Continuous and Discrete Aspects of Nature by Vesselin Petkov

I read the "theory of heat radiation" by Plank and translated by Masius and the formulas and how Plank came up with the stuff you show it as though Plank used those formulas. My question is whether the "Theory of Heat Radiation" by Plank is the document in which he shows how he got quantization. Didn't Plank take Wien and Raleigh and Boltzmann and put them in his concept of black radiation. Is there another work of his that deals with the entropy of Einstein fields or G? Your formulas are correct and are expressions for Freedman universes or some kinds of universal entropy we recognize in our physics books. However, the roads to the Planck scale are different for Planck, but you imply that his was Adler's. I get your point but do not follow back from those formulas directly to Planck's work or what he "noticed" in his work. As an editor and writer would you make such a correction to reflect that we construct natural units and attribute them to Planck as Planck units based on his quantization hypothesis? It is important for me to know what a scientist notices and what is constructed afterwards. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Planck constructed those formulas. But if you have and more references for how that came to be characterized in 1899, I would like to know.

It was interesting to hear you explain how inertia of one object (a planet) is separate for the system of objects but that there is some greater generalization in terms of helicity or helix, but not dependent on the sun. The world tube is composite of geodesics? I have always assumed like Mach that inertia and spin etc. are all related, but wil we have the sensitivity yet to measure world tube differences? I always assumed that the vacuum encompasses all objects so that the true absolute free fall does not exist.

Hello,

Then, what is your answer to the question of the essay? I don't see any answers but only general and historic references going back to 20 centuries ago.

IMO, the objective of the essay contest is for providing a thesis against or for discrete or continuous and then try to support it. I don't think this essay contest deals with the philosophy and history of science.

I was really disappointed by this essay.

Dear Vesselin Petkov,

I went thro' your exhilerating essay with ease and enthusiasm but in the end was disappointed to know that you suggested no solution to quantize gravity.I urge you to go thro' my article and see how gravity is quantized.

best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

Dear Vesselin,

Thank you for your essay.

You write: ...The physics behind the two descriptions is fundamentally different - as gravity is either a force or a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime...

Let us assume, as I propose in my essay, that all interactions are not forces but a manifestation of the (exotic) curvature of spacetime? All troubles with physics are gone. This is really simple approach however being only a concept at the moment. How do you think: is it worth to try?

Jacek Safuta

Dear Mr Petkov

You write very clearly. Reading your essay, I also obtain one idea for my article. I will give there your reference:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf (I was late for this contest, so my ideas can be read here.)

Anyway, I claim that physics is quantized. But, I claim that elementary particles are statistical combinations of 0 and 1 Planck's mass (approximately said). Elementary particles are also nodes of space-time net. In my opinion space-time is emergent, similarly as a computer network is emergent.

But, I have not found anyone on this contest who cited Zeilinger-Brukner, whoose claim that information is very small volume is finite. Probably I have different taste for physical theories. :)

So there fails still your opinion whether information on a small piece of space is finite or infinite, although your space-time is infinite.

Regards

p.s.

I have also an article, which is not speculative and it is a base for the above article:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v3.pdf There are also additional claims about connections between matter and space-time. I need someone who will be the arxiv endorser for this article. So that I will get opportunity, that my theories will be discussed.

I have also essay on FQXI from one year ago:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/571

Your paper is interesting. I wrote a paper

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/810

which discusses the interrelationship between discrete and continuous structures. I am not sure if you will find this commensurate with yours.

The Planck scale does not in my opinion means space is discrete. I think it means this is the smallest region one can localize a quantum bit.

Cheers LC

Dear Vesselin,

You excellently reminded of Feynman's mysticism and tried to overcome it by a more cautious consideration. In the end I did not yet see serious consequences while your will perhaps not hurt anybody.

My essay in combination with what I today replied on desynchronization to Georgina Parry in my thread 833 causes a lot of opposition from virtually all mathematicians and physicists. I cannot expect immediate acceptance. You are invited to accept the challenge and refute my reasoning even after the contest has finished.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Vesselin,

Someone suggested me to read your essay a few weeks ago. I wish I had taken the advice and read it earlier. I like the way you reasoned the discreteness of a particle's existance in time based on experimental facts and logical deduction.

In my essay, "A Connectivity Theory of Space and Time", I proposed an explanation for the apparent discreteness of particle trajectories. Based on the postulates of the proposed theory, a world line becomes a collection of "world points". Since it closely resembles some of your conclusions, I think you may be interested to review the essay.

Honda

Dear Vesselin,

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

Congratulations for your win!