Hole Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Constantin Zaharia Leshan

As simple as this. Do you agree time is part of the universe right? So tell us Constantin, where does a second end and a new one starts?

No, particles may not have edges, I remind you that particles also behave as waves... Plus, you avoid all the theory that doesn't fit your little nonsense theory, for example, Hilbert space. Particle touch each other? space between particles? you only use the part of the theory that better suits you to come up with nonsense claims.

Sure, you will reply saying: 'show me a physical object with no borders' I'm doing it! Then you will say 'wrong' and you will wrap up with 'senseless', you are so predictable...

Dear Peter,

I have done my very best (to no avail) to show Constantin that his use of 'nothing' is self-contradictory.

The non-contradictory way to reason with 'nothing' ironically leaves nothing of Constantin's theory:

If a volume of spacetime COULD disappear it would leave nothing, hence a volume of spacetime CANNOT disappear. Equally if 'outside' the Universe is nothing, then the Universe has no 'outside'.

Regards,

Robert

Dear Constantin,

If a cosmic-scaled quantum hole did exist, how would it affect the topology of spacetime? Certainly we see cosmic-scaled structure - great "voids" and "clusters", but a cosmic-scaled quantum hole should be different from a cosmic void - you shouldn't be able to "see" through it (because nothing exists for electromagnetic radiation to travel through). Would we have any sort of "spacetime lensing"? Considering the relationship between gravity and spacetime curvature this may be similar to the opposite of gravitational lensing because any sort of cosmic-scaled quantum hole must have an effective boundary curvature.

Have Fun!

peter (Dr. Corda),

Since you are not able to prove my theory wrong then stop using the unproven declarations like ''nonsense'', without any proofs.

''So tell us Constantin, where does a second end and a new one starts?''

We talked with Robert about borders. How I can prove for Robert that all finite in volume objects must have borders? For this purpose, I INVENT different ABSTRACT models in order to show for Robert that all finite objects must have borders. I want to show the simple idea - all finite collections of elements/points/numbers/dV-particles must have borders because the first and last element in this collection does NOT have neighbors. It is a very simple idea that all finite objects must have borders.

''No, particles may not have edges, I remind you that particles also behave as waves.''

1) The word ''particles' mean spatial atoms dV in this example because at the end of the Universe is spacetime only. In my theory the spatial atoms dV are material particles which possess energy and interact with usual elementary particles.

2) I repeat that I invented this ABSTRACTION with the finite group of particle in order to illustrate for Robert an example how a finite object can have borders. It is true that all finite collections of points must have borders because the first and last point does not have neighbors.

3) Remember, in my theory microscopic particles have the wave properties in the presence of holes only. If the Universe is not discontinuous and without holes then microscopic particles do NOT have the wave properties. Since I talked with Robert how to add holes to the CONTINUOUS Universe in order to make the Universe discontinuous, therefore my abstract model was correct - the wave properties appear after introduction of holes only.

In general, I often use abstract models to build a physical theory. For example, (in my post Feb. 19, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT), to introduce holes I examine first the continuous Universe - it is the abstract model (where particles do not have quantum (wave) properties). Then I introduce holes after that the Universe becomes discontinuous - it is the real model (where particles have the quantum (wave) properties). Hence, if I'll speculate about the properties of the continuous Universe without holes then you'll show the same accusations.

''Sure, you will reply saying: 'show me a physical object with no borders'' I'm doing it!''

No, I can introduce holes without ''physical object with no borders''. For example, I can introduce holes using the notion of quantized vacuum - when dV disappears then appears a hole. Finally, I can postulate the existence of holes without any introductions like ''borders''. Many theories use postulates to postulate the existence of new particles and concepts. It is important that holes are able to explain gravitation, teleportation and quantum phenomena but not how we introduce holes. Hence, to prove the Hole Theory wrong you must prove wrong the hole theory of gravitation, Hole Teleportation and quantum phenomena.

Dear Constantin,

Can 'nothing' exist? Unless 'nothing' CAN exist, a volume of spacetime CANNOT disappear, that is, it has NO choice but to exist.

A "hole" means 'nothing' can exist. So 'nothing' is something - contradiction.

Kindest regards,

Robert

Dear Constantin,

Just to clarify.

Are 'the dead' living? If they're living then they're not dead.

Does 'nothing' exist? If 'nothing' exists then it cannot be nothing, and so it is something - contradiction.

Kindest regards,

Robert

Dear Readers,

This peter's (Dr. Corda's) post is not criticism; Instead, Dr. Corda wants revenge for my criticism therefore he writes insults and senseless, unproven declarations on my page. Imagine, I'm the first person who criticizes his work, so he is furious and wants revenge. The same events happened in 2010 contest - I published criticism on Dr. Corda's page after that Dr. Corda attacked my page with insults and threats.

The appearance and strange behavior of Robert Spoljaric fits in this scheme. I saw the long conversation of Dr. Corda with R. Spoljaric on Mar. 28; Also I know about the conversation between Dr. Corda and R. Spoljarice by e-mail. And in the same day Mar. 28 Robert appeared on my page. Hence, I have a suspicion that Dr. Corda asked Robert to attack my page by e-mail. This is proved by the fact that Robert's behavior is very strange; It's not like curiosity or a desire to find an error; Instead, Robert stubbornly repeats many times the same senseless questions. It seems that he simply makes the Dr. Corda's work. You see, Robert told Dr. Corda (Apr. 4, 2011 @ 11:37 GMT): ''I have done my very best (to no avail) to show Constantin that his use of ''nothing'' is self-contradictory''. It seems Robert reports on assignments for Dr. Corda.

Dear Constantin,

Remember we limit hole theory to the Universe - one universe rather than a multiverse.

1) Your theory is seriously flawed if you keep ignoring the contradiction that if 'nothing' exusts it cannot be nothing. Why? Because if you remove that contradiction then you have no theory. (Why can't zero apples exist?)

2) The difference between a hole and BH singularity is that their is no mechanism to explain why a hole appears in the first place.

3) No doubt there are non-contradictory theories being proposed by others to explain the effects you mentioned, and much more.

That my friend is why I see no theory in hole theory.

Kindest regards,

Robert

Constantin,

What the #*%@ has Dr. Corda got to do with my discussion with you? Your comment has only demonstrated your paranoia. Also your THREAT regarding Dr Corda publishing my work is noted!

The ONLY reason I began this discussion with you was due to your second essay statement: "Consequently, outside of the Universe is nothing in an absolute sense."

Incidentally, if you are going to use the Wikipedia article on the 'Universe' you should at least be consistent: The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. Further, there is also the model of a finite but unbounded Universe! Where is your 'outside' now?

Throughout our discussion a "hole" was 'nothing' or 'edge of the Universe', and now all of a sudden it is energy?

Clearly I have been wasting my time, and for that reason end this futile discussion.

Robert

Constantin,

I should thank you for the complement regarding Dr. Corda publishing my paper. But your insinuation of a conspiracy against you is PURE fantasy!

Regards,

Robert

Robert,

You write: ''Incidentally, if you are going to use the Wikipedia article on the ''Universe'' you should at least be consistent: The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume''.

1) I do not state that all information in Wikipedia is true. The Wikipedia tells us about the Modern Science but Modern Science has not yet completed, it is unfinished theory. However, the first proposition in this article is true: ''The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists''.

2) Do you hope to find all my Hole Theory in Wikipedia? The essay copied from Wikipedia is not original. I created the NEW and ORIGINAL theory and I'm glad that my information is absent in Wikipedia. FQXi requires just ORIGINAL essays but not a copy of Wikipedia.

You write: ''The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. Further, there is also the model of a finite but unbounded Universe! Where is your 'outside'?''

1) The Universe is finite, please read the universetoday

2) My Universe also is unbounded - the Universe does NOT have the macroscopic bounds! In my finite universe, after having traveled in one direction on it, you can find yourself back to where you started. However, the Universe has the virtual, microscopic ''bounds'' (holes) which forbids the classical motion for microscopic particles only. The holes only can explain why quantum particles do not move classically and don't have trajectories.

3) The real Universe is a mixture of particles and holes. Who is outside and who is inside in this mixture? You see, the notion of ''outside'' is important for the ABSTRACT model of the continuous universe, where I try to introduce holes but not for the real Universe as a mixture of particles and holes.

4) The notion ''outside'' is not the key parameter for my theory; I can define holes as the perfect vacuum without space and time.

You write: ''Throughout our discussion a ''hole'' was ''nothing'' or ''edge of the Universe'', and now all of a sudden it is energy?''

Did you even read my essay? For example, there is a statement: ''Since a hole is able to accelerate particles, it possess action/energy''. In the real Universe a hole have energy, please read about the properties of holes. Theoretically inside of hole is nothing; However, you cannot observe the naked hole; the observer sees the hole as ''something'' because the hole is ''dressed'' by the REAL surrounding particles and the hole has energy.

I can explain how a hole can have energy. Consider a vacuum chamber that has been completely evacuated, so that the (classical) particle concentration is low. Now if we destroy the walls of the chamber then we'll see the implosion. In the same way, if we create the perfect vacuum (a hole) in the chamber, we'll see the implosion because a hole must destroy the chamber quickly. You see, all holes have energy because they are able to accelerate particles and create the pairs particle-antiparticle. In other words, theoretically inside of the hole is nothing but for the observer the hole is ''something'' because one have energy (implosion) and the hole is ''dressed'' by real particles.

You write: ''Clearly I have been wasting my time''

- You don't found any error in this theory. For this purpose, you should read this essay first.

Constantin

Constantin,

I do not want bad blood between us. Perhaps the problem is simply that English is not your first language, and so difficult concepts become confused in the communication.

Thanks to you I am now seeking publication of my own paper, but I do not know if I will be successful.

Neverthelss I wish you all the best.

Goodbye and good luck,

Robert

It is very difficult to create a 100% creative essay and it is very easy to create a story about physics without any new knowledge in physics. Hence, the creative papers must have advantages concerning essays-stories about physics in our essay contest. If the author tells us about generally known physics knowledge then such essay have the artistic value only.

''you could be 100% creative but 100% wrong''

You are not able to prove that this essay is 100% wrong - for this purpose you must prove wrong the Hole theory of Gravitation, Hole Teleportation and the Hole Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The Hole theory of gravitation was supported by Soros Foundation and published in mainstream Journals; nobody has found any error in this theory.