Conformal Geometrodynamics as the Basis for the Unified Description of Nature by Mikhail Vladimirovich Gorbatenko and Gennady Grigorievich Kochemasov

CGD embraces all fundamental physics, arxiv:0907.4558 It unites inertial acceleration and gravitation to give a unique minimum action trajectory for local vacuum free falling bodies. A divergent privileged direction is unthinkable. A divergent magnitude, a differential viscosity of space, is possible. CGD could be incomplete as was Euclid.

General Relativity exactly describes 1.74 solar-mass pulsar PSR J1903+0327 in a 95.17-day 0.437-eccentricity orbit with its 1.05 solar-mass star companion. 27% vs. 1.4x10^(-4)% gravitational binding energy, 1.8x10^11 vs. ~30 surface gees, 2x10^8 gauss vs. ~5 gauss magnetic field, superconductive compressed neutrons and exotica vs. proton-electron plasma; pulsar equatorial spin >11% lightspeed. No measurable observable remains for Equivalence Principle (EP) violation.

One *non-measurable* (but calculable) observable remains. We have left hands. Whose left hand is more left-handed? Composition is gravitationally anonymous, all vacuum free falling mass is unit mass: goose down fluff or a platinum billiard ball. Do left and right shoes violate the EP? If so, the vacuum has a massed sector (presumably pseudoscalar) chiral background and CGD must account for it. Being confined to the massed sector as configuration, it is undetectable with photons.

EP testing is exquisite and accessible, http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/ The most mathematically extreme parity divergent atomic mass distributions are single crystals of space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21 quartz or P3(1) vs. P3(2) glycine gamma-polymorph. A 3(1) screw axis is geometrically right-handed, 3(2) is left-handed.

Is CGD complete or must it allow for an untested, unwanted flaw in all of fundamental physics? Somebody should look.

очень хорошо, я думаю. (ochen Koresho, ya dumayu)

This looks like one of the better articles submitted. I have not scored this yet, and will reserve judgment on that until I read your article again. I will give it a pretty high score, but I have a few questions. The question posed wither T^(mat}_{ab} = T^{CG}_{ab}, and eqns 3-4, to me only makes sense if the Weyl connection term is broken, such as by a Higgs mechanism. I invite you to look at my paper at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/494

where I discuss related issues. Conformal gravity and field theory, such as SU(2,2) define renormalization group flows. However, at low energy there occurs mass-gaps with elementary particles, which break up the RG flow. My paper involves how quantum critial points are involved with the cosmological constant.

Anyway, your paper is is one of the better ones here.

Cheers LC

Greetings Authors,

A very interesting approach that I have a special interest in. I have downloaded a copy of your paper and I will begin to study it immediately.

For an alternative set of scale transformation equations, please see www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw or http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1 .

Yours in science,

Robert L. Oldershaw

Hello dear Mr.Mikhail Vladimirovich Gorbatenko,

Congratulations for your essay .It's full of news for me .I didn't know Weyl .

very interesting all these datas ;it's a school here FQXi hihih in all case thanks to all .

I read you paper and I like the point you makes with the differenceabout the symmetry and its structures,indeed like quantum entangled spheres are specifics,

I suppose thus logically the spherical fields and theirs symmetries too are correlated with these specificities .

Indeed each entangled quantum spheres are specifics in their volumes ,velocities ,senses ,angles .....even the lattices are specifics but fortunally they exist for the rotation ,

thus a specific taxonomy is necessary in fact for all fundamenatls datas, where the good quantification is made with rationality ,and where the mass is a result of these rotations in my opinion .

There I don't agree about the ideas about higgs but it's just an opinion .

Thus a global symmetry can be made of course, but the ultim symmetry is complex because the specificities of spheres are complex simply like our cosmological physical spheres furthermore the evolution must be considered the space and the lattices thus can evolve in a specific equation ,

it's a little if we want know the future sphere and its spheres ,it's the same in the qnatum dimension ,we search the perfect entanglement of specific spheres and its complexification like the intelligence ,these results of our evolution .That continues thus with the polarisations of complexification .

The mass increases in the chief orchestra of the light .

What do you think ?

Best Regards

Steve

'... causality is impossible to be violated ...'

I'm sorry to disappoint you but causality is a religious notion. If without some primordeal cause, some creator from the outside a universe has to create itself out of nothing, if massenergy and spacetime have to carve an existence out of each other, if things inside such a universe create, and so explain each other so are each other's 'cause', then causality is a useless concept in physics. If we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and understand this cause as the effect of a preceding cause and so on, to end up at some primordeal cause which by definition cannot be understood as it cannot be proved, reduced to a preceding cause, then this invalidates any causal deduction, so causal reasoning in fact is irrational as it is founded on unprovable suppositions. A noncausal universe needs a different kind of physics -see Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe.

Greetings Mikhail and Gennady:

Thank you for a most thoughtful and informative paper. I have been working in gr-qc and we are also looking at Ricci flow and using the Weyl and Ricci tensors to deal with certain technical difficulties in maximality and singularity posed by the unbounded values of the Riemann tensor. I believe that Conformal Geometrodynamics shares much that is innovative with some similar work by last year's contest winner Julian Barbour. I know that most people seem to use the blogs here as a way to "shoehorn" in comments about their own contest entries or to argue that they, not the authors, have the real answer to whatever problem is being discussed. However, in contradistinction, and in the spirit of scientific collaboration, if you haven't already seen the Barbour papers on the dynamics of pure shape, I would highly recommend "The physical gravitational degrees of freedom", http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407104 and The Dynamics of Pure Shape, Relativity and the Problem of Time http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0309/0309089v1.pdf. I imagine you might have some very interesting comments on these papers, and it would be very nice to see some informed discussion in the blogs rather than so much of the cheerleading which has dominated much of the discussion so far.

Cheers,

Phil Fellman

Dear Mr Biermans ,

Simply ,it's the infinite light behind, with any physicality .

The space ,the time ,these quantum spheres are the result of an ultim equation ,physical where the time has built polarised systems.

We can imagine this infinite light but we are in the physicality thus we must admit our limits .We can imagine but we can't see it really ,the physical light is under laws ,not behind ....

Indeed thus you are right about the self creating ....

The equation is inside a physical closed system and it's the light which becomes mass .....thus the only link is this physicality ,and the codes inside particles ,and these informations .The ubiquity of informations .The light is infinite and becomes mass in the physicality .

Best Regards

Steve