From Classical (Analog) to Quantum (Digital) Gravity: The Mystery of Space-Time Curvature and the Secret of the Origin of Mass-Energy by Christian Corda

Dear Christian,

I have found your papers to pioneer in the development of the promising and innovative GUT and the first that share my view on the dark matter and energy and on the other hand I feel you could make a few steps forward in the same direction. I am sorry for these words. I will try to explain.

I have just read your "oscillating universe" on arXive that you have recommended to Steve. I do not understand all the intricacies of the paper due to my partial incompetence in mathematics. I agree with the idea in general and the approach to oscillating universe in the expansion phase.

Are you acquainted with Sladkowski J. Strongly gravitating empty spaces. arXiv:gr-qc/9906037v1?

He writes: on some topologically trivial spaces there exist only "complicated" solutions to the Einstein equations. By this we mean that there may be no stationary cosmological model solutions and/or that empty space can gravitate. Such solutions are counterintuitive but we are aware of no physical principle that would require rejection of such spacetimes.

I fully agree. This is the step in the right direction.

However later on he writes: Suppose that space-time is only a secondary entity emerging as a result of interactions between physical (matter) fields.

And in this case I think it is vice versa.

Finally there is my point. Could you use your approach to the spacetime but make it scale invariant? I mean up to the h scale? I mean to elementary particles? And you should see all interactions unified. Maybe a GUT?

Best regards,

Jacek

Dear Dr. Corda,

I went thro' your lucid essay with ease and entusiasm.The theme of your essay is too clear.But what is perplexing for me is,what makes you shyaway from quantizing gravity/acceleration straight away and try to formulate successful theory of quantum-gravity sothat you can unify all four physical forces? For how to do it,please go through my essay and I hope you will find the solution there.So Iam interested to know how you react to my essay.

Best regards and wishing success in the competition.

Sreenath B N

Hello to both of you,

Thanks Christian.It's really interesting all that.I ask me also the real meaning of quazars for exampple.or how the photons rotates on the time line since the primorial dynamic.If these quazars are correlated with the expansion, let's assume a critic point of density where the contraction begins.

Is it possible to detect this point if we take the ancient rotations of spherical volumes(now of course it's perhaps in the future).The decalage in the red is relevant if the rotations around an universal center and around many centers are inserted.

I think really that spherical volumes increasing towards the center are very important.In fact these galaxies and super groups and mega groups ...can be classed in their pure evolution, logically the mass increases and we can thus see also the frequences of hv.But only if a topological spherical universe, closed and evolutive is inserted with its evolution.In logic we could see the acceleration, deceleration, critic point, acceleration, deceleartion, equilibrium point (mass) the gravitational wves correlated with rotating spheres(quantic and cosmologic) are relevant atmy humble opinion, if we consider the uniqueness and its entropy, thus the number seems important in its pure finite universal serie of decreasing of volumes.If we link with the classments of hubble, we can see the evolution of rotations of spheres and thus the spherization.The volumes seem a key for a classment of gropus and super groups....and the center the biggest volume.

Best Regards

Steve

Christian,

You have flattered me with your offer. Although, I'm not exactly sure what a novice like me could offer the partnership other than some good ideas. I'm sure that you have forgotten more physics than I ever knew! :) I do believe in my cosmological model and I have a few other deeply held, yet undoubtably controversial views, but as I told Jason Wolfe on one of the blog forums, you can't change the world without at least a little controversy now and then.

Cheers,

Dan

quote:

Various problems of the Dark Universe, like Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Pioneer anomaly, can be, in principle, solved through this approach, while a definitive endorsement for the effective existence of an intrinsic space-time curvature in our Universe could arrive from the realization of a consistent gravitational wave astronomy.

end of quote

What do you mean by a "realization of a consistent gravitational wave astronomy ' ?

Thanks

Quote:

Thus, variations of space-time curvature which

generate the production of mass-energy through Eq. (4) result quantized in the relic Universe and

such a quantization generates a number of primordial particles which is given by Eq. (13).

Then, the eective detection of these relic particles (waves) will be a denitive

endorsement for the Digital (Quantum) rather than Classical (Analog) feature of the

gravitational interaction.

end of quote

I have no problem with digital formulation of the particles. What I brought up in my essay was what was the condition of space time prior to formulation of such particles.

In what I wrote, the digital regime was due to embedding of space time / quantum mechanics within a larger non linear theory. AKA t'Hoofts idea of deterministic quantum mechanics.

If that could be done, in the pre Planckian regime, could the process of embedding of space time then becomes an ANALOG process, with a synthesis of reality becoming digital at the end of the flattening of space time?

I would appreciate a serious resonse to this querry

Andrew Beckwith

Could you please address if you think that particles, of any shape or form could survive a big bang/ big bounce or what have you ?

I.e. could a graviton survive a transition from a prior to the present universe?

Dear Christian,

If in a cloud of hydrogen gas or plasma, particles behave in such a manner that they always feel an equally strong force from all directions, if the force on a particle from one direction, from its own cloud can only increase as it increases as much from the opposite direction, from neighboring clouds, then such clouds can only contract in concert. The energy exchange between the particles within the cloud then increases as much as their exchange with particles of neighboring clouds. The energy of the particles increases, the frequency they oscillate at, alternately borrow and lend energy from and to each other, so the cloud heats up as it contracts to a star. Whereas before their contraction, the position of the mass center of the clouds wasn't very well defined so gravity from any cloud was very weak, the position of their mass centers, their distance becomes less indefinite as they contract. Though this increased mass should lead to an increased gravity, the contraction also increases the gravitational field, its gradient. So if a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, then the distance between the stars in statu nascendi as measured within their gravitational field increases as they contract. However, since their distance as measured outside their field, as calculated from their positions with respect to surrounding stars doesn't change very much, gravity from these stars in statu nascendi seems to decrease, so we assume that stars burn their mass, loose mass even if we ignore things like solar flares.

In a self-creating universe, however, the energy of the particles increases (agreeing with the uncertainty principle) as they contract, so the mass of the stars should increase as well, which it does. As a greater mass, a stronger gravity from the stars is counteracted by an increased distance as measured within their field, we erroneously assume their mass to decrease as they contract since we can only measure, calculate their distance from their positions with respect to more distant stars. It is the continuous energy exchange between the particles, combined with the fact that an energy increase tends to conserve itself in time (unlike a decrease), which powers this combined contraction and expansion. The greater the mass of an object, the greater its part in the creation process is, the stronger its (weak) gravity is. Like stars, galaxies only can contract in concert: as the energy of the galaxies increases as they contract to cluster, at the same time expanding spacetime between the clusters, we say that the universe expands.

This expansion mechanism differs fundamentally from the Big Bang tale according to which the motion of the clusters originates in an explosion, to be slowed down in time by gravity. When this was not observed, when instead, clusters proved to accelerate away from each other, a new theory had to be invented to repair another fatal flaw of the bang hypothesis: dark energy. You see that this nonsense isn't necessary in a self-creating universe which automatically produces the observed homogeneity and isotropy we see, the expansion of which obviously cannot decelerate.

The price we pay for believing in the naïve, religious view on the universe the bigbang tale represents is very high as it affirms our classical, false notion that particles only are the source of their interactions. By clinging to the bigbang tale, to the idea that particle properties are independent from their interactions, we make them incomprehensible. The result is that we condemn ourselves to invent unnecessary, nonsensical hypotheses and theories like cosmic inflation, string theory and fictitious (Higgs) particles. Being the product of fundamental misconceptions, intended to solve (or weep under the carpet) the many problems and inconsistencies of the bang tale, such theories and particles are part of the problem, not of its solution. The result is that one contradictory theory breeds the next inconsistent theory to appear consistent itself. As the bigbang scenario cannot explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, it needs an inflation theory to repair this fundamental flaw. This theory, in turn, cannot answer fundamental questions as to its mechanism, who/what determined the time to start the inflation, its rate, and when to stop. I'm sure someone will come up with a theory to 'explain' this, a theory which as it embroiders on a deeply flawed idea, in turn will evoke more questions than it solves, complicating matters even worse. I like to think that my essay offers a way out of the present stalemate.

Regards, Anton

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