• [deleted]

  • Post #61

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.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #65

      Dear Christan

      Could you please read comments to my Essay?

      Thank you for advance.

      Yuri

      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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #69

        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.

          Hi Yuri,

          I have read comments to your Essay.

          The discussion is interesting. I appreciate your comment "there is no religion, there is only physics". I agree, the two things must NEVER be confused.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #75

          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

          • [deleted]

          • Post #76

          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

            • [deleted]

            • Post #77

            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.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #80

            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