Dear Anton,

The main error in your AB sketch is following: you mistakenly use the photon's frame of reference everywhere. It is true that the photon does not age, for a photon the time is frozen. However, you describe your experiment as if you are a photon: ''Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event''. Yes, for a photon time is frozen, but not for you. You are an observer who exist in a real spacetime and feel the time. Therefore for you the emission of photon, its voyage and its absorption is not a single event. Even if the time for photon is frozen, it travels the distance ct during the time t for YOU. Thus, your main mistake in this experiment is that you are in a photon's reference frame; Please try to imagine that you are the real Observer who exist, feel time an observe photons and all your paradoxes disappear at once. Therefore, all your next reasoning in this experiment also is mistaken because you imagine as if you are a photon.

''according to GR energy only is a source of gravity if and when it can be assigned a position'',''the energy of a (massive) particle likewise depends on the definiteness in its position''

This definition is your own invention, and it is wrong invention. According to your definition even massive particles cannot be the sources of gravity since their positions are not definite, according to Heisenberg.

''a photon cannot curve spacetime'' - it contradicts GR; the beam of light bends spacetime. The curvature is caused by the energy-momentum of matter.

''Though we can describe the propagation of light as if it has a velocity, we should keep in mind that it is a non-causal QM phenomenon''.

The propagation of light never violates causality. In contrast, the light signals are used as massagers of causality.

''so if we reject Absolute Time (as we must if we are to practice physics instead of metaphysics), then we should discard causality''.

There is no Absolute time, causality do not need Absolute time.

Regards,

Constantin

Dear Anton,

I should add some reasoning against your AB sketch: You write: ''Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event''.

First of all, such events as the photon's emission and voyage never can be ''a single event'', it is logically and physically impossible. Besides, these three events can be a ''single event'' only if they coincides in space and time. However, actually these events coincide neither in space nor in time. You belive that these events ''coincide'' in time because you believe in the Absolute Time. Actually the flow of time depends on gravity and speed, therefore time flows differently from place to place. Therefore these three events are different events because they do not coincide in time and are spatially separated. Thus, it is a totally wrong statement.

Regards,

Constantin

Dear Constantin,

You haven't read my essay and comments very careful since I have repeatedly argued why there can be no Absolute Time, why we should discard any such notion in physics. Also I do not look solely through the 'eyes' of a photon where I said that A (a massive particle) sees B's state change as soon as it emits the photon, just as B likewise sees A change the moment it absorbs A's photon. Though to the observer these changes seem to be only randomly connected, as if the emission, voyage and absorption are three completely independent events, since A sees B's state change at the time it emits the photon, it certainly is a single event. If A sees B absorb the photon at the time of the emission, then a finite velocity would mean that since nothing is allowed to happen which might prevent B from absorbing that photon, time would have to stand still for as long as the photon is traveling. Though A sees its entire environment change as it emits a photon, if its voyage would take time, then the effect of B's absorption, its change of state on A would again take time to reach A, which seems equally unlikely. If in a Self-Creating Universe particles are informed about each other's state as they owe that state, their properties to their continuous energy exchange, then we cannot determine whether A wants to get rid of some energy, or if B incites A to produce the photon. If there's no absolute time, then it doesn't make sense to ask what causally precedes what, even though we see one event to happen before the other. This only would be possible if there would be an absolute clock, which, to prevent misunderstanding, does not exist as far as I'm concerned. This means that causality indeed requires the existence of just such an absolute time. If in a SCU particles have to create one another, then they are each other's cause and effect, so the change of state of A cannot causally precede that of B.

''The propagation of light never violates causality''

Indeed, it never violates causality but it doesn't obey causality either. We certainly can use light to cause events to happen elsewhere: my point is that by switching on the light, we do not cause a photon transmission but only facilitate the process, just like by switching on the light we don't cause the potential powering the current.

''According to your definition even massive particles cannot be the sources of gravity since their positions are not definite, according to Heisenberg.''

I should have made clear what I mean with this: At my site www.quantumgravity.nl in Chapter 1.2 'Mass, a quantum mechanical definition' I have defined the rest mass of a particle as being greater as its position is less indefinite, as it remains longer within the area corresponding to that indefiniteness, that is, as the probability to find it inside a smaller area is greater. This is why I in my essay I said that the rest energy of a particle depends on its ability to express that energy as gravity, on the definiteness of its position and vice versa. The less indefinite its position is, the greater its mass is, the stronger a source of gravity it is. Since at the 'speed' of light the position of a particle is completely indefinite, it cannot act as a source of gravity. So a beam of light cannot bend space time: only matter can, as you admit as you say:

''The curvature is caused by the energy-momentum of matter.''

This energy-momentum of matter refers to the continuous energy exchange between massive particles by means of which they express and preserve each other's mass. As the particles alternately borrow and lend each other the energy to exist so their energy in every cycle varies, at a rate equal to their energy, they continuously convert from mass to energy and back again, so you might say that it is this alternating in- and outflow of energy which powers the curvature as well as the mass associated with it.

''such events as the photon's emission and voyage never can be ''a single event''

Well, it is a single event in the sense that the change of state of A and that of B are coupled by the photon transmission, just like paying money for something is a single transaction. That the transmission leads to different events, effects at A and B does not mean that the transmission consists of separate, independent events. Since to a massive observer A and B are separated in space, to him the photon emission at A and its absorption at B are separated in time. As to the photon there is no distance between A and B, to the photon its transmission is instantaneous. The symmetry between A's point of view and that of B, that according to A, B changes at the time it emits the photon, whereas according to B the emission happens as B absorbs the photon, means that even though we certainly measure at duration, it doesn't make sense to ask what causally precedes what.

Regards, Anton

Dear Constantin,

Interesting theory of holes, and of the origin of quantum non-locality. I wonder if your idea of holes connects in any way with Dirac's hole theory.

Best regards,

Paul

    • [deleted]

    • Post #25

    Dear Paul,

    Yes - Constantin and I have had similar conversations. My essay talks about the Dirac Sea, and I think it may be related to Constantin's quantum spacetime hole. One significant difference is that Constantin wants to use the spacetime hole for interstellar travel. Its a cool idea, but would require a scale crossover between a quantum Dirac Sea interpretation and a Cosmic Void interpretation.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Dear Paul Halpern and Ray Munroe,

    Theorists are looking for similarities between Hole Vacuum and other known theories like Dirac Sea, topological defects and so on. Nevertheless, I'm glad that the Hole Vacuum is a fundamentally new concept that does not repeat other known theories. The concept of Dirac sea does not allow teleportation and cannot explain gravity, inertia and quantum nonlocality. The Hole Vacuum is a better concept because it allows teleportation and can explain gravitation, inertia and quantum phenomena in the same model. Therefore I believe that the Hole Vacuum is a basis for more advanced future physics.

    The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy. The positron was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea. The Hole Vacuum is a sea of fluctuating spatial atoms and holes; A hole in spacetime appears when the spatial atom disappears. According to the theory, large holes are able to create electron-positron pairs and other particles.

    Sincerely,

    Constantin

    Dear Constantin,

    Thanks for clarifying. I see the distinction between the Hole Vacuum and the Dirac Sea. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

    Best wishes,

    Paul

    Dear Visitors,

    There are two options: 1) you can vote for the extinction of humanity by suppressing the Hole Vacuum theory. 2) You can vote for the development of Science and Human Evolution by supporting this theory.

    There have been at least five mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth. Earth may be doomed to a sixth major extinction event and Mankind is terribly at risk of going the way of the dinosaurs. Besides, astronomers predict that within a billion years, the Earth will no longer support life. Humans must colonize planets in other solar systems - traveling there using 'Star Trek' - style propulsion - or face extinction, Hawking said. It is impossible to transport humans to stars using rockets, we need a faster than light transportation system. I can prove that wormholes and Alcubierre warp drive are erroneous methods, the Hole Teleportation is the only safe method able to transport humans to stars. The beauty of Hole Teleportation is NO EXOTIC MATTER, which means no messing around with hypothetical methods of creating the stuff. Sit inside a capsule, teleport to other side of the planet or the solar system in moments. No breaking the body down to molecules. If you support me then I'll be able to publish more papers. Some papers are very specific and can be created by me only. In the nearest future researchers will spend billions of dollars for investigations and experiments with Hole teleportation and the absence of these papers can worsen your future.

    I saw the ''leading essay'', it is a simple discussion about physics, the author wrote ''though the universe itself has cleverly prevented us from determining whether or not it is continuous, I'd like to believe that it is''. It is not correct: the universe is fundamentally discontinuous. This essay cannot advance physics because it does not contain any advanced ideas. In contrast, my theory is a new direction in physics and technology. By voting against Hole Vacuum theory you may sign a death sentence for Mankind.

    Constantin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #29

      Please read:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

      And identify yourself.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #30

      Constantin,

      It is a surprise you write "information copied from textbooks and Internet" when you refer to other's essays, but it is you who uses to cite Wikipedia as your source, and have plenty of citations to yourself in your essay and almost no one else.

      Could you please explain what exactly your sources are and what your theory is based on? Thanks.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #31

      Dear Constantin,

      I think that you are only envious of the leading essay. Yours is not a theory, it is a collection of unscientific claims which may be turned into a science-fiction story after improving style, etc.

      Dear Darth Sidious,

      Usually envious people are not able to find any errors in the leading papers, they only can say that the paper is wrong or it is a collection of unscientific claims without any proofs: an example is your baseless declaration without any proofs. I never use your method to label the theory wrong without any proofs. In my view, you are the author of the essay where I found already errors. I attack other theories because I fight for new physics. I'm not agreeing to write everywhere ''it is an excellent essay''. The Physics is a battle of ideas; the criticism must be present in every theory. Because of criticism my page is attacked by people like you always because you want praise only. Also, I do not want to discuss these problems with an ghost from the Star Wars. Please show your true name if you want to discuss.

      Peter,

      The contest was closed on March 15, but you have ''questions'' on Mar. 16? It means you are one of the ''offended authors'' where I found errors. OK, I can give you an answer.

      My essay is based completely on original physics research, it contains the new description of motion and quantum phenomena. There are a few citations only from Wikipedia and references when I need links to modern science. In other words, my essay have no more than 5 - 10 percents of citations from references, therefore it is an original paper. In contrast, there are other papers with 90 percents of physics information copied from Internet. The paper with 90 percents of generally known physics information is NOT an original paper, it is ''information copied from textbooks and Internet''. I'm looking for the physics created by author but not information copied from textbooks.

      Dear Readers,

      The contest was closed on March 15 but some offended authors have ''questions'' right now. Since I publish criticism some offended authors (Peter, Darth Sidious) tries to attack my page with the unsupported, unproven declarations. He hides his name like a ghost because he knows that it is impossible to find any error in this theory. The physics is a battle of ideas therefore you must accept criticism if you are the scientist.

      ''your Hole Vacuum pseudo-theory'' - It is the unproven declaration only that proves nothing.

      The Universe is expanding; In the first microseconds of expansion the Universe was very small and therefore finite in volume. In spite of expansion, the Universe will have the finite volume always. Since the Universe has a finite volume, it must have the edges (holes), because all objects with finite volumes have borders. And the space with holes is discontinuous. Thus, since the Universe is expanding, therefore it must be finite and discontinuous.

      The Universe is fundamentally discontinuous and contain holes; I'm sure that the future physics will be based on Hole Vacuum because it allows explaining quantum phenomena and gravitation in the same model. During last 15 years nobody found any fundamental error in Hole Theory. Moreover, this theory was published in the peer-reviewing Journals and was supported by Soros Foundation after a careful examination.

      Constantin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #35

      Dear Constantin,

      One of my favorite aspects of FQXi is that alternative ideas are allowed. The conservative mainstream physics community prefers to trash all maverick ideas that did not originate from one of their "prophets", such as Hawking or Witten.

      Personally, I like your Hole Vacuum Theory. I think it is scale-related to Causal Dynamical Triangulation and some of the ideas in my essay. I'm not sure if we can use it for interstellar travel (perhaps time will tell), but it was definitely related to the question of whether Spacetime is Discrete or Continuous.

      To quote Master Yoda - "Always in motion the future is."

      • [deleted]

      • Post #36

      Dear Cosmic Ray,

      actually, I am open to maverick ideas that did not originate from one of their "prophets", such as Hawking or Witten. But a fundamental point is that such ideas have to generate a theory which is rigorous and which shows consistence with experiments and observations. Constantin's pseudo-theory is NOT Rigorous and does NOT show consistence with experiments and observations. This is the reason because I call it pseudo-theory. More, Constantin's attitude to attack the work of other people and recognized theories of the scientific community does NOT help him to obtain credibility. Finally, his last desperate claims, in order to obtain the FQXi Community's attention, that his theory will save the development of Science and Human Evolution against extinction is absolutely ridiculous and renders absolutely infinitesimal his credibility.

      Have fun!

      Darth.

      Dear Darth Sidious,

      ''Constantin's pseudo-theory is NOT Rigorous and does NOT show consistence with experiments and observations''.

      This theory was created in the total isolation from the rest of Science, in the home conditions - it is impossible to create the rigorous theory in the total isolation. I need access to information, physics laboratory, financial support and scientific library to create the rigorous theory. Also I do not have time to create the rigorous theory because I must spend my time for non-physics activity to earn money; If my theory will be supported then I'll be able to research physics only and create a rigorous theory. Also I need contact and dialogue with other scientists to create the rigorous theory.

      ''and does NOT show consistence with experiments and observations'' - In contrast, my theory show consistence with experiments and observations - the properties of vacuum holes coincide with the properties of gravity. Since a hole do not have extent and time therefore near the source of holes must appear time dilation and length contraction effects. You know about gravitational time dilation and length contraction near massive bodies. Also, the appearance of holes led to zero-point-energy and other quantum phenomena. You see, the theory shows consistence with experiments and observations. I'm not able to show you the superluminal teleportation in my home because I do not have money and equipment for this experiment. For teleportation we need another Manhattan Project; the one person cannot create projects like atomic bombs or teleportation in home conditions.

      ''Constantin's attitude to attack the work of other people and recognized theories of the scientific community does NOT help him to obtain credibility''.

      It may help me if I'll destroy some modern theories then scientists will look for other theories and they may accept the hole vacuum theory. I found important logical flaws in the mainstream theories and I need the Journal that can accept this criticism for publication. However, the SM is protected by censure that forbids all non-mainstream papers and criticism. Also I hope that the attacked scientists will read and ACCEPT the hole theory; I need allies like Dr. Corda who is able to develop and prove mathematically this theory; it is a base for Quantum Gravity because it can explain gravity and quantum phenomena in the same model.

      ''his theory will save the development of Science and Human Evolution against extinction is absolutely ridiculous and renders absolutely infinitesimal his credibility''.

      1) First of all, people must evaluate my essay but not my post in the discussion' page; 2) It is a confirmation of my idea that people accept essays that look scientifically only but not scientifically important papers. Yes, this post does not look scientifically for ''practical'' people. However, the Copernicus heliocentric idea also looks fantastically for the ''practical'' people that believe that the Earth is motionless but Sun is moving. Thus, it is wrong to evaluate a idea using ''practical'' point of view.

      We are not able to send the people even to Mars and we never send all Earth population to other stars using rockets. The rocket and the human organism is destroyed quickly by radiation, interstellar dust and gas. Also you need a lot of time and propellant. We need the safe superluminal methods of transportation. However the wormholes and Alcubierre drive are false methods because 1) the exotic natter do not exist 2) the superluminal communication is impossible for all objects entangled with environment. Therefore even if you use the wormhole or Alcubierre's drive the object never move faster than light because it is entangled quantum mechanically with the environment. The Hole Teleportation is the only superluminal and safe transportation technology able to deliver quickly humans to distant stars because it cuts off the entanglement with environment. We must create the best superluminal transportation technology before Earth will no longer support life. We must colonize other planets before the Earth' life will be destroyed by asteroids, nuclear war or climate changes. The Hole Teleportation is our only hope to reach habitable planets and survive. By rejecting the Hole Theory you sign the death sentence for Human race. It is a crime against Science and Mankind to support the empty and false theories about analog-continuous Universe and reject the new transportation technology based on discontinuous Universe. The next asteroid or tsunami may evaluate your essays in the true sense.

      I appeal to rationality - it is more rational to support the new transportation technology than some simple essays-stories about physics.

      Constantin

      Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray,

      Yes, FQXi allow alternative ideas but these ideas are prevented by the MAJORITY vote of the community. The MAJORITY vote is the main obstacle for the progress in physics. Democritus had said that questions of truth could not be decided by a majority vote. I can demonstrate that the most of voters are not qualified to evaluate scientific papers:

      1) The large number of voters rate essays by the principle: for the Friend - 10, for the enemy - 1. For example, since Benedict praise the most of papers therefore he have 4.4 (20 ratings); Since I criticize all papers therefore I have the worst rating 1.9. To receive the good rate you must praise all papers; the criticizers always will have low ratings. It is NOT the science, such majority vote will NEVER support any advanced theory. By using the majority vote we spend money for nothing because it suppress progressive theories and praise the empty stories about physics.

      2) The large number of voters is not qualified to evaluate scientific essays. For example, the most of voters rated the leading essays by 'good' (Bolognesi, Zenil, Durham) and then I found the important flaws in these theories. It means that the most of voters are not qualified for evaluation of scientific essays.

      3) The large number of voters does not check the essays for errors; Instead they vote for essays that LOOK SCIENTIFICALLY. They imagine that the good essay must have 1) important mathematical formulas and derivations; 2) the essay must use the professional scientific language; All papers without mathematics are considered as wrong by such people and some scientists. They can support the erroneous essay if it looks scientifically (there are mathematics, scientific language and mention about Einstein and Quantum mechanics). According to such voters my paper does not look scientifically because it does not have mathematics and contain strange statements. Meanwhile my research method is better because I can develop the Hole Theory and find errors in other theories but mathematicians are not able to find any error in my theory. I hope to introduce this research method in the Universities. In this context, if we throw out the mathematics from Einstein theory then such paper never wins in our contest. Besides, if Einstein criticizes some essays then his essay will be the worst in the list. Indeed, the Einstein theory also was rejected by the Majority first.

      For example the Bolognesi's essay looks very scientifically but I found important flaws there. Also Dr. Corda's essay looks very scientifically because it is filled with mathematics and use professional scientific language. However, in fact it is a story about UNSUCCESSFUL attempt to solve the gravitation problems. In the same way you can vote for David Wands and other authors of Extended Gravity Theories. Do you think the description of UNSUCCESFUL attempt deserve the prize? However, people vote for such essays because it LOOKS very scientifically and contain the professional language.

      Thus, the majority vote is the main obstacle for progress and New science.

      Sincerely,

      Constantin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #39

      Master Yoda says "Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you."

      Dear Darth,

      I know that Constantin can be "difficult". My first impression of Constantin was when he stormed onto my blog thread in the 2009 essay contest and proclaimed "A theory of everything would endow us with God-like powers, masters of the laws of the Universe."

      I'm sure that a Sith Lord like yourself can relate...

      Dear Constantin,

      Science is not always about having the best idea. Our theories seem to work in their accepted realms of reality. To accomplish the sort of paradigm shift that you desire, you will need data (perhaps from LHC?) and some support in the scientific community. My suggestion - Don't purposely antagonize everyone.

      But I will agree that some essays need revision - I caught a lot of grief for challenging Edwin and Constantinos.

      Have Fun!

      Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray,

      In 2009 essay contest I gave you a quote from the Giovanni Amelino-Camelia's essay ''The fairness principle and the ultimate theory of not everything''. Please check his essay and you'll find the statement ''A theory of everything would endow us with God-like powers, masters of the laws of the Universe''. I read this essay at the 2009 contest and I gave you a Giovanni's quote as the best explanation for your essay.

      Sincerely,

      Constantin