The Advaitha ( Non-Dualism ) Of Digital & Analog Nature Of Reality by Sreenath B N

Dear Ray Munroe,

Thanks for your openion on my article.Since the path described in the QG field is logarithmic (or equiangular)spiral path as it is an exponentially varying accelerated (or gravity) field.So your openion that it is related to Golden ratio is justified.Iam also surprised to learn that the ratio of Č/C Лњ 10-21 is related to Dirac's Large Number 10^41.

In the limited space available in the essay contest,I couldn't,present my complete views on QG field and Black-Holes (BH).So for this,please,go to my web-site which I have mentioned in my essay (http://www.sreenath.webs.com).

Regarding BH,a BH can never be a static object for it is a pure state of vacuum surrounded by densest matter whose mass is related to the radius of BH.That is why matter cannot be crushed to singularity as to be expected from GR,because it is the force of QG which dominates inside the BH and GR just stops when matter attains its gravitational radius.The metric of GR breaksdown and gravitation is takenover by the brute force of QG.The force of QG is 'diabolically' active and never allows the BH to remain static but fluctuate periodically.There is still more to it but for now it is enough.

Since QG force is an exponentially varying accelerated (or gravity) field which implies torsion and when torsion vanishes the field becomes uniformly accelerated field (i.e.,gravitation as described by GR), away from the BH.

Wishing you too good luck in the essay contest .

cheers

Sreenath B N.

Dear Sreenath,

I like your torsion quantum gravity idea. It reminds me of Edwin Eugene Klingman's "C" GEM-like field taken to the extreme example of a Black Hole singularity.

A fullere-like near-torus (the homotopic cousin to a pair of nested buckyballs - I still need to cut up a couple of soccer balls so that I can envision this near-toroidal lattice) of spacetime lattice might behave as the gravitational equivalent of a superconductor and repeal Gravitational fields. After all, Carbon Buckyballs have electrical superconductor properties and can repel Electric fields.

In addition, stars usually have a rotational spin. As they collapse into Black Holes, conservation of Angular Momentum should cause the Black Hole to spin faster as its effective radius decreases.

Perhaps the combination of spin/ torsion, quantum gravity, and/or gravitational-superconductor effects prevent the Black Hole from fully collapsing into the singularity point.

Earlier, I was worrying about the transition from a quantum lattice of spacetime to a continuously differentiable spacetime. The answer could be as simple as qubits of strings (Philip Gibbs and Lawrence Crowell's essays are recommended reading) - where the near-singularity end of the string behaves like a quantum lattice point, and the strings extend outwards (a logarithmic spiral is an effective way to overcome these scale differences) through the Event Horizon, and into our relatively flat realm of spacetime.

I have enjoyed bouncing ideas off of other contestants. Perhaps we can collectively build ideas that may help solve old problems. As an individual, I run out of ideas in my own little world.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Sir,

We had gone through your analytical descriptions.

How do you define space, time, space-time and the 'gaps' or 'discontinuities' in the space and time? Both space and time are related to sequence - the order of arrangement. The interval between objects is space and the interval between events is time. We measure these intervals with a standard unit that is easily intelligible and fairly repetitive and call the result space and time measurement. Thus, space and time are nothing but 'gaps' or 'discontinuities' between objects and events. Since these intervals are segments of the analog space and time (which are infinite) they cannot be described by comparison with themselves. Hence we use alternative symbolism of objects and events and call it as space and time. You also agree with the above concept when you say that: "Space in itself and Time in itself have no meaning." Both being infinite, they could only co-exist, but not as a four dimensional space-time manifold due to the following reasons:

The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other "theories" relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book. Since time does not fit in this description, it is not a dimension.

We have commented elaborately in various threads in this forum, specifically those under the essays of Mr. Castel, Mr. Granet, and others that special relativity is a wrong description of facts. Here we quote from Einstein's 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and offer our comments. He says:

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Here clock at A is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation.

The concepts of equivalence and general relativity are also wrong. Newton accepted the absolute space where the Earth and the apple are stationary and gravity pulled the apple towards the Earth. This concept is wrong, because pulling is physically impossible. What we call pull is actually a push from the opposite direction. So what pushed the apple? Einstein also thought that both the Earth and the apple are stationary, but the space between them "curved", so that the apple appeared to touch Earth with a corresponding increase of space between the apple and its stem. Just like while traveling in a boat the stationary trees appear to be moving in the opposite direction, the apparent motion (curvature) of space appears as gravity pulling the apple. There is no way to distinguish between the two descriptions: Whether the intervening space curved or the apple actually fell. But this is a wrong description of facts. Equivalence principle is valid only to the extent that for every action that induces inertia of motion, there is an equal reaction in the opposite direction due to the inertia of restoration (elasticity). When the results of these inertias are linearly perceptible, they are equivalent to the Newton's third law. But when they are non-linear, they appear as different forces of Nature. Just like there are ways of finding out whether the boat is moving or the trees are moving, similarly, there are ways to know whether the curvature of space is the right description or there are other explanations. We have an alternative explanation.

We treat the field as absolute and particles are confined fields. We have a detailed mechanism for this which we are not discussing now. As we have described elsewhere, when some object is placed in a field, the object experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the nature of such interaction, the force is classified into different groups. The particles don't interact with each other directly. Each interacts with the field, which, in turn gets modified locally due to such interaction. When other particles interact with this modified field, they experience a different force than that they would have experienced in the absence of the other particle. This is what we call the effect of one particle interacting with the other particle or how the particle "sees" the other particle. It is dependent on the distance between the two also (not alone). But what we measure is not observer independent. The location of the observer with reference to the particle introduces different uncertainties changing the values for the observer, though apparently it does not affect how a particle evolves in time (it affect in other subtle ways). There is no way to isolate the particles and measure their energy independently.

Due to the principles of inertia described above, densities of the mediums induce motion. This motion of the field has been wrongly described by Einstein as the curvature of the space. The first law of quantum gravity can be derived from this principle. This also shows why velocity of light is the limiting velocity for all macro particles.

Once a force is applied to a particle, it is displaced. Thereafter, the force ceases to operate on it and the body moves on inertia, which, in the absence of other forces, is its constant velocity. A body can be accelerated only if some other force acts on it. But again, it will move on inertia at constant velocity at the next moment. But the motion of the Universal field being the highest (because its density is the lowest), all bodies are affected by it uniformly. This proves the constancy of the velocity of light in space. Since other particles are subject to different forces in the local field, they move differently. Thus, acceleration is not the right concept to describe reality.

We have different explanations for the so-called dark matter and dark energy.

Dualism and Non-Dualism are based on the relative view point of the observer. Since ultimately all particles can move only with one velocity, it may be Non-Dual in ultimate analysis. But in day-to-day experience, we come across various velocities, which appears to accelerate (also decelerate) objects variously. This may be called Dual nature of velocity.

Finally, the concept of Adwaita is much deeper and not to be confused with modern science, which can be explained by Samkhya- Vaisheshika- Nyaaya combine provided one has a proper knowledge on those subjects. By proper knowledge we mean as it was interpreted by Bharadwaaja Vritti, Atri Bhaashya and Katandi of Ravan.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba,

I liked your originality in desribing various issues in physics.But as far as I know,both theories of Relativity are tested in various experiments to precision.So I dont want to comment on your views on them.

In fourth para from bottom,you are saying that 'since other particles are subject to different forces in the local field, they move differently'.Is the force you are reffering to gravitation? Here I want to make my stand clear.In gravitational field,particles (quantum) of different masses are subjected to different forces but their 'acceleration' is the same.So according to the second law of QG,which I have stated,all particles will have the same 'energy' (kinetic) which implies that their velocities vary according to their masses.Although,this is not the case with macroscopic test masses.It is this difference in the behaviour of quantum particles and test masses in uniform accelerated field which I have repeatedly stressed in my essay.

In the penultimate para,you have identified 'Dual nature of velocity'with acceleration and deceleration.I dont know on what basis you done so.Nor do I understand how do you identify velocity with Non-Duality.

In the final para,the spirit in which I have used the word 'Advaitha' is misunderstood by you.According to Advaitha,'Brahman'is the ultimate reality and like-wise QG field is the ultimate reality in the physical universe.

Thanks for your comments on my essay and I will go thro' your essay soon and express my views on it.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

Dear Ray Munroe,

Thanks for your views and I stress you to, please,go thro' my web-site that I have mentioned in my essay and there you find complete answer for your problems on QG.In it I have given the basic field equation of the QG field in tensor form.In it I have also said how Immirzi-parameter is related to QG field.

Your idea of collective collaboration is inspiring.

cheers

Sreenath B N.

Dear Sir,

Truth has no variants and palatable benevolence is a rarity. Blind acceptance of something in the face of apparent contradictions is nothing but superstitions. Running away from something when faced with a challenge is cowardice. Hence kindly do not discredit yourself by refusing to face the truth. This is harming the cause of science. There are many manipulated experiments to verify the statements of relativity. One of them is the verification of time dilation using atomic clocks. The documents still available in the archives prove our statement. Then there are many other concepts like gravity waves, which have not been detected even after about a century, but billions of dollars are spent in research to locate it and thousands of people using this concept in their research work including doctoral thesis. We consciously use the word manipulated and challenge anyone to prove us wrong. We are not the only one to hold this view. There are plenty of other scientists who hold the same view. In fact there are some sites exclusively devoted to this topic. Taking an ostrich like view to those findings is nothing but superstition. We have given our views above. If you can, please go ahead and prove us wrong.

However, we profusely thank you for raising a very important question and giving us a chance to prove it. This is relating to gravity and acceleration.

Before we discuss whether the force we were referring to was gravity, we will like to discuss something about force itself. A force is experienced only in a field (we call it rayi). Thus, it is a conjugate of the field. If something is placed in a field, it experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the density variations of the field, we experience the force differently. Hence we call it by different names. While the field is one, the forces are many. Since they are conjugates, we can also say that different forces create different variations in the field.

The basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium. In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structure is called particle. Thus, all particles have a central point of mass or nucleus, an extra nuclear field surrounding it and fixed orbitals confining it. This is the common feature of all particles be they quarks or the Cosmos. The confinement may also cover the field without the central point. This is caused due to non-linear interaction of the forces. We will describe the mechanism separately. In such a case the field behaves like a fluid. The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at different points in the medium (Universal field).

A force can act only between two particles as only a particle can influence the field, which in turn can be experienced by another particle. If the external force of the field is more than the confining force of the two particles, then the two particles break up and join to form a new particle. We call this "sambhuti". In the opposite case, the two particles experience the force without being internally affected. The force acts between the centers' of mass of each treating each as a point particle. We call it "bibhuti". This second category of relationship, which we call "udyaama", is known as gravity. Since it stabilizes the two bodies at the maximum permissible distance between them depending upon their respective masses, we call it "urugaaya pratisthaa". For reasons to be discussed separately, this is possible only if gravity is treated as a composite force.

The first category of forces, which are interactions between two bodies, acts differently based on proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance - proximity and distance - distance variables. We call these relationships "antaryaama", "vahiryaama", "upayaama" and "yaatayaama" respectively. This interaction affects the field also inducing various local disturbances. These disturbances are known as "nitya gati", "yagnya gati", "samprasaada gati" and "saamparaaya gati" respectively. Any particle entering the field at those points feels these disturbances, which are known as the strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively. Thus, you can see that gravity belongs to a completely different group of forces and cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature in the normal process. Yet, it has a different function by which other forces can be derived from it. We will discuss that separately.

Ever since Newton propagated his second law, acceleration has been highly misunderstood by the scientific community. Before we give a proper explanation for the mechanism of acceleration, let us analyze the equation F = ma.

Without any qualifying word, F here is to be understood as any imprest force. The function of a force is to displace bodies from their position. The force can be impressed by a source only. After the force is impressed, the body is displaced. Thereafter, its contact with the source is cut off. Now the body moves with inertia, which remains constant in the absence of any other force. Thus, the equation should have been F = mv.

There may be occasions where the source impressing the force moves with the body. One example is an engine pushing a train or a cab. Here after the initial displacement, inertia takes over. But, the friction with the rail or the road retards the velocity. The force, which is moving in the same direction, again comes in contact with the body and again pushes it. This leads to a continuous change of velocity, the rate of which is called acceleration. But as can be seen, another force of friction is acting to generate acceleration, which has not been included in the equation. Thus, the mathematical form of Newton's second law is wrong.

To understand the true nature of acceleration, we have to understand wave motion. A wave is a disturbance in a fluid medium where the particles transfer the momentum only. This implies that the particles in a field are displaced temporarily and due to inertia of restoration (elasticity), regain their position and are subjected to the same force. Since fluid mediums do not have a strong confinement like solids, each particle pushes the others over a field leading to a chain reaction, which goes on repeating. The pushed particle, which was at rest, pushes the first particle back canceling half of its impact and transferring the other half to the next particle. We call this motion as "kampa". Since this transfer of energy involves over a field covering the amplitude of the wave and is further modified by the density (which is related to mass per unit volume) of the medium, the equation for momentum is ½ mv^2 at every point (most text books give a wrong explanation of this phenomenon).

Now, imagine a situation where the impressed force overcomes the inertia of restoration. The particle is displaced fully and in turn it displaces the next particle. There will be a reaction as above, but the rate of change of velocity will be reduced gradually. The particle will come to rest after sometime. Since the original particle will be going back to the source after sometime, the end particle will be subjected to a similar force in a chain repeatedly. We call this phenomenon "chiti". This last particle in a "chiti" then acts as a center of mass for other interactions. This finally leads to the formation of a structure because, as we have explained earlier, all structures have a center of mass surrounded by the extra-nuclear field and confined by orbits.

When you say: "In gravitational field, particles (quantum) of different masses are subjected to different forces but their 'acceleration' is the same", what it means is that if particles of different masses float on a river, irrespective of their mass, their velocity remains the same. Similarly, if people of different mass board a flight or a train, irrespective of their mass, their velocity remains the same. The explanation is that with reference to their frame of reference, they are all at rest. We posit that it is the field that is moving and what we see as the uniform velocity is the relative rest position of the particles of different mass in the same frame of reference like the different pebbles that show through a running wave in a sea beach. You cannot describe these phenomena as "all particles will have the same 'energy'", because it is the energy of the field and not the particle that you are describing.

Reference to the "'Dual nature of velocity' with acceleration and deceleration" can be understood in the context of "sambhuti" and its opposite mechanism, which we call "vinaash", where the particle experience the force that internally affect it to break up into its constituents. It is different from "bibhuti", where the two particles experience the force without being internally affected.

If you say: "According to Advaitha,'Brahman'is the ultimate reality", you have to define Brahman and show his characteristics as equal to "QG field", which according to you, "is the ultimate reality in the physical universe".

Regards,

basudeba

dear Sreenaath

I believe that QG will be eventually made compatible with GR! I believe the direction of approach is to prove that GR is compatible with a structural derivation of the quantum conception of a particle. Just as Einstein's equations had to agree with Newton's at low velocities, then QG and GR will reduce to each other. They are simply different aspects or different ways our minds are perceiving the same reality. Please see my article.

Guilford Robinson

Sreenath

I was impressed by your essay and ideas. Ray suggested I read your essay as he saw consistencies with what you are doing. There are, though much was beyond me as I am not a physicist. Ours are very different. In mine I try to explain a discovery. It is a logical solution from conceptual thought of dynamic variables. One in five have seen the solution. I hope you will read it and try.

I have no mathematical proof as I discovered it by initially avoiding the abstractive dangers of maths in disconnecting with reality.

In it is you may find previously undiscovered black hole. A photograph, which, when you know what to look for, will show a toroid by curved light. Do tell me if you find it ok, or ask. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

There is also a link to a logical final extension and more black holes, posted in the strings.

Very best wishes and good luck.

Peter

Dear Sreeneth B N,

I found your use and application of the notion of Advaitha fascinating. It is interesting to think about the concept of non-duality as applied to quantum gravity. Very though-provoking essay!

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

Sorry for misspelling your name - I had meant to write 'Sreenath'

Best regards,

Paul

Dear Paul Halpern,

Thanks for your opinion.When I saw the heading of the essay contest 'Is it possible to reconcile digital and analog nature of reality' the idea of connecting it to Advaitha dawned on me.Because Advaitha in a literal sense means Non-dualism.If it is possible for us to reconcile both forms of reality,then it must be done only on the concept of Non-dualism (that is Advaitha).Combining digital with analog, in physics means combining QM with GR,leads to QG which is non-dual to both.

Today itself I will go thro' your article and express my opinion.

Good luck and best regards.

Sreenath B N.e

Dear Peter Jackson,

I went thro' your intriguing essay often and tried to see how you have succeeded in facing the requirements of the essay contest.Although you have tried from an odd angle,finally you have not come to any conclusion.

In the photograph,I saw high speed gas gushing away from the blast (or explosion?) place and it could be as a result of shock wave emanating from collision between two white-dwarfs or plsma emitted form a black-hole or a pulsar or even a white-dwarf.The shape of the gas curve emitted in all such cases would be almost the same.

If you are too good at maths,I will give ideas on how to solve problems related to black-holes.

Best regards and good luck in the competition.

Sreenath B N.

Dear Paul Halpern,

In your intriguing essay,you have argued for the existence of a fundamental particle called,Holon.It is really good if such a particle exists as all of our knowledge of elementary particles can based on it.But you have not mentioned holon's mass and wave-length.I hope you will soon do it as it gives limits to our understanding of the physics.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

Sreenath

Thank you for your pertinent response above on my string, In answer I posted the note below. In checking I also note I hadn't rated your essay yet, and will do so now reflecting my very favourable comments above. I hope you will do the same by the deadline if you haven't as I'm just outside the ones to be for journal attention, which is important for the model.

Thank you again and very best wishes.

Peter

RESPONSE (Edited)

You noted I gave no 'conclusion'. Hmmm. Perhaps my English understatement Sreenath, I explain what may be a paradigm shifting discovery, (which I hope you haven't missed!) which gives two distinct solutions;

1) The 'continuous' condensate must become discrete (ions) to implement change, and

2) Space itself is divided into discrete 'blocks' or perhaps 'causal sets' of volume surrounding condensed matter and limited by diffractive boundaries.

So without either one, the other could not exist. So not only is nature both, but I describe how and why, which unveils the problem and derives SR via a quantum mechanism. Did you read the logical analysis in the post above?

You need to be able to manipulate multiple dynamic spaces and diffracting waves in your mind to make it intuitive, which it quickly then becomes. It is difficult! If it was easy it would have been seen 100 years ago. And then thinking through the implications... they are very substantial!

I hope you have another go.

Or once you are ready, look at the quite stunning logical conclusions in the short preprint here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

The Photograph? - The previous analysis is (I believe) incomplete. It is a Quasar, with just the 'approaching' jet visible as the receding jet is red shifted to radio frequencies (but both jet heads are visible. A Quasar is a toroid black hole (see the other paper for a photo of another) with the jets perpendicular to the 'disk' (as our own smbh). The gravity is so intense there is much lensing or 'microlensing'. If you look around the source of the jet you will see lensed (enlarged and curved) light from stars behind, outlining the toroid curvature. It is rather large! M87's jets are many millions of light years long.

I feel we must better use observation and empirical evidence to support theory wherever we can.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Dear Sreenath,

I have just read your essay and the corresponding paper on your website. Unfortunately, the essay length restrictions has limited the information the you where able to convey. The paper on your website, IHMO, seems rigorous enough to be sent to an international review journal to get feedback from an expert. The fact we have reached similar conclusions regarding galaxy growth from BHs (even though we reached this conclusion from totally different approaches) gives me great hope that both your theory of QG and my model of the cosmos are more than coincidence. I believe your theory has great promise and admire your technical skill. I would recommend correcting the few grammar and spelling mistakes as well as creating an inclusive reference page. The only concern regarding the content of your paper is your conclusion regarding small BHs, that seems to contradict the conclusions of Hawking. He predicts that smaller BHs should radiate more intensely than larger BHs.

I don't know if you have had a chance to read Christian Corda's essay but he is Editor in Chief of two different peer review journals. Please see his correspondence with me on his forum for the information if you are interested in submitting your paper. I think you should, since your work seems very important. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, as I've tried to read a many essays as possible, but have not been able to read them all.

Wishing you the best,

Dan

Dear Dan,

Thanks for your positive response.The moment I saw your essay last night I called on you because of intimate relationship between our ideas.If you base your views on the basis of QG field,it would be enthralling.

Regarding why I cannot admit BHs of smaller size than,R= 10^5 cm is because of the intrinsic relationship between micro (quantum) and macro (classical) world according to the relation r/R = 2πGβ/c2 .If the radius of BH is 10^2 cm,then the value of 'r'(Interaction-range) becomes 10^-33 cm,that is the Planck's length.That is why BHs of size smaller than 10^2 cm cannot be admitted (but I commit myself to 10^5 cm).Similarly you cannot go on increasing the gravitational radius above 10^30 cm (in my article I have restricted it to 10^30 cm),because then the value of Interaction-range 'r' correspondingly increases.For example,if R= 10^30 cm then 'r'=10^-5 cm; if R= 10^33 cm then 'r' = 10^-2 cm.Now you see the reason.If this conclusion contradicts (it will) Hawking's idea of 'Baby-BHs',it is natural.It is because his theory does n't limit the size of BHs and that is the flaw of all existing theories on BHs.

Thanks for your suggestions on my web-article.On your suggestion, I would like to contact "Corda'.I would be glad if you too participate in this.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath.

Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for clarifying the small BH issue. I new that you had a reason within your theory, but I meant that since Hawking is seen as the authority, that this might be an issue for a journal. Since your theory seems to be consistent, can you suggest any experiments or observations that would be able to support it if they were conducted? This is another important step to getting acceptance from the mainstream physics community. Since your theory doesn't admit gravity waves (I have had doubts about them, myself), it may be difficult to get any experiment support, due to scale at which QG acts. Nevertheless, I'm glad you have considered my suggestion.

I had always suspected that there must be some connection between my model and the quantum world, but had never made any connections of my own. You can imagine my surprise, when I read your paper. All of my ideas came from contemplation of the nature of time and from the limited knowledge that I have on GR.

I plan to reread your paper and will assist you however I am able.

Sincerely,

Dan

Dear Dan,

Thanks for your response.Regarding suggesting any experiments or observations that would be able to support my theory,I want to make the following clarification.

There are two ways which allow you to verify my theory.One in the classical world by observing phenomena going on in BHs by observing their dynamics.A BH,according to me,is a Hole of 'perfect vacuum' and contains 'no' matter inside it but the mass surrounding this Hole determines its 'radius',according to the well known equation R = 2GM/C^2. This Hole is characterised by Temparature and Pressure inside it.It is the presence of this Hole (which we call BH) prevents matter from falling into Singularity, thro' the force of QG.It is the violent interaction between the crushing matter and the resistance offered by the BH results in the emission of Jets by the BH with enormous power.The jet of mass gains energy of the order of 10^14 times the initial energy with which it enters the BH at its 'event-horizon'.This is nothing but the ratio of QG energy to self (or free) energy available to particles as a result of intense gravitational interaction taking place at the 'event-horizon'.

The second way of verification is much easier. Remember that classical world is related to the micro (quantum) world by the relation r/R =2πGβ/c2 .According to this relation,the role played by QG can be seen 'directly' in explaining the energy possessed by micro-particles in the quantum-world thro' the 'Interaction-Table' (IT).To know this,please,go thro' IT and make yourself thorough with it.IT is also 'Chart of Elementary Particles' with their 'Decay-Times'.

More on this after your response.

Sincerely

Sreenath.

Sreenath

I was waiting for a response to my post above before re-posting. I wasn't overly impressed you'd missed the black hole picked out by lensing in the HH34 photo. But Dan mentioned his support for you, (not by name but I guessed) and I respect Dan, so I looked and considered more closely and he's right. Your essay was much underrated on content. I'd like to accept your offer re input on black holes, but also discuss a few more points;

Quantised acceleration. I missed the link before, and I think you have too. Refraction (/diffraction) DOES form a bridge between classical SR/GR and QM. Indeed this is at the heart of my essay. The quantization of acceleration is the basic quanta of condensed matter, the ion, this not only implements SR by slowing light scattered from a co-moving particle to the 'c' of the ion, but the diffraction IS curved space time (in the plasma medium) so the ions ARE dark matter, and the mass of the ions gives Equivalence - inertial mass = gravitational mass. The greater the difference between in speed between scattered particles the more ions condense, so the higher the inertial mass! The references in my paper provide all the basic empirical evidence required to support the hypothesis. The discrete field model is mostly entirely equivalent to your own, just viewed from different cerebral hemispheres. It essentially explains CSL conceptually without needing the LT, simplifying all physics.

Black holes. > The evidence is now quite overwhelming that they are toroid. (atomic tokamak), and I deal with conical spirals at length empirically in the paper I posted above. I believe your radius viewpoint should cope with this but it will need further thought. They rotate on the macro as well as sectional axis (em field).

I mentioned to Dan I've been invited to write/edit a GUT chapter in an EBook publication. I'd definitely like to at least mention your work, and if you'd like to contribute all the better, but I would like to hear your considered views on the above.

Best wishes.

Peter

PS. Dan; > Any views also very welcome.