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.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #88

    Dear Dr. Corda

    1) This essay is the description of the UNSUCCESSFUL attempt to solve the problems of gravity: I see no signs that your ETG with intrinsic space-time curvature may explain inertia, mass and unify Gravity with other forces. Does the description of the UNSUCCESSFUL attempt to solve the problems of gravity deserve the prize? In the same way we can support all authors of the Extended Theories of Gravity with similar papers.

    2) According to FQXi rules: ''the essays shall be accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature''. Dr. Corda's essay is too hard to understand for non-specialists and contain too much equations and professional jargon. For example: ''a function of scalar fields in Scalar-Tensor Theories, Ricci curvature scalar, matrix elements, Klein-Gordon equation'' and so on.

    3) About 90 percents of the essay is filled with generally known information about Extended Theories of Gravity, gravitation waves, history of science and so on. Thus, the most part of the essay's physics information was copied from the references. For example he wrote: ''The scientific community hopes in a first direct detection of GWs in next years'' ''From a historical point of view, Einstein believed that'', ''The necessity to produce a correct Quantum Gravity Theory came into existence at the end of 50's of last century''. The essay filled with such information is not original, it is a story about physics and unsuccessful attempts to understand gravity.

    4) This essay has nothing to do with our essay contest because I don't see any speculations about the digital-analog nature of the Universe. In fact Dr. Corda sent us his professional theory by adding only the words ''analog-digital'' to the title of the essay.

    Sincerely,

    Constantin

      Dear Mr. Leshan,

      in all honesty, I am very surprised for this new strong attack. In fact, in your previous message you discussed on a possible collaboration on introducing your holes in Einstein field equations.

      Thus, I am ABSOLUTELY SURE that your new attack is purely personal and due to the fact that your essay is # 157, and, as my Essay is # 18, there are 139 positions between yours and mine...

      In any case, I am very honoured for this new attack by you. It is well known that you are a person who, as the Scientific Community rejects his strange theories, attacks recognized results. This means that I wrote a good Essay, thus, dear Mr. Leshan, THANKS A LOT!!!

      I am going to reply to your attack but this is the last time that I discuss with you because I am interested only in discussions on science, not in lowest discussions and brawls.

      1) I do not attempt to solve all the problems of gravity, I limit myself to discuss intermediate steps like the extension of General Relativity and/or the quantization of Extended Theories in the weak field approximation.

      Even if I agree with you that the complete theory of gravitational interaction must be able to explain inertia, mass and to unify Gravity with other forces in the same model, differently from you, I am not so arrogant and presumptuous to claim that I can find, alone, the complete theory of gravitational interaction. If Albert Einstein and others world's greatest scientists did not find this theory in about 100 years of scientific research, I am absolutely sure that I will not find it being alone!! If you thinks to realize alone such a goal is a problems of yours, not a problems of mine!! Send your "hole theory" to Nature or to Physical Review Letters or to the Gravity Research Foundation Competition, if you are correct you will won the Nobel Prize!!!

      I limit myself to try to give small contributions towards such a goal by following a way that could be the correct one.

      I do not know if my contribution deserves or does not deserve the 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. Maybe you can support all authors of the Extended Theories of Gravity with similar papers, but I am not interested on your support, at the present time I am interested in the judgement of the FQXi's expert panel of judges. On the other hand, others authors of the Extended Theories of Gravity gave different contributions with respect to my original contribution.

      2) Maybe my essay is too hard to understand for you, but surely it can be understood by diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature. In fact, the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature can comprise terms like ''a function of scalar fields in Scalar-Tensor Theories, Ricci curvature scalar, matrix elements, Klein-Gordon equation''. It is well know that various Essays which were awarded in previous FQXi Essay Contests comprised terms like those. What is really important is that there are not high technical computations which use such terms in my Essay. If you do not understands those terms is a problem of yours, not a problem of readers. A non-specialist person like a student who is starting the University, surely understands my Essay. FQXi's Authors who honoured myself with the position # 18 of this Essay Contest SURELY understand my Essay differently from you.

      3) You should read ALL the FQXi rules. In fact, according to them: "While the essay may or may not constitute original research, if the core ideas are largely contained in published works, those works should be the author's."

      It is correct that the most part of the essay's physics information was taken from the references, but these papers were MY PAPERS, published in various international peer-reviewed journals.

      4) I am not so arrogant and presumptuous to claim that the reality is digital, analog, or digital-analog. Even in this case, I recall you that Albert Einstein and others world's greatest scientists did not find the correct answer to this issue in about 100 years of scientific research. Thus, I prefer limit myself to suggest a potential detectable signal, i.e. the relic gravitational waves, which could clarify the digital rather than analog feature of the gravitational interaction. This is absolutely sufficient for me.

      In my opinion, at the present time and at the present status of our scientific knowledge, nobody can claim, with an absolute certainty, that Reality is surely Digital, or surely Analog or surely Digital-Analog. Of course, people have various opinions on this fundamental issue and I respect all the various opinions. I have an opinion too, but I think this is NOT really important. What I think to be really important, at the present status of our scientific knowledge, is the way in which one attempts to arrive to a potential answer to the question, not the question itself.

      I interpreted this beautiful Essay Contest in this spirit and with this spirit I wrote my Essay.

      Best wishes for your "hole theory", even if I think it will be very very difficult that some serious journal of some serious Essay Contest will seriously consider it...

      Best regards,

      Ch.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #90

      Dear Dr. Corda,

      You write: ''I am going to reply to your attack''. I saw already your attack on my page; I have a deep suspicion that Darth Sidious is your nickname, I recognize your handwriting and stile. You are able to attack my page with unproven declarations only.

      ''as the Scientific Community rejects his strange theories, attacks recognized results'' Our majority vote is not qualified to rate scientific theories; A lot of authors vote 10 for the friends and 1 for the Enemy. Since I criticize all papers therefore I'll have low ratings always. In order to have high ratings the author must praise all essays. The science without criticism is not Science. Such majority vote never supports the new advanced theory. I can show you some erroneous essays with high ratings, it mean the Majority is not qualified.Also, people rated by ''good'' some leading essays but I found important errors there. It means our Majority vote is not qualified to rate the scientific essays. Therefore, if the Majority vote rejects ''his strange theories'' it proves nothing. Also, the people rated by ''good'' your essay only because it looks scientifically and have mathematics and professional jargon. However, it is the description of the UNSUCCESSFUL attempt to solve the problems of gravity; it is a story about physics only.

      Sincerely,

      Constantin

        Dear Mr. Leshan,

        in all honesty and for the last time, I have not the time to go on your page and attacking you. As I have decided to read the Essays in the order of the Community Ratings it will be very very difficult for me arriving to your one... Maybe there is someone with handwriting and stile similar to mine, but this is not a problem of mine. Really, I am not interested in your Essay and in reading and posting comments in your page.

        In any case, again, thank you very very much for your attack. An attack from a person like you implies that my Essay is a good work. Thanks for your interest in my work, I am sure your criticisms will be favourable for me.

        Please, stop here this discussion, I am not interested in further discussing with you. I am interested only in scientific discussions.

        Best wishes,

        Ch.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #92

        Dear Dr. Corda,

        I trust you and your new family are doing well.

        Have you ever taken a ferry across the Adriatic to visit the Croatian coast? It is very nice, but then I have never been to Italy.

        Firstly, thank you for such an informative essay. In particular you mention 'Unified Theory which could, in principle, show the fundamental interactions as different forms of the same symmetry'.

        Even though my essay did not make it to 'the finalists' stage I was hoping you could take a few moments to read "Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics?"

        Unlike your own approach of extending GR, the approach I take is to derive a 'Unified Theory' referred to as 'the Light', which has implications for all of physics. In relation to GR it solves the 'foundational problem' of reconciling the Equivalence Principle and the non-uniformity of gravity (tidal gravity).

        At this point you probably wish you were on holiday somewhere, so please allow me to mention that my essay is very short, devoid of speculation, and mathematically trivial. The focus is upon foundations alone with 'the Light' being the first necessary foundation.

        Kind regards,

        Robert

        Dear Robert,

        thanks for your kind message.

        I trust you and your family are doing well too, thanks a lot!!

        After reading your interesting Essay, I have to tell you that, even if I totally agree with your geometric Einsteinian vision of physics, I need some clarifications.

        1) You claims that your theory solves the "foundational problem" of reconciling the Equivalence Principle and the non-uniformity of gravity (tidal gravity). Actually, the non-uniformity of gravity is a global property, while the Equivalence Principle has a local nature, thus, in my opinion, there is not contradiction. Tidal forces emerge exactly when deviations from locality are present. In geometric terms, space-time is locally flat (absence of gravitation and validity of Equivalence Principle) but globally curve (presence of gravitation and non-validity of Equivalence Principle). Thus, in my opinion it is not correct claiming that "Einstein (unrealistically) ignored the non-uniformity of Gravity" but, in an opposite sense, this is exactly the step between Special Relativity and General Relativity in order to realize a relativistic theory of gravitation, i.e. Einstein well understood the non-uniformity of Gravity. On the other hand, in my opinion your Equivalence Identity a=g is only another expression of the Equivalence Principle. More, also mG=mI a priori is only another expression of the Equivalence Principle.

        2) Your claims that "relative velocity between matter and antimatter must equal c(2)1/2" and you invoke the Pythagora's Theorem. In my opinion this is not correct. This relation violates Special Relativity and, being velocities, you are using not the Pythagora's Theorem but the classical Galileo's transformation on the sum of velocities which is not correct in relativistic treatments.

        3) Which is the role of Uncertainty Principle in your Theory?

        Cheers,

        Ch.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #94

          Dear Dr. Corda,

          I truly appreciate you taking the time to read my paper.

          I will answer your questions in order.

          1) The first answer is based upon a reply I gave to Peter Jackson on my thread. Bare with me if it is long winded!

          Freely falling frames anywhere in our real, gravity-endowed Universe, are equivalent to inertial frames in an idealised, gravity-free universe. The problem is that Einstein ignored tidal gravity, and 'justified' this by insisting that the reference frame be very small. However, Hans Ohanian (H.C. Ohanian, "What Is the Principle of Equivalence?" American Journal of Physics 45 (1977):903-909) has shown that tidal effects persist even when the object in question is arbitrarily small. An observer in a freely falling elevator could in principle deduce that he is in a gravitational field by detecting tidal bulges in a liquid drop. In other words inertial (gravity-free) frames do not in principle exist.

          Here is how my theory addresses this problem.

          Frames of reference in which Newton's first law (law of inertia) holds are

          inertial frames.

          Newton's three laws of motion:

          1) First law (law of inertia): Every body continues in its state either of rest or of moving uniformly unless acted upon by a net force (F=0). (What about the force of gravity?)

          2) Second law: The rate of change of the momentum of a body is proportional to the force acting and takes place in the direction of that force (F=dp/dt=ma).

          3) Third law: Forces are caused by the interaction of pairs of bodies. The force exerted by A upon B and the force exerted by B upon A are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction (F=-F).

          Laws 2 contains all of Newton's laws of motion as shown, and the laws of motion were necessary for Newton's 'discovery' of the 'force of gravity' to correctly account for Kepler's 3 laws.

          Now, Law 2 is what we get when we 'mathematically differentiate' Newton's definition of momentum p=mv. Thus Newton's laws of motion, and hence law of Gravity, ultimately depend upon the 'existence' of p=mv! In my paper I have shown that p=mv disappears of its own accord, given the de Broglie equation, and consistently that F=ma disappears to leave us with a = g, given 'the Light'. Thus the absence of Newtonian mechanics means inertial frames ARE fictitious. What then of SR? In the subatomic realm, where gravity (space-time 'curvature') is negligible, 'the Light' supersedes SR. Both 'the Light' and a = g (the foundations of Relativity) NECESSITATE the observer detect tidal bulges in a liquid drop!

          2) The second question I will answer in terms of the following question: How does 'the Light' account for the generally observed matter/antimatter asymmetry?

          Since visualisation is difficult we will consider the scalar time dimension alone. Now suppose we have two Universes moving along time axes that are perpendicular to each other (t an ti). If each gradation on the t axis represents one second and each gradation on the ti axis represents i seconds, then the two universe's are moving along their axes at the rate of one gradation per second (Hence Pythagoras' theorem with hypotenuse root-2). Now if 'matter' is one aspect of 'the Light' then it must be moving at speed c, and this must hold true even if that 'matter' is at rest relative to an observer. Thus we now have the 'distance' ct, and the hypotenuse of Pythagoras' theorem is c(root-2). This is consistent with Special Relativity, for if we use the reciprocal of the time dilation formula with v=c(root-2) then the number of seconds t′ passing for antimatter, relative to the viewpoint of the observer is i. Finally, what justification do we have in supposing another universe? If we consider the 'total energy of a photon' with the velocity in the range c

          • [deleted]

          • Post #95

          Continue....

          If we consider the 'total energy of a photon' with the velocity in the range c

          • [deleted]

          • Post #96

          continue....

          If we consider the 'total energy of a photon' with the velocity in the range c

            • [deleted]

            • Post #97

            Dear Dr. Corda,

            For some reason I cannot complete my reply on your thread. Therefore I will send the reply to your email.

            Kindest of regards,

            Robert

            • [deleted]

            • Post #98

            Dear Dr. Corda,

            I have read the essence of your essay and want to share my thoughts about the intrinsic space-time you have mentioned. If we were to replace space-time with our self (universal I or conscience) we will be able to understand the universe. Please find "Theory of everything" that I have submitted in this contest at your convenience.

            Conscience is the cosmological constant

            Love,

            Sridattadev.

              Dear Sridattadev,

              I read your "Theory of everything" and I think it is a philosophical theory than a physical theory. Differently from your theory, a physical theory has to be rigorously derived through mathematical equations. As I am a mathematical physicist than a philosopher of science, I cannot judge your theory. I suggest you to send it to some journal of philosophy of science.

              Best regards,

              Ch.

              Dear Christian,

              It's a definite "yes"! I'm making progress dayly..remember where you heard it first.

              Kind regards,

              Alan

              Christian

              Interesting conversation with Florin going on, on the Essay Blog. I'm inclined to go with you for publication of the Chromatic Dispersion paper anyway, but it really does need some re-writing first, and I can now be less subtle on the inequalities issue. You mentioned an asst editor, if you'd like to get him to look and comment please do.

              Best of luck with the judges.

              Peter

                • [deleted]

                • Post #102

                A close friend of mine has informed me of your insolence to associate my GR with your essay. As you know very well, I find your work lacking any physical validity and think that the mathematical rigor glows by its absence.

                I urge you to immediately rectify the many erroneous statements attributed to GR in your Essay and to publish what I actually said about your work, as well as about the books and papers that you sent me.

                • [deleted]

                • Post #103

                Dude, did you even read Eistein work?

                The real Albert Einstein told: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

                The sentence of this fake shows that the real Albert Einstein was very correct...

                Dear Peter,

                as the peer-review process of a scientific paper is a very hard work, I prefer to wait that you will send me the final form of your paper before sending it to the asst editor.

                Cheers,

                Ch.

                • [deleted]

                • Post #106

                Dear Dr. Corda,

                As I have not heard back from you, you either went to Croatia for a holiday, or my answers were too long or unclear. :) In case it happens to be the second, please allow me to clarify further.

                1) Einstein's equivalence principle means that we cannot experimentally distinguish between acceleration and a *uniform* gravitational field. But no such *uniform* gravitational field exists in reality. That is, Einstein unrealistically ignored the *non-uniformity* of gravity, for even an arbitrarily small reference frame cannot ignore that non-uniformity according to Ohanian's paper.

                2) The velocity of matter is c in *its* rest frame, and is spatially separated from antimatter by c(root-2) - the hypotenuse of Pythagoras' triangle. This 'absolute relationship' is consistent with Special Relativity, for if that matter is at rest relative to the observer we can ask how many seconds t' passes for antimatter if the observer counts t = 1 second, and the reciprocal of the time-dilation formula gives us t' = i. Clearly the 'absolute relationship' holds true even if that matter is not at rest relative to the observer.

                3) If there is any uncertainty with respect to the position and momentum of matter, it will be due to the nature of matter, rather than *assuming* Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

                I hope that answers your questions. :)

                All the best to you and your family,

                Robert