RF

Hi, My name is Ryoji Furui. A few weeks ago, I submitted a physics paper to a journal and finally I received a reply from editor 2 days ago with referee's comments. Before answering to referee's comments, I would like to ask here if my answers could make sense for precise communication. My submitted paper can be found at http://ryoji.info/r330a.pdf. and below is the referee's 2 comments and my draft answers. Hope anyone would help my submission process. Also it would be welcome if you have any comments about paper. ------ A referee's comment 1: As the author is well-aware, the special theory of relativity has ample ex- perimental confirmation. As a result, any viable modification cannot be in contradiction with it in its range of validity. The proposals of this paper, however, do contradict key ingredients of special relativity. More specifi- cally, the introduction of the multiplier $\eta$ in the time-time component of the Minkowski metric either does not make any difference (because it can be removed by a rescaling of the time coordinate) or it breaks Lorentz invariance (if the author does not view rescalings of the coordinates as allowed). Needless to say, Lorentz invariance is essential for ensuring the constancy of the speed of light. My draft answer 1: When a observer measures the transformation of coordinates from $\eta=1$ to $\eta=0$, the observer will find mass is generated in a rest flat flame. And mass will disappear in its inverse. So apparently it is different phenomenon compared to the transformation to spatially moving frame. So it may allow the break of Lorentz invariance or if we admit that generated mass is embedded on a flat spacetime like we usually treat, it won't break Lorentz invariance. ------ A referee's comment 2: Massive and massless particles (in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory) transform in different representations of the Lorentz group. (The latter gives the basis for the theoretical understanding of the spin of particles.) Therefore, a particle cannot “oscillate” between being massive and being massless, contrary to the claim/“postulate” of the author in Section 3. My draft answer 2: As mass could be treated as a parameter in the time direction of the four-dimensional Minkowski metric, massive and massless particles could be the representations of the 4d Lorentz group. r330a.pdf

Hello, This is a quite old thread but I'd like to post my newer version which was almost completed at the end of last year. In addition to chapter one, graviton's spin would be below, if spin can be converted to momentum, when it collides to mass. [math] p-g=1-\sqrt{\frac{1-v}{1+v}} [/math] Regarding amrit's LQG like description, if LQG could be a consistent quantum theory of gravitation, I think strings theory should fit in it. So one of property in LQG described in 4d spacetime should be counted to strings theory's extra dimension as long as it holds extra dimension for describing gravitation. Then its geometrical description would be the definition of extra dimensions in 4d reality. Regards, Ryoji r212.pdf

I think if neuron firing forms our consciousness basically, it would belong to the digital system.

Hi Norman Alber, Thank you for your comment. I think I've concluded what I've wanted to express in physical format unless anybody would point out any of inconsistent If we could compare science to the rainbow spectrum, we could put physics to the purple side, chemistry in the middle and we could put biology to the red side. I've been concentrate on the purple end for ages but I also have an idea of the edge of red side. It was shown in the first section of my earlier version of "Time and Energy" as the physical meaning of mathematics. It was described as the observer in the physical meaning and I think it could be mathematical expression of red end. It would depend on what is the question of red end however I would like to place red end to the basic concept or formation of our consciousness or soul. As far as I know, the existence of consciousness or soul is the most celestial material state and I've know idea how this can be lead from the physical fundamental law. Here is my expression of another side, 1+1=2. Thanks, Ryoji

Hi amrit, Your QS means a concept of loop quantum gravity? I really don't know much about LQG as well as strings theory but I heard both could be unified as they try to approach the same thing? One thing I wondered in your post is that you mentioned G is constant in the example of local universe. You think this constant is applied to whole universe? About time, In last weekend, I read a new paper by Dr. S.W. Hawking and Dr. Thomas Hertog. Though I could not fully understand it but I think it implies something about time. If I tried to describe time by myself, it would be imaginary space or space would be imaginary time by following SR principle that massless particle moves max velocity. And if space were energy like mentioned at my last post or yours, time would be also energy, I think. Time is energy, is what came to my mind over 8 years ago, and it was the beginning of my explore to physics world R

there should be correction in the figure of the last post. the state, E=m should be described as the vanishment of time axis thus, [math] \eta_{00}=\eta_{01}=0, \eta_{11}=1. [/math] then there would be no light cone in it. r

hi, i just had an idea today. it might be already known by some or more, or wrong. when i consider how flat spacetime filled with kinetic energy can be described in 2d spacetime. then i drew 2d spacetime with several energy states. if graviton, mass and kinetic energy can be described as geometry of 2d spacetime, it would be like this picture? then this results that mass itself is the highest energy density. any feedback welcome:-) r

Nice

Thank you for many posts, I've tried to revise my paper so long time however the changes would be almost everything on this thread. Thus mathmatically, Eq. 1 should be changed to new one born here e=p(1-\sqrt{1-v^{2}})/v, Where $e$ is graviton's energy. If there would be newer papers related to my thesis, it might be far from my understanding. I have a book about the Hamiltonian but having it and understanding it are different. If I had a new idea which should be on a paper, I would like to show it. But it can't be expected soon. I saved this thread on my computer once, and I would like to make this thread as the place where my graviton idea is expressed, as long as here is alive on the web. So if anyone would like to put a link to my thesis about graviton, please link to here at this moment. And in case, if anyone got Nobel prize related to my thesis, please let me know and give me money (a little bit) Then once again, I would like to say thanks to all joined this thread. Ryoji

Hi, Thank you for your comments. Yes, I have to remove eq. 1 from my paper, I will upgrade it when I can find the time during the job. I was just thinking about physical meaning of new defined graviton energy. After reading your comments, I reminded a comment on a blog at http://www.haloscan.com/comments/59de/113631928690934653/ I hope this would be an answer for you. So the state $E=pc$, should be applied to the flat spacetime filled with kinetic energy without mass. About quantization rules, I think it would be applied from my another thesis, http://www.ryoji.info/R118.pdf But I cannot say much more about it. I appreciate your comments. Ryoji

Hi Atheist, I just replace graviton $p$ to $e$, so e+m=m/\sqrt{1-v^{2}}. Then the relation of $e$ and $p$ is, e=p(1-\sqrt{1-v^{2}})/v I think this would work fine? Thanks R

Hi Atheist, Thanks for your comment. Indeed, I changed the explanation of eq. 2 as followed, The left term represents the energy squared during the collision and the right term is the one after collision. Could this be answer to your question, if it is about energy conservation? Thank you again, Ryoji ei7a.pdf

Hi, During winter holidays, I had a time to update my thesis. Now, the first sentece is modified with other texts. And matches to the equivalence principle of GR. Any feedbacks welcome Ryoji ei7.pdf

CanadaAotS, Actually I copied the idea of SR. Then pasted it to my vision, how I see the universe or what I see in my mind. I believe creation always comes from copy and paste. Creativity is what you choose from the flood of information. By the way, here is a correction to equation (4) in my attached file of the first post as below, p=ka\sqrt{1-v^{2}}. Thanks, R

Hi Locrian, [Tycho?] and all, Thanks for your comments or reading. I would like to discuss more about the first sentence in my paper but now please let me ask something what I was asked from someone. My paper's subject is about quantum gravity but he said it needs more info like "the quantization rules"... for defining it. I have no idea what it means. So if anyone could explain it or know any good links for reference, I would appreciate it. Thank you again, Ryoji