Dear Andy,

the key point of your analysis is that "the digital regime was due to embedding of space time / quantum mechanics within a larger non linear theory". Thus, my question is which is such a non linear theory? Is it standard General Relativity or is it an Extended Theory which takes into account the fact that space-time could be intrinsically curve? You could be right in claiming that it could be done in the pre Planckian regime but we need to understand which is the correct non linear theory before quantizing it!

Together with collaborators I realized the quantization of Extended Theories and of space-time curvature but ONLY in the weak field approximation and ONLY in an epoch post Planckian regime, i.e. the Inflationary Era, see pages 8-9 of my Essay.

On the other hand, in principle I agree with t'Hooft's idea of deterministic quantum mechanics, but this will be a successive step with respect to my present analysis.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Andy,

in my opinion particles of any shape or form could survive a big bang/ big bounce only if we find a solution to the Initial Singularity's problem.

Together with my friend Herman Mosquera Cuesta we recently realized a big bounce model where the Initial Singularity is removed. The paper has been published in Astropart. Phys. 34:587-590, 2011 and it is available in http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4801

In models like this I think that gravitons and/or other particles should survive a transition from a prior to the present universe.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Christian,

I am persuaded you shall find a way, indeed the spherical waves are complicated considering the evolution furthermore and the varitaions of volumes and mass.The topological 3D becomes esential for all present and local analyzes at my opinion.Relativelly speaking in the 4d space time of course.The volumes of these spheres and spherical systems seem showing the universal road.The gravitation is purelly linked with these volumes also.

The rotations and their speeds seem a key if we consider also the density and the volumes.The cinetic momment can be seen and the spinals and orbitals motions also.The acceleartion or deceleration more others parameters can be interesting thus .In logic the vel. of rot. are propotional with mass and the volumes.It's logically also proportional with the entropy and the arrow of time. Their volumes, their mass, their rotations.....between 0.1 for z and 7,...in logic we ncan class with the volumes.If the BH are a volumes more important than stars thus for the super groups the volume of the center is more important still.Now if the gravitational lentils permits to differenciate the volumes and the series , that will be very relevant because we could know the volume of the center of our Universe, logically it's not far of 7.5=z Now in logic also the universal volume is proportionally linked and have also a specific oscillating dynamic, unique with 1 expansion and one contraction.The density proportional also with the volumes and mass are thus pertinent in the two senses.And even in the 4 senses if we insert the quantum entangled spheres furthermore.But it's an otehr story dear Christian.hihii

Best Regards

Steve

Christian,

I'm hoping that Einstein is correct (he usually is), since I have much more of the former rather than the latter. I just may have to accept your offer. You seem very cordial, generous, and open to new ideas. IMO, that is a rare combination for someone with your knowledge and status.

Dan

It might be that spacetime is not fully quantized in a standard sense. Spacetime physics may be quantized by a a series lagrangian of the form

R α'R_{abcd}R^{abcd} α'^2 O(R^4) ...

Where the R is a classical background and the string parameter α' give corrections in order of the string tension; similar to O(ħ) as the string tension is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Of course this is a sticking point for the LQG folks, and this background independence issue is the one big card they hold in their hand.

However, a full quantum theory of spacetime in the LQG sense runs into trouble by placing lots of degrees of freedom in spacetime, and by corollary a huge entropy. The classical limit of LQG is not physically tenable. So any quantization of spacetime curvature may simply only work as an effective theory, whether that be with orders in string parameter or with LQG Sen connection terms.

The hyperbolic plane, or the anti de Sitter spacetime, is S-dual to a Thirring fermion field. The horizon limit of an AdS_n spacetime containing a black hole his an AdS_2 ~ H_2. This contains all the conformal machinery of CFT_1, which is the Hartle-Hawking vacuum. The S-dual to the soliton dynamics in H_2 is the Thirring Fermions, which in the interior of the AdS defines the "graviton." The Thirring field has the Lagrangian

L = {bar-ψ}γ^a∂_aψ g|ψψ|^2

Where we might think of the graviton as having a substratum of quantized fermions.

Cheers LC

Dear LC,

yes, maybe you are right.

In any case, I think that the correct Lagrangian, which in my point of view generates the intrinsic space-time, should be the one which obtains the better consistence with astrophysical observations. In that case, the detection of a third polarization of gravitational waves will be the ultimate endorsement for this tapestry.

Cheers,

Ch

Dear Christian

Thanks for your response on 17th. I've just read your recent preprint, which I'd now like to cite in an update of a recent paper of mine currently in formal review. Some of the bones are in a recent non mathematical preprint here; "Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil." http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

I believe our work is both complimentary and consistent. You will have seen in the essay (which already over extends for the wordage) that I stop short of the cosmological consequences, but that I'm forced to debunk Eddington's view on diffraction, effectively convicting plasma ions, condensed from the Dark energy field or recycled (and repolarised) by Black Holes, as the culprit for gravitons and curved space time. Page 18 of 19th Feb New Scientist is very interesting.

A you'll gather from the above title, the logical conclusions agree conceptually with the big bounce, and find some good observational (photographic!!) evidence, but also provide a real, local quantum mechanism for sequential 'multiverses'. SR and GR fall neatly into place with QM. There are a surprising number of other consistent essays here, as well as Dan's I'd initially point you to Edwin Klingman, and see his in my threads. I feel it may be time for 'dissenters', which I believe most will still consider you are, to join up and co-support rather more.

I wish you luck here and will help with the score your bravery deserves, and hope you may feel the same of my own. One day you must explain the maths to me! do also please view and comment on my quite short preprint. I may not get to your others yet while reading essays!

Best wishes

Peter

    Dear Dr. Corda,

    Thanks for your response.You are thinking of which theory,General-Relativity (GR) or Extended Theory of GR (ETGR), stands the test of LISA/LIGO.But for me,it is GR which stands the test if the gravitational wave received is due to gravitational-interaction only.Because it is GR which is designed to explain the gravitational-interaction and it does explain it precisely.If the gravitational wave received confirms ETGR, then the wave sent is as a result of quantum-gravity (QG) effect by a Black-Hole (BH) and hence deviations from GR is to be expected as the metric of GR breaksdown.According to me,all BHs have same intrinsic space-time curvature irrespective of their mass and size (please go to my web-site which I have mentioned in my essay).I think it is the same intrinsic space-time curvature you are talking of in ETGR.According to my view,the arms of all spiral galaxies,which harbour super massive BHs, evolve at the same (constant) angle of nearly 60 degrees in the vicinity of accretion disc and this can be verified from the current data available.From this,the value of Immirzi parameter is also derived.

    Thanking you and best regards

    Sreenath B N.

      Dear Anton,

      if you do not agree with the Standard Big-Bang Model and you propose an alternative one, in my opinion your model has to explain two fundamental issues.

      1) The origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

      2) A way to avoid Singularity Theorems.

      Does your model of continuous creation process explain these two issues?

      Best regards,

      Ch.

      Dear Peter,

      which is the journal where you submitted your paper currently in formal review?

      Maybe SR and GR fall neatly into place with QM because Einstein was correct and the Final Theory has to be deterministic and not based on uncertainty...

      I agree that it may be time for 'dissenters', but it is important that physics remains rigorous and consistent with experiments and observations. Yes, I believe most will still consider me a 'dissenter', but I prefer the term 'Deterministic - Einstenian'.

      But I know that there are lots of people within the "mainstream physics" who are changing their positions.

      I am going to read page 18 of 19th Feb New Scientist and also to re-read your interesting Essay.

      Thanks for help me with the score you think I deserves, I will make the same with you.

      Cheers,

      Ch.

      Christian

      Thanks. You should read the essay slowly and ensure you take in the implications at each step, I may have understated them but believe they are quite 'earth shattering'. In fact they prove the postulates and principles, but show Einstein was forced to make a wrong 'stipulation'. A little trimming with Occams razor, and a bit more reshaping to QM, and we seem to have a full and falsifiable Quantum Mechanism with Local Reality to drive unified SR and GR. (and 100% deterministic, but with a natural uncertainty element built in, (which I'll have to explain as it's not included).

      The NS article is the one about 'atoms' which effectively bounce off the fine structure plasma not the surface itself. It tends to support a prediction I've shied away from making publicly, regarding precisely where the internal reflection mechanism happens,; outside not inside the surface!! That now needs an experiment!

      Do you fancy looking over a yet unpublished paper on plasma and refraction? Email the address on the essay if you do, or; peter.jackson53@ymail.com (I'll also let you know which PR journal there).

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Christian,

        I cannot help but be drawn to the following comment you gave to Anton:

        [ if you do not agree with the Standard Big-Bang Model and you propose an alternative one, in my opinion your model has to explain two fundamental issues.

        1) The origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

        2) A way to avoid Singularity Theorems.

        Does your model of continuous creation process explain these two issues? ]

        I think my alternative theory has answers for these.

        Also, you might find my own essay very interesting in relation to yours.

        Rafael

          I think that it might be spacetime is quantized only to the 7 loop level. The Calabi-Yau three form induces a Galois cohomology with quotient groups which give loop orders up to 7. There is a moduli for the class of elliptic curves for the qubit system, which leads to multiplicities on the Eisenstein series for string loops. These are the three fold elements 1, 2, 3, which out of 8 dimensions includes the dual to 7, 6 and 5, and self duality gives the 4.

          So the graviton, or the heterotic string will have and E_{7(7)} structure for up to 7 loops, and perturbative theory ends, it is cut off. So the graviton may in fact be a 4-fermion condensate or bound system, which in the N = 4 AdS^5xS^5 has an SU(4) structure. So it may be a bit like an extended QCD theory.

          One possibility is that the third polarization is an effective mass-state which ends perturbation theory.

          Cheers LC

          Dear Sreenath,

          actually, ETGR are designed to explain the gravitational-interaction at scales which are larger than the Solar System scale, where a weak modify of GR could be needed based on the presence of the intrinsic space-time curvature. Thus, if the gravitational wave received confirms ETGR, then the wave sent is not necessarily as a result of QG. Almost all the astrophysics sources can be treated in a classical way in ETGR exactly like in standard GR. Only the cosmological relic source of pages 8-9 of my Essay needs a quantum treatment. But notice that it needs such a quantum treatment not only in ETGR, but in standard GR too.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

          Dear Rafael,

          I have read your interesting Essay, but you do not discuss answers for the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the way to avoid Singularity Theorems.

          On the other hand, you explicitly tells that

          "there is the suggestion regarding how the process of gravitation occurs. But the discussions on these are beyond the scope of this essay."

          Thus, I think that such answers should arrive in further developments of the theory which will regard how the process of gravitation occurs.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

          Never indeed....but sometimes we see people who interprets bizarely the continuity of our pure reals.They insert also the 0 the - and the infinity in their domains for the physicality....that has no sense about the pure determinism in all localities.

          It's a big actual problem in the sciences community these confusions.Eckard has made a beautiful work about the rational road.We need that.

          Regards

          Steve

          Christian,

          Well reasoned, well argued.

          Personally, I hope you're wrong, because if all the properties of spacetime cannot be determined by matter alone, I think Einstein's program is imperiled rather than extended. I find it easier to live with a singularity than with an extra assumption, especially when it is purely geometric. I realize that you preserve dynamics between spacetime and matter (Table) though it seems to me a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

          In any case, though, good luck in the contest.

          Tom