invocation of quantum gravity). All my best wishes

Dear Narendra,

I am certain that your experience is of great value, and I appreciate your efforts to share it. During a lifetime, people learn many things, which they try to condensate in several general-use advices. When they offer to others these experiences, they know that they offer the meaning of life, as they experienced it, sometimes with big sacrifices. In this case, I did my best trying to value your advices, as you can see from my lengthy answers in which I tried to make sense of your words, and from asking you to provide examples. You did your best, and I did mine, and that's it.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Christi,

I'm glad that you think that there is something better than the Standard Model. I would hate to count on "ripples from the future" to support my belief in such.

Of course, as you say, "maybe we will find that there is no need for the Higgs boson. ... There are people who believe in a Higgs-free Standard Model..."

I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Cristinel Stoica,

In a Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model; for a cluster-cluster its incoherent-cluster-matter with synchronized opposite rotation is its antimatter, whereas they have half spins in opposite directions, expressional in quantum mechanics by Braket notation, that have similarities with the wavefunction described by Paul Dirac and thereby Bell's quantum correlation in nonseparable states is applicable in this case, for quantum entanglement.

The local separable partitionable general relativistic fields have descriptive similarities with the overlapping independent super-symmetry of a cluster-matter with its super-cluster-matter. Quantum measurements and the interface between quanta, is expressional with gauge group as in any case, in that gauge group for trinification model in GUT theory is much applicable on this model as in neutrino physics. Ascribed spontaneous spin-energy as entropy of a cluster-matter resolves the energy-momentum tensor of the quantum fields that is required for Einstein's equation which connects the quantum fields with geometry, for this model. A consistent theory of Gravity and Quantum Standard Model is possible on accommodating new particles Beyond Standard Model for Quantum mechanics, for this model.

The interaction Hamiltonian on Hilbert space as eigenvector observable for local observer clearly indicates the wave travel by cyclic action in a spin matrix of rotating cluster-matters in this model, in that discontinuous jump descriptiveness is not essential for continuity expression; but there is constrain with Bohr model. The energy-momentum operator is expressional for the energy-mass (energy of mass) transformational with the neighbouring cluster-matters that have synchronized opposite rotation with the former and thereby the energy is conserved in continuity. The differentiability in energy-momentum, representational by the duel differentials of Braket notation is expressional for the opposite synchronized rotations of the cluster-matters; between them there is energy-mass transfer.

Double-slit experiment clearly indicates that wave travel is by synchronized rotations of the elements in a spin matrix in that path integral is applicable from point to point and the wave particle duality is expressional in a different perspective, in that the continuity of time evolution is maintained between cyclic events. The superposition and the uncertainty of entanglements, that is expressional from EPR paradox indicates the probability of super-cluster-matter for any cluster-matter, in that momentum conservation is explainable, but the field partition is applicable differently. The experimentation by Bothe and Geiger may confirm these observations.

The particle-changing by Integral Interactions is substituted by energy-mass transfer by cyclic action as this model does not describe any detectable isolated matters as they exists only in cluster-matters, in that the Integral may be the particle. The measurement of observables from energy-mass is representational as fractional quantity and time evolution between cyclic actions with the observer that has synchronized rotation for its observability. The source of gravity as energy-momentum of the partitionable fields; is equated with the tensor fields of the revolving elementary matters of the elementary-cluster-matter around an ascribed spatial point as force carrier that is the quantum gravity.

With this I conclude that Marblewood unification of quantum theory and general relativity is applicable for this model also, with some turnings and in this relevancy this article is really a good guidance for me, thanking you ..

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Dear Edwin,

I also enjoyed much our discussions, and I wish to thank you,

Cristi

Dear Jaykar,

You observed well that the unification I propose here is only between quantum theory and general relativity, being therefore compatible with models beyond the standard model, like the GUTs. I have chosen the standard model because it is standard, although it has the well-known limitations. Therefore, if a better model, based on gauge theory or not, is proposed, the mechanism of selecting from its quantum fields the spatially separable and continuous ones may make it compatible with general relativity as well. I am glad you find my work useful, thank you,

Cristi