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Do you fancy looking over a yet unpublished paper on plasma and refraction?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

        Dear Dr. Corda,

        My theory can explain the curvature of spacetime Physically, but not mathematically. It seems logically argued that the increasing in concentration of holes can slow down time, because in the limiting case, when space is composed of holes only, the time can not exist in general, because all space would be a ''large hole''. There is no duration and extension outside of the Universe.

        Since you are a mathematical physicist who works in the research fields of gravitation, maybe you have any idea how to create the mathematical theory of the space curvature by using holes. In such case our theories meet - Your intrinsic spacetime curvature is just a consequence of appearance of holes in spacetime. I think how to introduce holes in Einstein field equations.

        Sincerely,

        Constantin

        Dear Tom,

        thanks for your kindness and for your comments.

        In my opinion, Einstein's ideas are not imperiled. In fact, there is not an extra assumption, but a modified assumption. It is assumed that the relation between mass-energy and space-time curvature is not equal, but the curvature dominates. The theory remains metric, thus the preserving dynamics between space-time and matter is not a putting the cart before the horse but it implies that the elegant Einsteinian geometrical vision of gravitation remains in the new framework too.

        On the other hand, let me emphasize that Einstein also tried to modify General Relativity in the last years of his life.

        Good luck in the contest to you too.

        Cheers,

        Ch.

        Dear Mr. Leshan,

        thanks for your comment.

        In my opinion, mathematics is the language of physics, thus, we cannot separate them. This is even more important in the Einsteinian geometrical vision of gravitation.

        In any case, if you write a manuscript where you find the way to introduce holes in Einstein field equations, I invite you to send me the paper for a submission for potential publication in the Open Astronomy Journal which is one of the journals where I am Editor in Chief.

        Best regards,

        Ch.

        Christian,

        Very true. I guess I look at it more from the perspective of Einstein as a true classical physicist, wanting to have all the properties of spacetime determined by matter, using some version of Mach's mechanics. That's what he was brought up with, that's what he knew so intimately.

        He didn't grow up with Riemannian manifolds; he was introduced to them when stuck for a geometry that fits the dynamics. A curvature that's prior to the physics seems a bit like "cheating." I mean, the curve might facilitate inertia in a quasi-Euclidean universe, but curvature without inertia requires no dynamics. It really is more epistemologically satisfying, as Einstein said, to not have to introduce geometry to explain mechanics. I'm with Fotini Markopoulou on the proposition that "space does not exist, so time can." Mach's mechanics also treats space as a convenient fiction.

        So the reason I hope you are wrong is merely philosophical, not physical. You still did one great job of theorizing.

        Best,

        Tom

        6 days later

        Dear Christian Corda

        I see that your work is a big project.

        I think that this theory is written in Feynman's lectures on gravity. Are there any differences in your approach? Is this theory background independent, that means that Minkowki space is not the background metric? I have forgotten, but it seems to me that it is background independent? (The backgroud independeny is so important as measurement agreements of GR.) How it is then with quantization of such a theory? Does it give space-time lattice or..?

        I have one theory where elementary particles are superpositions of zero and planck mass black holes. Maybe you have and opinion?

        http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf

        I need an endorser on arXiv for publication of my article:

        http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v3.pdf

        It is not speculative one. It is a base for the above article. But the above article is speculative. But I need such a publication that my theories will be read and discussed.

        Yours sincerely

          Dear Janko,

          thanks for you kindness and for your good judgement on my work.

          There are two points of view concerning gravitation: the Einstein's geometric point of view and the Feynman's particle point of view. The Quantum Gravity Theory, if it will be ultimately find, should be the definitive synthesis of them.

          Actually, my research work is based on Einstein's geometric point of view. Which is the correct background metric depends from the scale of the intrinsic curvature. If the scale is not too large the Minkowkian flat space-time remains the background space-time. In fact, Equivalence principle is preserved, thus the space-time, even if globally curve, remains locally flat.

          I regret, I am not an expert of elementary particles and of Feynman's particle point of view, thus, I cannot judge your papers.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

          Dear Dr. Corda,

          congrats for standing 18th on the list and in sight of an assured prize.

          An article I have written on Quantum-Gravity viz. 'New coceptual Foundations for Quantum-Gravity And Quantum-Mechanics' (I have mentioned this in my essay and there I have given the web-site address too ;'http://www.sreenath.webs.com').I want to send it to you for reviewing and would be glad if you accept it for publication in the journal edited by you.In this article,I have derived the basic equation of GR from the basic equation of QG in tensor form.

          Thanking you and looking forward to hearing from you.

          Sreenath.

            Dear Sreenath,

            thanks for your congrats.

            I do not know if I will have an assured prize, this will be judged by the expert panel of judges which will be instructed and I have a total respect in FQXi's merit system.

            You can send me your Quantum-Gravity paper for reviewing at my email

            cordac.galilei@gmail.com

            Cheers,

            Ch.

            Dear Christian,

            Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

            Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

            Best wishes,

            Alan

            Dear Alan,

            thanks for congratulations.

            Regarding your questions, the fundamental point is that the calculations of the red shift, the time delay in radar echoes from planets,the bending of light, the perihelion shift, and the geodesic effect all support the 'fabric' of spacetime. Can your Archimedes screw model for the graviton explain with the same extraordinary precision these astrophysical tests? If the answer is yes you should continue studies in this direction, if the answer is no, then I suggest you to decline.

            Cheers,

            Ch.