The basics of Quantum Theory are spelled out
here, --------------------------------------------------
Whether you believe you can do a thing or believe you can't, you are right, Please follow the links below, and feel free to ask questions.
Today, 14 March 2013, Albert Einstein (b.
1879) would be 134 year old.
The so-called 'God's thoughts' refer to a web of
correlations
There is not be included in the set of its color-able explications.The 3-D projection(s) of the global mode of spacetime are and 'the infinitely large universe'.It is a dual object which wraps up the local (physical) modeof spacetime, and produces finite 'templates' for spacetime. The cosmic vacuum/quantum aether, called here More on the errors in GR literature here. The current GW detectors are manifestly
blind and deaf to LIGO tunnels should be converted to wine cellars. Any other ideas?
Latest entries
on GW "astronomy":
We haven't the money, so we've got to think! Lord Rutherford, 1962 Brunel Lecture, 14 February 1962 Overfunded research is like heroin: It makes one addicted, weakens the mind and furthers prostitution. Johann A. Makowsky, The Jerusalem Post 19.4.85 Regarding Quantum Mechanics (QM), the aim is to avoid the incomprehensible paradoxes and Regarding the artifacts in QM, we may be in a situation similar to an Eskimo trying very hard to comprehend the notion of "trunk". In our case, we encounter an incomprehensible wave-particle complementarity, which could be just an artifact from our wrong thinking, like the "nose-arm complementarity" in the case of the Eskimo observing elephant's trunk. Surely ' The prerequisites for the interpretation of QM suggested here originate from Schrödinger. Back in 1935, Erwin Schrödinger stressed the following: "The rejection of realism has logical consequences. In general, a variable And in a letter to Einstein dated 18 November 1950 (quoted after J. Bub, p. 115), he wrote (emphasis added): “It seems to me that the concept of probability is terribly mishandled these days. Probability surely has as its substance a statement as to whether something is or is not the case — an uncertain statement, to be sure. But nevertheless it has meaning We are obviously dealing with a new form of reality: a
Going back to Ernst Specker's tripod, if there are states of the tripod in which The phrase "an incomplete Kochen-Specker colouring" (Helena Granström, p. 2) has no meaning whatsoever; it is the result from imposing wrong "glasses" onto the quantum world. And if you subscribe to the modern quantum mysticism -- "the quantum state is not a physical object, it is a representation of our state of knowledge, or belief" (Itamar Pitowsky, p. 28) -- your brain will wind up in a schizophrenic state of, say, 68% "knowledge" of the quantum state, and 32% of "[what da heck is that No mental concepts, such as 'knowledge' or 'imagination', are admissible in the ontology of quantum reality. We must never mix apples with oranges ( Karl Svozil refers to this UNdecidable faculty of the quantum world as "ambiguity" (p. 4), and stressed: "This ambiguity gets worse as the number of particles increases." If you think about the quantum world with classical concepts, it will get from bad to worse, until you end up with the (old) cosmological "constant" problem (more on that from Alan Guth). As Erwin Schrödinger might have said in 1935, the same "variable" that Let's give it a name: potential reality. In the quantum realm, it (i) offers its context-dependent As to quantum gravity (notice the opinion of an expert here), the 'potential reality' is introduced to revive the How can we fix these problems? By introducing two connections, geometric (local mode) and torsion (global mode of spacetime). The torsion connection is In the case of a human 1. All are not hunters that blow the horn. None of these "measurements" can "collapse" the potential reality (Platonic idea) explicated with these sayings. And if our Regarding the brain above your neck: its 'potential reality' is to its human self what EM radiation is to your subjective experience of 'color' -- no Forget about "energy conservation in GR". It's an oxymoron (details from Denisov and Logunov). What kind of "time" is implied in the The sole "explanation" of this ultimate puzzle of GR, offered by Chris Isham, was that, "after all, general relativity does seem to work well as a theory, and yet I can certainly read the time on my wrist watch!" But your wristwatch should We need quantum gravity, to uncover "the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories" (Carlo Rovelli; drawings here) and the genuine 'time variable' associated with the expansion of space due to DDE. Once we achieve this formidable task, we will (hopefully) find out what -- if anything -- At this point, I got an emotional response from Eduardo Guendelman, saying that the Bianchi identity is a mathematical theorem, so there is no ambiguity involved here. Well, I'm just a psychologist, so let me quote Matt Visser, p. 3: "... the Einstein equations of general relativity are local equations, relating Which is precisely the missing element needed to address the 'global properties of spacetime' in the presence of DDE. As R. Rakhi and K. Indulekha acknowledged (p. 5): "Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space And so does the confusion about it -- click The intrinsic dynamics of the phenomenon of 'more space Although the mathematical meaning of the phrase "more space One cannot Notice also that Matt Visser (see above) considers the metaphysical assumption that the spacetime were "locally Minkowski (the Einstein Equivalence Principle)" to represent a If you are looking for a genuine quantum-gravitational measuring device, your wristwatch (as well as the one of Kip Thorne) fits the bill, because it reads an This is to me the ultimate puzzle in present-day GR. The sole "explanation" of Chris Isham was that, "after all, general relativity does seem to work well as a theory, and yet I can certainly read the time on my wrist watch!" I will desist to comment on C. Isham's observation, and will instead take the liberty of being (again) deadly boring, by explaining the difference between 'GR without DDE' vs 'GR with DDE'. First, a simple example from STR, with a trajectory of a Frisbee, on the fixed background of Minkowski spacetime: we can calculate the At this point, the 'GR To identify In a nutshell, the so-called PR From this perspective, if we follow the deflation time arrow in the The current situation with inflationary cosmology was presented by Alan H. Guth, the winner of the 2009 Isaac Newton medal, on 13 October 2009. He speculated that our galaxy could be an amplified "quantum fluctuation" (Part 2, 3:30 - 6:16),
... and then confessed his "Nightmare of Dark Energy" (Part 2, 11:36), on which the "eureka" of inflationary cosmology is grounded.
Let's go back to QM. Think of a trajectory of a Frisbee: at each "point" from the trajectory (the latter could be a Notice that not only the "R" process is being removed (as did Hugh Everett III in his relative state interpretation of QM), but the alleged "U" process and Hilbert space as well. The established theoretical physics community, particularly Niels Bohr, ridiculed Everett's interpretation to the extent to which Hugh Everett left physics (and became millionaire).
The next step is to elaborate on the "You do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area." To the best of my knowledge, nobody has so far offered some new cancellation mechanism as a joint solution to the measurement problem of QM and the cosmological "constant" problems. Such cancellation mechanism is built in the UNdecidable quantum state (quantum presentation of Platonic ideas) from
To understand the origin of this whole mess, read the second sentence from the excerpt below (R.I.G. Hughes,
All these problems are resolved in the PR Otherwise we have to inject up to 96% "dark stuff" (with all sorts of "ghosts") into the current theoretical physics, as calculated under the assumption that 'potential reality' doesn't exist. As Evalyn Gates put it (p. 196), the detection of DDE was "like finding an elephant on top of a table impeccably set with the finest china and silver (...). We stare in shock at the uninvited guest and demand to know where the elephant came from -- and how it got into (the) room." Regarding the arrow of spacetime: notice that the Frisbee-like sequence of This proposal makes the local mode of spacetime a perfect 3-D continuum with In the context of GR, the Hence in the local mode of spacetime, the dimensionless GW amplitude is zero, nonexistent, zilch. (Another case of reining a dimensionless amplitude, the mythical "quantum computing", is examined here.) Notice also that the hypothetical global mode of spacetime cannot be read by a physical clock (it will "stand still"). It is introduced to replace the "external time parameter" in H.-D. Zeh (p. 13) and the “auxiliary internal time” (cf. Macias and Quevedo, p. 8) by ' The next metaphysical idea is straightforward: 'time' does not originate from 'change of space' is defined relative to the "omnipresent ether X " (global mode of spacetime). The latter is located "within" each and every point from the local mode of spacetime, and is wrapping the local mode by two (in fact, one) 'numerically finite but physically unattainable Aristotelian boundaries'.All we can Hence we can bridge QM and GR, and understand the Recall what William Kingdon Clifford claimed in his paper ‘On the Space-Theory of Matter’, presented to the Cambridge Philosophical Society on February 21, 1870 (quoted after Domenico Giulini, p. 2):
Hence the space itself is endowed with
Perhaps we may have to develop new mathematical theory of 'potential reality', such that the "state space" of Margenau's Onta (quantum presentation of Platonic ideas) would match the structure of cognitive concepts; notice that in the "cheating on 20 questions" the answer 'cloud' was explicated by a Baeysian learning rule (not the Born rule). For comparison, the categorification of Feynman diagrams requires "black boxes with many wires going in and many wires going out" (Baez and Lauda, p. 16), while in our case all wires are "instantaneously" (global mode of spacetime; see the Escher drawing below) keeping track of all virtual 'black boxes' as well (relational ontology), in order to dynamically adjust to the changing context of the game, until they jointly select the final, explicated 'black box': 'cloud' (see also the four dice here).
We definitely need mathematical theory of 'potential reality'. The task is highly non-trivial, but once we unravel the correct mathematical theory, the astonishing effectiveness of mathematics (Eugene Wigner) may drive us closer to the true quantum gravity of He Who Does Not Play Dice -- the world is not deterministic but flexible, and the 'chooser' of one possibility ( All I've been getting so far is either dark silence or insults (some of them really harsh). Perhaps the situation will improve in 2010, after the sixth consecutive failure of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) to detect GWs with the so-called "enhanced LIGO". GW energy transfer is fundamentally non-linear phenomenon (Hermann Bondi), but is wiped out with the "linearized approximation" adopted by LSC. Also, GW energy is intrinsically quasi-local, in the sense that GWs do not propagate exclusively "in one direction only" (“when the waves are all moving in the same direction”, cf. P.A.M. Dirac, Ch. 33, p. 64), as they Is it possible to detect some 'elementary shift' of the expanding metric -- the "intrinsic time interval associated to any timelike displacement", T. Jacobson, pp. 18-19 -- due to the omnipresent and perfectly smooth DDE? In what reference frame? Notice that you're dealing with some "fluid" that "has Similar rhetoric questions apply to the dynamics of the metric, producing inflationary gravitational waves on the 3-D "balloon" hypersurface. It's a bundle.
Forget it. There is no need for "precise calibration" of a dead turkey. The insane efforts of LSC remind me of the old joke about a drunken man, who has lost his key somewhere in the dark, but is searching for it under the street lamp, simply because it is brighter there. Only LSC's "key" costs Check out the communist censorship of Paul Ginsparg's "moderators" here. To explain "already", let me quote from Thomas E. Phipps, Should Mach's Principle be taken seriously?
From this perspective, detecting GW effects requires "online" access to the global mode of spacetime, in which the dynamical determination of spacelike and timelike directions (hence Lorentzian metric) is being produced -- one-at-a-time, along the arrow of spacetime. In simple words, this means that the proper GW detectors must be endowed with the self-acting faculty of the human brain, to match the "interaction of spacetime with itself" (C. Kiefer, p. 2; cf. also J. G. Pereira As of today, nobody cares. Nobody. I can take it. I'm psychologist, and don't need quantum gravity to practice PHI. Why would a fish need a bicycle?
[click the image to enter the web site]
Hopefully, if we join our efforts and knowledge (included at the level of our collective unconsciousness, cf. Jungian Meanwhile, please keep in mind the prediction of Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics (1923): "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." This web site is my feedback to all people, who are helping me, one way or another, with improving the theory. Feel free to download it (app. 11.8MB) from http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/PHI_info.zip By unzipping PHI_info.zip, a new folder, !Einstein_PHI , will be created on your hard drive. Find there START.html.lnk and open it (it is linked to this front page (index.html) in the website folder). If, for some reason, you believe we don't need new approach to quantum gravity, try to understand Sean Carroll's speculations (448 pages, January 2010): "... wavefunctions appear to collapse in one direction of time but not the other is not an explanation for the arrow of time, but in fact a
"... when treated in a multiverse framework, fundamental time is directionless and consequently physical laws inherit its time-reversal symmetry. Despite that reversal symmetry is broken for the local time by the bubble nucleation, the bubble still inherits laws of physics at birth from the multiverse, without modification. Thus the emergent time’s arrow in the bubble does not affect the time-reversal symmetry imprinted onto the physical laws that the bubble inherits from birth in the multiverse. (...) An emerging time in the multiverse does not appear plausible since the emergence adds information on the multiverse that wasn’t there prior (... but we face the same kind of emergent non-unitary phenomenon with DDE -- an evolving cosmological "constant" that springs from the quantum vacuum - D.C.)." ... and the obstinate belief of Andrei Linde ($164,179 FQXi Grant): Sure enough, Andrei Linde tried to answer the first off question of how many universes are in the "multiverse" (arXiv:0910.1589v2):
That's how 'potential reality' is being Back in April 1986, Yakov Zel'dovich wrote in a letter the following (private communication): "Long time ago, there was a period of time during which there was still no time at all." Of course he was joking. Yet the 'global mode of time', pertaining to potential reality, cannot be read by any physical clock, because the poor inanimate clock will read it as 'stand still' or "no time at all", as Yakov Zel'dovich put it. Maybe The Beginning, which lives in "no time at all", is always with us (dual age cosmology).
In German, it reads:
"Leibniz thought the idea of God as an astronomical maintenance man as absurd. He believed that God had carefully chosen among an infinity of possible worlds, the one He felt the most suitable. So that although we may not have a perfect world, it was the ============================
===================================
D.C.
=========================================
quasi-local, and 'what is going on' in QM, check out Feynman [Ref. 1, 12-1]: "The first question we have to answer is: What are the There For example, in the case of two spin-half particles, everything you insert in brakets |1> = |++>, |2> = |+->, |3> = |-+>, |4> = |--> ... are just possible Thus, the system {“ Feynman also stressed [Ref. 1, 12-2]: "That’s the question: How do the amplitudes change with time in a particular (fixed) base?" The amplitudes change along the It would be nice if Robert Geroch writes up a sequel to his 30-year old book General Relativity from A to B, entitled "General Relativity from A to A+ds", to elucidate the concept of 'interval' in GR -- professionally. But he wouldn't. Trying to discover new math is a tough challenge. The last time I heard from Robert Geroch was eight years ago, only to require his email to be removed from my web site. I will gladly do that, if only he writes a serious paper on GR, or at least reply professionally. Here are two questions: Do you believe that the "points" from the underlying manifold can be If your answer to the first question is 'yes', you are ready to teach GR and enjoy its generic pathologies [Refs 2 and 3]. It is generally believed that (i) one can picture the spacetime in GR as a manifold that can be "locally modeled" on some fictitious flat Minkowski space, but (ii) this picture should break down at short distances of the order of the Planck length. Neither of these ideas are needed, however. There is no need for any limitation in the possible accuracy of localization of spacetime events either. Why is that? Because the so-called Planck length may possess an inner geometrical structure. Ignore it at your peril. D.C.
"The problem of the definition of the concept of singularity in General Relativity is very difficult indeed, as can be appreciated by reading on its historical development (Hawking and Ellis, 1973; Tipler, Clarke and Ellis, 1980). The intuitive ideas are clear: if any physical or geometrical quantity blows up, this signals a singularity. However, there are problems of two kinds:
=================================== Subject: The global existence problem in general relativity, ===================================
Re: Positive-mass conjecture in the case of "more and more space appears" ? Thomas Alva Edison, 1889
====================================
Names? They're all at my web site.
The quest for Finite Infinity has a long history, starting from Gunnar Nordström (Über die Möglichkeit, das elektromagnetische Feld und das Gravitationsfeld zu vereiningen, Traditionally, experts in GR start with what I hope to
A rigorous definition of 'isolated gravitating system', which would ensure an "asymptotic regime such that In a nutshell, the idea of FI is to suggest a mechanism for obtaining a As in a good crime novel, all will become crystal clear at the end. Well, eventually. Some history. The notion of 'finite infinity' (Fi) was suggested by George F R Ellis in 1984; please see:
In order to resolve the conundrum of 'ending something', notice that the nature of the If we wish to work out a proper Finite Infinity, the obvious choice is to introduce a new 'cutoff and end-point' conjugated with the infinitesimal, We begin with postulating an uncountably infinite "number" of points Notice the crucial difference between the two Hence the interpretation of 'the infinitesimal' as the empty set (
Thus, the empty set ( Compared to the local mode, the global mode of spacetime is The question of what kind of 'global time' runs in the global mode of spacetime, equipped with "instantaneous" In general, the quest for amending Finite Infinity with an Arrow of Space is highly non-trivial, because we should also consider the following tasks:
Metaphorically speaking, the Arrow of Space is depicted with the Dragon devouring its tail (Ouroboros), from the Chrysopoeia ('Gold Making') of Cleopatra during the Alexandrian Period in Egypt. The enclosed words mean 'The All is One.'
I haven't been able to find suitable mathematical formalism to describe these widely known ideas. All I can offer is a simple (but incomplete) geometrical explanation of Finite Infinity. Firstly, there should exist a Secondly, the two physical, finite, Archimedean volumes of space tend The 'no-go' axiom about the empty set ( Thus, we shall place the "two" cutoffs,
L and S residing in the global mode of spacetime, equipped with actual infinity.A precise explanation of ' Thanks to the Arrow of Space, the 'large finite volume' will chase Notice that the The very notion of 'space' requires that all physical objects acquire
Thanks to the empty set ( In a nutshell, the modified Finite Infinity satisfied two conditions: in the local mode of spacetime the universe approaches Again, there is no path whatsoever to the It is the Arrow of Space which creates such Notice that we face here a kind of 'logical infinity': no physical, Archimedean volume of space can reach Without the global mode of spacetime, the universe would be governed exclusively by Archimedean geometry, conformal recipes would have worked, tessellation of space with 3-D "tiles" would have been possible, and we would calculate the Now, let me try to explain geometrically the empty set ( The size of physical bodies along First, the dimensionless instant 'now', at which the two
The next step is constructing 2-D space from Fig. 2.2, by introducing a second spatial dimension, again with two
In the current GR textbooks and tutorials, the Going back to the Flatland: we, as "global" observers, can "see" all points from Fig. 3.2 It requires far more efforts to elaborate on the example from Wiki about an infinite 2-D plane in our 3-D space, which poses no restrictions to "observers" in the The new symmetry, called 'space inversion', should eliminate all To elaborate on the example from Wiki, I suppose one could "see", from the global mode of spacetime, two superposed P-invariant images of "the lion", obtained after the inverted (w.r.t. the cage surface) 3-D space. Such symmetry is literally about Let's start with endowing the Flatland with a spatial dimension, by moving all the points from Fig. 3.2
Due to the 'spontaneous broken symmetry' (cf. below), we have Notice that, in addition to the three two directions of w as two simultaneous "gloves", right and left, corresponding to the unbroken symmetry of the GPI field (see below) inhabited by the unphysical, GPI states of negative & positive mass.You will have the unique freedom to "look" at the 3-D hypersurface
Such simultaneous viewpoint is impossible to imagine, as hinted in Wiki, but if we Now, if we keep the radius constant, such non-smooth topological transition will match a well-known screensaver in Windows 97, half of which is depicted with the drawing from D. DeCarlo and D. Metaxas (1996) below.
Again, the two opposite directions along
Consider again a What matters here is that The Aristotelian Connection operates in the global mode of spacetime: it "reads"
Notice the precise meaning in GR of ' zero time, as read with your wristwatch. "All agree that in general relativity, the metric tensor g_{ij} is (or better: represents a field that is) dynamical: it acts and is (at the same instant - D.C.) acted on. They also agree that it is a special field since it couples to every other one, and also cannot vanish anywhere in spacetime. Many authors go on to say that the metric tensor represents geometry, or spacetime structure, so that geometry or spacetime structure acts and is (at the same instant - D.C.) acted on" (Jeremy Butterfield). More succinctly: "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at the same instant - D.C.) affected by, the other fields" (John Baez). This non-linear paradox is depicted with the Escher hands above, and can be resolved only with the two modes of spacetime, as argued previously. Michael Redhead argued in 1995 that the notion of 'localizable particle' makes sense only for a free particle, while I suggest a 'quasi-local' alternative in terms of Machian relational ontology with the rule 'with respect to everything else in the universe'. In short, the issue of relativistic causality is anything but trivial in GR. As stressed by Margaret Hawton, in quantum field theory probability density is defined at a fixed instant t , and it is by no means obvious how to "insert" in such fixed instant t the already-completed non-linear 'acting and at the same instant being acted upon' in GR.Thanks to The Aristotelian Connection [A ( Notice that 'space as the
finite volume of space]'. (As Erik Curiel explained, arXiv:0908.3322v3 [gr-qc], "in general relativity all the fundamental units one uses to define stress-energy, namely time, length and mass, can themselves be defined using only the unit of time; these are so-called geometrized units. (...) A unit of length is then defined as that in which light travels in vacuo in one time-unit.") Then a minuscule alteration of the bond between spacetime points can produce enormous change of 'the ', and subsequently of the 'finite invariant templates' (resembling "curvature", cf. Bill Unruh), leaving the deceitful impression of some "cold dark matter" or "supermassive black hole".time it would take a photon The effect is not notice any change of her ambient spacetime assembled by The Aristotelian Connection, in terms of her 'one meter and one second': she will always experience the same "speed of light", regardless of the extent to which her template has been altered with respect to an unaltered template of an observer placed at the length scale of tables and chairs. This is because the "number" of spacetime points in any finite volume of 3-D space, approaching asymptotically S and L , remains unchanged (Kurt Gödel), being a non-Archimedean phenomenon, and also because The Aristotelian Connection is endowed with 'actual infinity' and "reads" all uncountably-infinite 'points' from any finite chunk of space en bloc .Notice that finite volume of space' (see above), is the global (en bloc) mode of time. It is the background time code of the animation from John Walker below, and it must be totally hidden.
Again, the crux of the matter is the initial puzzle of 'one meter' and its treatment with the two manifestations of infinity. Namely, with the There is
a lot more to be said about the "speed" of light, as The Aristotelian Connection "happens" only By going into the center of Milky Way, all we can More on SPR later; for now it suffices to say that the "speed" of light First and foremost, I need to eliminate all absolute structures in 3-D space, such as 'absolute size', by allowing the 'templates for finite space' to shrink toward
This is clearly an unfeasible Gedankenexperiment, which cannot be reproduced. Most importantly, the "
The With
RSP and its
Notice that the horizontal To visualize these
But look at Eq. 1 above: in the
Namely, Eq. 2 reduces to Eq. 1 above, and the finite, We cannot look at the " Perhaps the global mode of spacetime can be presented with In the quantum-and-gravitational realm of the local (physical) mode of spacetime, physical objects gradually acquire increasing access to 'the whole universe as ONE'. They become bootstrapped by their "gravitational field", due to opening a " All this is a very brief and incomplete effort to amend the Finite Infinity, introduced by George F R Ellis. Needless to say, I will be happy to elaborate. Details here.
================================
======================
However, this same "direction" is assumed to exist inside the same 3-D space "The burst “repeater” source was placed at the center of the Galaxy and the performance modulation due to Earth’s rotation has been studied with 24 hours of simulated data." So, the direction of GW scattering 'from the center of the Galaxy toward Earth' matches the direction of the same GW scattering seen by the meta-observer. Do you smell a rat? If not, join LIGO Scientific Collaboration. D.C.
=====================================
"It is remarkable that even classical dynamics of gravity asks for dimension > 4. As two and three dimensions were not big enough for free propagation of gravity, similarly four dimension is not big enough to fully accommodate self interaction dynamics of gravity. Then the most pertinent question is where does this chain end?" It ends at perfect continuum. That's the proposal for 'quantum principle for spacetime dynamics', after
Schrödinger and KS Theorem.Perhaps Naresh Dadhich would some day accidentally discover it. All he has to do is to forget about "branes" and other multidimensional superstitious. D.C.
Dear Dr. Crane,
=====================================
=======================================
It is manifestly pointless to dream about LISA, because you won't get it. ===============================
----------- Note: At the age of 57, my hair is getting lily-white, and I may claim that it is But LSC can't have their cake and eat it. As Hermann Weyl demonstrated in 1944 (Hermann Weyl, How Far Can One Get With a Linear Field Theory of Gravitation in Flat Space-Time? Notice that LSC cannot describe The persistent "evolution" of the beliefs of LSC members is really amazing. Back in 1981 (cf. Daniel Kennefick, p. 1), Kip Thorne had no difficulty in "finding a taker for a wager that gravitational waves would be detected by the end of the last century. The wager was made with the astronomer Jeremiah Ostriker, one of the better-known critics of the large detectors then being proposed. Thorne was one of the chief movers behind the largest of the new detector projects, the half-billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO. He lost the bet, of course." Now LSC members are effectively saying 'just gives us a couple of billion dollars more, and we gonna make it'. Exactly how much more? The Advanced LIGO Cost Estimating Plan (M990310-05.pdf, updated 05.27.2003) is Notice that LSC have already prepared 'Plan B', in case they fail miserably again. In their latest "science white paper", submitted to the Astro2010 Decadal Survey (Bernard F. Schutz Once the "Advanced LIGO" fails in 2015, they will celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein's GR with their "way to new physics", claiming that their total failure is actually of fundamental importance, like the negative result for the ether drift in the experiment of Michelson and Morley ... but with just a few billion dollars more for LISA and Einstein Telescope, everything will be just right. Are NSF officials going to risk a devastating embarrassment from their blind support of GW parapsychology? D. Chakalov
asymptotic expression r --> [infinity] , can perhaps be explained by an ancient Greek in the following fashion. Suppose Achilles is throwing his famous spear in one direction along the radius of the universe, r , starting from its center at Athens. He isn't familiar with the wisdom of present-day cosmology, but is a staunch relativist and knows that the universe is like an unbroken ring with no circumference, for the circumference is nowhere, and the "center" is everywhere.How can Achilles prove the ' This is The situation with the alleged null infinity isn't better either: "From a physical point of view, null infinity is To paraphrase Woody Allen, infinity is So, we need some entity that is charge-neutral to the two signs of mass: potential reality. Also, because GWs are sheer coordinate effects, they might "propagate" with Yes, GWs exist, and can be detected. All we may need is a "device" that can also detect quantum waves without any "collapse" whatsoever: a human brain. All this has been said many times at this web site; sorry for repeating it here. The only D. Chakalov
in a precise form such that both fluxes cancel, and thus leading to a vanishing 'flux', i.e., tµv = 0. Once again, the vanishing property of tµv for the system of gravity coupled to matter fields is just a reflection of the fact that the background metric is dynamical."More precisely, tµv = 0 tells us that the 'reaction' of the dynamical background metric is such that it just cancels the effect of 'flux' associated with the matter fields. It is impossible (and makes no sense) to have a locally non-vanishing 'flux' in this situation. If this were the case, there would be no explanation for the origin of that non-vanishing 'flux'. Moreover, that hypothetic non-vanishing 'flux' would define privileged observers associated with it ( the ether would come back!)."It is important to emphasize that, in the case of having a dynamical background metric, the vanishing property of tµv = 0 is not interpreted here as a ‘problem’ that must be corrected somehow but exactly the other way around. In our opinion, there is nothing wrong with that property because it just reflects the double role that the equations of motion associated with the dynamical background play." [Ref. 3] Angelo Loinger, Wrong "idees fixes" in GR, arXiv:physics/0403092v1 [physics.gen-ph], http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0403092 Idem, The Black Holes do not exist - "Also Sprach Karl Schwarzschild", arXiv:physics/0402088v1 [physics.gen-ph],http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0402088 ===========================
Check out a snapshot (2.11.2010) from the page above, Gerardus_energy.jpg, and notice the splitting of "the metric g for which we could take flat space-time, and a dynamical part: substitute in the Einstein-Hilbert action: ^{o}_{μν,}g =_{μν} g +^{o}_{μν} g . (...) Just require that the background metric^{1}_{μν} g obeys the gravitational equations itself; one can then remove from the Lagrangian all terms linear in ^{o}_{μν}g. This way, one gets an action that starts out with terms quadratic in ^{1}_{μν}g, while all its indices are connected through the background field ^{1}_{μν}g."^{o}_{μν}It is As to the latest note by Gerard 't Hooft, entitled "The plane gravitational wave for beginners" (Addendum 18/8/2010), he failed to mention that, for a pp-wave, all curvature invariants vanish (Hans Stephani and John Stewart,
Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft ==========================
Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft ============================
Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft D.C. Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
All the rest -- "two planes crashing into the Twin Towers have first been snatched by UFO's, their passengers were abducted, and the planes, without passengers and filled with explosives of an unknown type, were directed into the towers" -- is untrue. Why did CEOFOP (G. 't Hooft) write all this crap at his web site, I wonder. He is fluent in English, so we have two alternatives. One explanation could be that he has somehow lost his intellect, but In simple terms: he is either a selective moron, or just a bold liar. But I will leave the decision to his students in GR. If they come up with a third option, I will immediately post it here. Meanwhile, check out L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, D. Chakalov
=============================
Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
==========================
"One way to see how this works, is to split the metric g_mv into a background part, [X], for which we could take flat space-time, and a dynamical part: [XX]. You'll be the judge. Download "Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity", by Gerard ’t Hooft, version from January 4, 2010 (CEOFOP.zip) from And version from August 15th (CEOFOP_1.zip) from To get Gerard ’t Hooft's "pearls" of wisdom, all you need is to A colleague of mine offered only a brief comment: "It's madness, utter madness." Notice another essay by CEOFOP, entitled: "Will the Higgs be found?", http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Gerardus_predictions.pdf He claims (May 12, 2010) that "theories without any Higgs particle are possible but ugly and have been practically ruled out by observations", but failed to comment on Howard Georgi's unparticles and my prediction from January 9, 2003. LHC is deaf and blind to the scale-invariant world, hence will only "see" that the number of quarks is jumping to 8
Subject: STOP wasting taxpayers' money !
Subject: [Copy] Email sent to Living Reviews in Relativity
=========================
============================== Subject: Re: "yes, I do understand GR, but cannot discuss that now."
Subject: Prince of darkness
Would you like to learn why WIMPS are just an artifact from your essentially incomplete "standard model"?
p. 2: "If you believe the recent observational data regarding the accelerating universe, then the SEC is violated on cosmological scales See also: H. Epstein, V. Glaser and A. Jaffe, Nonpositivity of the energy density in quantized field theories, Nuovo Cim. 36(3) (1965) 1016-1022
have to be camouflaged in GR as "gauge-dependent". This should be expected, as present-day GR cannot handle 'absolute structures' such as the source of 'energy from empty space'. Surely "absolute structures carry no observable content" [Ref. 9]. Perfect!
"Either the mathematical formalism, which has been tested experimentally so excellently in other gauge theories such as QED, is inappropriate or we are missing some new physics."
p. 4: "Transition functions relabel the points that constitute M, which for the time being we think of as recognizable entities, as mathematicians do. (For physicists these points are mere ‘potential events’ and do not have an obvious individuality beyond an actual, yet unknown, event that realizes this
potentiality.)
===========================
Subject: Re: How to quantize spacetime without affecting relativity
Subject: Re: How to quantize spacetime without affecting relativity
=========================================
Note: Watch Cecilia Flori's lecture "Topos formulation of Consistent Histories", 14.01.2009, http://pirsa.org/09010017. She handles the topos theory and the ice hockey stick with agility and unmatched precision.
Note: Excerpts from http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement : " Stanley Deser refused to even consider endorsing my manuscript. I do hope some of his colleagues will agree. If you, my dear reader, have papers "that have been submitted between three months and five years ago" to [gr-qc] or [astro-ph] domains, and would agree to endorse the submission of my manuscript, please contact me by email
==========================
---------
Which is why you need to address the global dynamics of spacetime: the Just one "closed timelike curve" (CTC) or "time-like naked singularity" in the past 13.7B years would have destroyed everything, and since there are no Two examples: Geroch's theorem regarding CTCs (Robert Geroch, Topology in general relativity, As Alan Rendall stated (p. 14), "The study of these matters is still in a state of flux." Which is why I requested endorsement of my manuscript. So far two physicists have replied (J. Thornburg and S. Deser), the rest (73) have not even confirmed the receipt of my email (sent between October 26th
===========================
---------- Note: Nothing from the text above is original. The legacy of Erwin Schrödinger and Henry Margenau is anything but some unpredictable "black swan". For comparison, if someone has been offering the One can only hope that the upcoming sixth consecutive failure of LSC to detect GWs with the "Enhanced LIGO" will shake up the established theoretical physics community. If not, we will have to wait for the seventh consecutive failure of LSC in 2015, with their "Advanced LIGO". What a terrible waste of time. And money. Does anyone care?
==========================
Subject: Re: Tue 24 Nov 13:30pm - 14:30pm "What about the semiclassical approximation and the recovery of an appropriate external time parameter in some limit? (...) The discussion is also connected to the question: Where does the imaginary unit "If the theory does not allow us, even in principle, to extend solutions arbitrarily far in one direction, it may be difficult to view this direction as a dimension of the world."
==========================
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB
=============================
In the textbook version of 'GR If we wish to think as proper relativists, this is But is there any alternative to 'the arrow of spacetime'? Back in 1772, on the occasion of the fall of meteorites, the French Academy of Sciences adopted a resolution categorically rejecting such ridiculous phenomena. The obvious reason had been that rocks cannot fall from the sky, simply because there are no rocks there. Likewise, when you look at the sky, you will never think that the
D.C.
p. 7: "A New Scenario. The Principle of Gravitational Stability ought to be fully used in the very derivation of Space Time Uncertainty Relations, which would then depend also on the energy-momentum density of generic background quantum states; this leads to commutation relations between Spacetime coordinates depending in principle on the metric tensor, and hence, through the gravitational coupling, on the interacting fields themselves. Thus the commutation relations between Spacetime coordinates would appear as part of the equations of motions along with Einstein and matter field Equations.
===========================
In the model presented here, these two self-imposed presumptions are dropped, and the Yet the How? Because it is potential reality. Only people like George Ellis cannot grasp it. All we can physically observe is that 3-D space is Gerard 't Hooft had a brilliant guess about the negative energy states, but his Ph.D. student Stefan Nobbenhuis ruined it, upon his guidance, by assuming that "there is no coupling The misleading adjective "dark" (Mike Turner) comes from treating the Notice that in GR you inevitably need to introduce some Under these circumstances, people need to introduce some Don't try to bridge the two "mirror" worlds (introduced by symmetries or quasi-symmetries [Ref. 2]) with any D.C.
"These gauge transformations define equivalence classes within S, which we call gauge orbits. A gauge orbit represents a unique physical state (footnote 5), and its different points correspond to different coordinatizations. In another paper (arXiv:0902.0401v1 [gr-qc], p. 4), PSS illustrated their ideas with a "spatially homogeneous isotropic cosmological model", and acknowledged that "this model possesses the curious property that the only physical variable that changes Which makes this "time" unobservable, or rather 'observable only with respect to itself'. Pity PSS didn't ask Karel Kuchar to comment on their speculations, nor mentioned the new dynamics of 3-D space due to its "dark" energy acting on When will the Hamiltonian formulation of GR address this task? When pigs fly. D.C.
Example: Jim Hartle. Recently, a young theoretical physicist, Gareth Jones, defended his Ph.D. Thesis on "Searching for gravitational waves... ". He looked at Ch. 23 from Jim Hartle's textbook, "Gravity, an introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", to eventually understand the dimension But you can't hide the Please explain the
If you look at Wiki, GW amplitude "is not the quantity which would be analogous to what is usually called the amplitude of an electromagnetic wave (...)." The alleged GW has frequency, wavelength, and speed -- all defined with proper dimensionality. Only the How can Gareth Jones change his Ph.D. brain, to think as a physicist? Surely the entity that fixes a 'meter' cannot itself be defined with what it I think Jim Hartle (along with Bernie Schutz) should be blamed for Gareth Jones' professional career. It may be wasted by chasing ghosts with real, taxpayers' money. In my opinion, the "dimensionality" of GW amplitude is just like that of quantum waves. And just like the de Broglie waves (cf. Franco Selleri above), in present-day GR these GWs cannot show up either, simply because they cannot transport energy-momentum to any physical system in the spacetime of GR textbooks. Neither quantum waves (recall the quantum vacuum) nor gravitational waves are "empty" by themselves. Pity nobody cares. D.C. Subject: Re: The schizophrenic behavior of gravity (SBG) ============================
Ronnie, here's a story from Uncle Dimi. Suppose you're in a pitch dark room. You hold a torch in your hand, but want to "see" how Obviously, your task is not feasible. With your torch, you can only "see" the The real fun with QM starts when KS Theorem comes to play: your torch observations do not make sense. You cannot The essential ONE-"part" from the objects in You can say Your mentor, Nicolaas Landsman, has tried some toposification of quantum theory, but notice that this is The math jungle is staggering. Don't go there, it's endless. How do I know? A few days ago, I tried to explain Die Bahn [Ref. 1] to my teenage daughter (she is the 'test bed' for my
DVD video tutorials) as follows. Picture the quantum vacuum as an infinitely "large" cash-and-carry shop, from which you can get everything and anything (that caught her attention, as expected). You buy some stuff for your diet, but you can shop (i) Such "horizontal" cross-section of the arrow of spacetime takes only one Imagine also that every day you're buying Also, notice that all people in the universe are shopping from the same "dark shop": they shop for their 'one-day meal' to cook up their common 'local mode of spacetime', but have to do it I didn't try to explain why LSC may only unravel the blueprints from Finally, notice that if you take the whole stack of "Photoshop layers" (all your 'one-day meals') and
Fig. 1 Fig. 2 With the current GR and diff geometry textbooks, you can explore only To resolve the genuine dynamics of GR, we need to make the 3-D space dynamical: the global cosmological time originates from What is the duration of this "breathing" cycle in the local mode of spacetime?
p. 263: "The principle of space travel while locally “at rest”, is analogous to galaxies receding away from each other at extreme velocities due to the expansion (and contraction) of the Universe.
=================================
===================== Subject: Re: PTI, by Ruth Kastner
Physically, we observe a continuum of 'end results' (local mode of time) from this "talk"; details at
local mode of spacetime can (nor have to) wait "... until the conserved quantities are transferred and the potential quantum event becomes real", as John Cramer put it.We see only In the The second case of fixing the physical constituents at In GR, the offer-and-confirmation wave pertains to the "dipole radiation", and as it "converges" on the In my (perhaps very biased) opinion, these "two" (offer and confirmation) waves should determine the instantaneous inertial reaction "forces" as well. Currently, GR says nothing about the origin and mechanism of (Machian) inertial "forces". Nobody likes "miracles" in GR, so I very much hope we can find 'the Regarding the geodesic hypothesis, Alan Rendall acknowledged: "In elementary textbooks on general relativity we read that the Einstein equations imply that small bodies move on geodesics of the spacetime metric. It is very hard to make this into a mathematically precise statement which refers to actual solutions of the Einstein equations (and not just to some formal approximations)." Notice that Alan Rendall didn't even mention those 96% of the stuff in the universe, which is "dark" and moves on some weirdly modified geodesics.
The local mode of spacetime is a
====================================
This last sentence is a total Jabberwocky. How did we get these "points" that can be "labeled Contemporary relativists begin by postulating a Hausdorff topological space that has been somehow "connected", but usually mention this miracle in footnotes (e.g., Chris Isham, Perhaps one first needs a mathematically precise notion of the "set of points" that constitute a However, how should the topological space But here's the catch: on the one hand, the 'point-connecting agent' (called here pre-geometric plenum), which makes a Hausdorff topological space "connected", must not be line made by "zero-dimensional" points. It can't be some "special middle point" or "special separating interval", because inside a line we have only points, and nothing but points. These points don't have any special hooks or handles that can determine the principle of locality and the so-called "speed" of light.On the other hand, the pre-geometric plenum must somehow exist in order to "separate" the points and preserve their individual, albeit fleeting, physical content: "For example, \phi is a scalar field on the manifold and $X$ represents the space-time coordinate of a particle, then although \phi(x) has no physical meaning (if x is a point in the space-time manifold) nevertheless $\phi(X)$ *does* have a meaning: ie you can talk in a Diff(M)-invariant way about the value of a field where a particle 'is', and similarly for a The All this may sound like some metaphysical exercise devoid of any mathematical implications, but recall that in mathematics you have to follow the obvious and intuitively clear metaphysical ideas, or else will sink in a jungle with no way out. Not to mention the Now, people from the mathematical community disagree with the arrow of space and But how would you “quantize” a
D. Chakalov
p. 31: "The basic idea of a manifold is to introduce a p. 443: "This, or something like it, seems to be the final step in quantization. It is a crucial problem that has not yet found a satisfactory answer."
"And Antony's particular twist on the theory suggests a new explanation for the uniformity of the early universe -- where, he suggests, quantum law might not have applied, where stuff could interact faster than the speed of light -- and where those interactions were actually visible.
Luckily, Chris Isham has recently produced a clear explanation -- check out his arXiv:1004.3564v1, Sec. 5.1, 'The Kochen-Specker theorem and contextuality', p. 20: "... the implication of the discussion above is that the value ascribed to B (resp. the result of measuring B) depends on whether it is considered together with A1, or together with A2. In other words the value of the physical quantity B is The immediate question is this: What remains My proposal: pre-quantum reality. In the framework of Chris Isham's approach, the so-called pseudo-states ( Regardless of how you tackle such "pseudo-states" with some topos approach, the solution to the measurement problem in QM requires that you offer some 'peaceful coexistence' (Abner Shimony) of this pre-quantum reality and STR, as explained at this web site. Recall its motto: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter. We could have sorted out this bundle of issues eight years ago, but I guess Chris Isham had a different agenda. "I have a fond memory of being in the audience for a seminar by John Wheeler at a conference on quantum gravity in the early 1970s. John was getting well into the swing of his usual enthusiastic lecturing style and made some forceful remark about the importance of the quantum principle. At that point a hand was raised at the back of the lecture room, and a frail voice asked “What If you, my dear reader, cannot find an error in the interpretation of KS Theorem below, I will be happy to offer you my version of 'the quantum principle' and the origin of the quantum of action. But if you aren't interested -- that's perfectly fine with me.
April 23, 2010 ===================== Subject: Re: International Quantum Foundations Workshop
============== Subject: Re: "But success, I think, can only be granted by scrupulous intellectual honesty." And since some people may delete it, I'll attach it here.
D.C.
in space' (coordinate time, Kodama time, etc.; see Julian Barbour), but from chance (cf. Fig. 2). Example with the Hubble Law of spacehere.It is the arrow of Notice that the arrow of Physicists hate the Aristotelian metaphysics, however. They relentlessly try to picture [we-do-not-know-it] as some physical stuff with positive energy density, and end up with searching for an 'elephant in a china shop', only to find out that the elephant must be many orders of magnitudes larger than the store itself. The AOS-driven dynamics of living and quantum/gravitational systems will inevitably produce a If you disagree with the arrow of space (AOS), just try to define Fuggedaboudit, Roger. Time can "evolve" just as much as space can; hence the arrow of We should drop the “no prior geometry” assumption in GR and derive the ether from Quantum Theory -- the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor (not "pseudotensor") is a quantum-gravitational phenomenon. According to today's GR (Mario Goto On September 21, 2008, I suggested ' If you disagree with the D.C.
p. 259: "By definition, Tuv(Matter) describes all the local energy, so any energy due to the [Weyl tensor] must be nonlocal in character. The existence of nonlocal energy is also manifest in the fact that the local
conservation law R. Penrose, T Luca Lusanna and Massimo Pauri (6 March 2005), General Covariance and the Objectivity of Space-time Point-events,
"Most of the leading relativists in the early twentieth century, for examples Eddington [18] and even Einstein himself [19], claimed that general relativity was an æther theory, but they gave no mathematical demonstration of their claim. ===================================
what becomes 'quasi-local' due to gravity, and exactly how, is enormous -- check out Carl Hoefer, Roger Penrose, Babak and Grishchuk [Ref. 1], and Einstein's Equivalence Principle (Okon and Callender; Hans Ohanian): the wegtransformierbar faculty of gravity (Hermann Weyl) over a "point", in the non-Archimedean realm of 'the grin of the cat without the cat', as observed by Alice.
To be precise: I believe there exists a concealed, I think the introduction of some "flat space" in GR (CEOFOP, p. 25), as well as a "true, real stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity" (see above), is Let me try to explain my viewpoint, in the framework of 'the universe modeled as a brain'. I take for granted that matter can In the The "Gespensterfelder" (EPR-like) "action" from 'the whole school' on every quasi-local fish will show up as "dark", because it cannot be traced back from any quasi-local fish. LIGO is not endowed with the faculty of 'self-acting', and cannot detect such "dark energy from empty space". Recall the game of '20 questions', courtesy from John Wheeler [Ref. 2]. The To explain these quasi-local quantum-gravitational Thus, "the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor" (Wiki) does indeed vanish, because at Hence the "freely falling" bodies can indeed follow geodesics, as "the stress-energy has However, because we inevitably (On March 27, 2007, Prof. Warren W. Johnson, LSU, wrote: "Ah ha, caught you lying! You do have a radically different "theory" to compete with Einstein's theories." But LIGO fellow Warren W. Johnson is wrong. I strictly follow Einstein's GR, and am trying to remove all "miracles" in GR (resembling the projection postulate in QM), which preclude us from understanding the Notice that the vanishing property of tµv (M. Montesinos) is manifestation of the so-called ‘problem of time’: nothing can possible "move" in such block universe; cf. G.F.R. Ellis below.
If you believe in the Riemannian space of 'facts' and use only Archimedean geometry, you will inevitably encounter My suggestion is to zoom on the "infinitesimal variables" [Ref. 3] and reveal the interplay of matter and geometry -- their bi-directional "talk" on the
This is the meaning of the statement 'Your Global Time is ZERO'. More in my talk on Wednesday, 25 November 2015. My first talk didn't attract the attention of the theoretical physics community, but once the "enhanced" and "advanced" LIGO fail miserably by November 2015, I hope people will get serious about GR: "The representation of matter by a tensor was only a fill-in to make it possible to do something temporarily, a wooden nose in a snowman." (Albert Einstein's Last Lecture, April 14, 1954)
"There had been a plot
Comment: Eric Schechter wrote that "if you take a medium-sized number and divide it by an enormous number, you get a number very close to 0." Since the notions of infinity and infinitesimal are, in some (yet to be explained) sense, reciprocal, the latter can be illustrated with the following expression (notice that this is just an illustration of the puzzle stressed by Lucretius):
That's the puzzle of the All we can say is that, depending on the "direction" we look at 'the universe as ONE', it looks like either The recipe is simple and unique. How else can you remove the jejune poetry in mathematical GR and differential geometry textbooks, encoded in expressions like "sufficiently small" and "smooth" (Piotr Chrusciel), and in stipulations that the Hausdorff topological space has somehow been made "connected" (Chris Isham)? There is no matter at the primordial level of 'pure geometry' to enable such "connection", which would show up as the affine connection (Graham Nerlich). "It is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink warm water", says John Coleman. I hope these brief (and frank) comments can explain the idea about bi-directional "talk" of the Archimedean (material) and non-Archimedean (geometrical) realms. Forget about tensors. More on Wednesday, 25 November 2015. GR "bartenders" are cordially invited.
Point set topology is a disease from which the human race will soon recover.
Perhaps one can define God mathematically. It's all about 'Die Wirklichkeit des Möglichen in der Physik' (Jürgen Audretsch). The key assumption, which Jochen Rau calls 'deformability', is that "the event manifold's physical structure is allowed to vary freely" [Ref. 1]. Precisely what is implied by "freely"? In GR, there are no Thus, the event manifold itself should be endowed Here Jochen Rau and I agree only on "it depends on the distribution of matter in the universe (and on boundary conditions)" [Ref. 1]. However, in a Machian-type universe the To cut the long story short, the ‘no-prior-geometry’ demand fathered GR (MTW, p. 431), but by doing so it also fathered a century of confusion. No aspect of the geometry of spacetime should be "fixed immutably", i.e., "cannot be changed by changing the distribution of gravitating sources" (MTW, p. 429). Any fixed background, such as the topology of space (not determined in current GR) and the To resolve the century of confusion, I plan to suggest a
As the old saying goes, you pays your money and you takes your choice; but assume well-defined concepts of (i) energy density in GR and (ii) trajectory of quantum particles (quantum flexibility, not "fluctuations"), your choices narrow greatly. Regarding (ii), all particles simultaneously explore all As to (i), the energy density is fixed There is If you agree with Chris Isham, you'll be playing with the drawing below forever. Again, GR and QM "bartenders" are cordially invited. Well, as Blaise Pascal says, I have made this note longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Sorry. Will try to do better in November 2015.
"Primitive concepts are taken to be events, counting of events, causal relationships and the ability to compare measurements; the corresponding mathematical structures are a differentiable manifold, volume element, causal vectors and affine connection(s), leading to the notion of an 'event manifold'.
=================================
It seems to me -- please correct me if I got it wrong -- that Eqs 1 and 2, pp. 35-36 at the link above, may offer a solution to the ‘most embarrassing observation in physics’ (Ed Witten) and explanation of the apparent finite age of the universe:
You and Dr. Niedner wrote: "It is an example of an everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable curve. We can construct the Koch curve as a final product of an infinite sequence of steps. At each step, the middle third of each interval is replaced by the other two sides of an equilateral triangle."
Subject: Re: The Koch curve and Thompson's Lamp Paradox Note: The introduction of a D.C.
Note: The only way I could think of "the time at which wave-function collapse occurs" is by speculating about Weyl's Principle being applied to some The present-day GR explicitly forbids such luxury, as well as some 'nondynamical time parameter' (Unruh & Wald). Niall Murchadha and Julian Barbour claim that have found "the configuration space of general relativity" that "could bring interpretational clarity", and I offered them 'the test of the pudding'. Are they implying some null surfaces backward in time to resolve the quasi-local mess in GR? Check out the 1982 paper by R. Penrose; the problem has been agonizingly clear since the inception of GR. Apart from that, Niall Murchadha and Julian Barbour have brains, which could The human If you seriously believe that the flow of spacetime is within the framework of the theory of relativity "an illusion", you have a choice: fix the quantum theory and theory of relativity by incorporating its "dark energy", or do parapsychology. Or simply ignore this web site, and pretend that you've never learned anything from it, like Julian Barbour does. D.C.
p. 2: "...the process of electromagnetic radiation should be thought of as an Footnote 1, p. 3: "... it is as absurd to think of light emitted by one atom regardless of the existence of a receiving atom, as it would be to think of an atom absorbing light without the existence of light to be absorbed." p. 3: "... an advanced incoming field that is present at the source p. 3: "The crucial point to note about the Wheeler-Feynman scheme is that due to the advanced field of the absorber, the radiative damping field is present at the source at p. 4: "The transaction is completed with a “handshake”: the offer and confirmation waves combine to form a four dimensional p. 5: "The process is In order to employ this beautiful story for the mechanism of inertial reaction "force" in our Machian universe, we need a "mirror for gravitational waves" from Finite Infinity, plus a few other things. Only the math is unknown. Don't say you knew nothing about it! D.C.
This leads to the questions of 'the universal truth function', and "why does quantum theory not have this sort of complementarity" [Ref. 1].
D.C. ====================================
Erwin Schrödinger Erwin Schrödinger,
July 21, 2011
Suppose you are an Eskimo, and you have never seen, and will never see an elephant in your whole life. Yet you can nevertheless make observations on elephant's trunk by means of two "complementary" devices, 'nose' and 'arm'. You know that Heisenberg relations preclude you from observing simultaneously the "nose" and the "arm" of elephant's trunk (the position and momentum of an electron, say). Then you're struck by Schrödinger's 1935 paper: "In general, a variable It means you cannot observe elephant's trunk with (inanimate) devices at the length scale of tables and chairs. It does Carsten Held stated that the KS theorem, "by its mathematical nature, is not empirically testable", and since Ronnie Hermens (and Wiki) seem to have some troubles with it, may I offer a brief, personal, and biased interpretation, ensuing from Ernst Specker's tripod. Ernst Specker was eager to clarify the answer to a truly fundamental question: is it possible to Imagine three quantum guys, Tom, Dick, and Harry, and think of the "spectral decomposition" of their The famous KS Theorem (download an explanation by R.I.G. Hughes from here) says that the (spin 1) system {Tom_Dick_Harry} will exhibit the following "paradoxical" (from the viewpoint of classical physics) situation: if Tom and Dick happen to possess context-dependent and Next time you "measure" the system {Tom_Dick_Harry}, exactly the same thing can happen to Dick. Or to Tom. So, any time you observe some Notice that if we constrain Tom, Dick, and Harry to raise only one hand (either L or R), people would entertain "quantum computing" and "topological quantum computation" ( I employ the notion of 'potential reality' to signify the UNdecidable KS quantum state -- the genuine 'quantum reality out there'. Can't fit it in any Hilbert space whatsoever. If you prefer, think of it as Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. In summary, the Kochen-Specker Theorem demonstrates the UNdecidable KS quantum state. The latter is far more profound and important than the Namely, the conclusion that " Nothing -- not even some "contextuality" -- can save Harry (or Dick, or Tom) from the case in which he (or Dick, or Tom) If at some instant of measurement Harry Three years ago, I explained to my teenage daughter a similar puzzle in GR, regarding the Hole Argument. With slight modifications, the corresponding 'KS Theorem for teenage girls' would be as follows. Imagine you cannot see your finger nails "bare", without nail varnish. One way to think of such peculiar situation is that your 'bare finger nails'
In a drastic contrast to the "collapse" and the Eigenvalue-Eigenstate Link from the old Copenhagen School [Ref. 1], the PR interpretation of QM employs the phenomenon of 'emergence' (e.g., Isham and Butterfield): in the case with {Tom_Dick_Harry}, one could It goes without saying that a rigorous presentation of the ideas in the paragraph above is not available. These are just ideas presented with words. Back in 1935, Erwin Schrödinger also offered some very general ideas, presented with words: "The rejection of realism has logical consequences. In general, a variable The second part from the last sentence was totally forgotten by the mainstream theoretical physics community, and only Henry Margenau paid attention to it. Yet even today very few QM textbooks mention KS Theorem, which is rooted on this forgotten (or rather ignored) consideration spelled out by Schrödinger in 1935. As to the first part, "a variable If this is the case chosen by Mother Nature, the mysterious transition from quantum to classical, which is essential to QM textbooks [Ref. 3], should be explained with the "back bone" of the quantum world -- potential reality. Notice that the For example, regarding the notion of spin (" Of course not. The whole point is that there Can we, with our Boolean logic, Let's not mix apples with oranges, because the 'time' in the quantum world (no time operators in QM) is This should be the starting point for explaining "the central mystery of quantum mechanics" (Richard Feynman): the nature of the quasi-local UNdecidable quantum state. It is not a 'fact', and cannot be presented with “It seems to me that the concept of probability is terribly mishandled these days. Probability surely has as its substance a statement as to whether something is or is not the case — an uncertain statement, to be sure. But nevertheless it has meaning
There are three Quantum Mechanics is about this Tell your students about it, Prof. Doplicher. No kid should end up like A. Connes. Surely the To quote Niels Bohr, "Mathematical clarity has in itself no virtue. A complete physical explanation should absolutely precede the mathematical formulation." And the physical explanation has been spelled out by Schrödinger and Margenau. Only the math is unknown. To move further (Machian quantum gravity), try to unravel the origin and mechanism of instantaneous inertial reaction "forces", starting No way. Something inherently I think Ronnie Hermens should ask his QM tutor (Nicolaas Landsman) lots of questions about KS Theorem. Perhaps he should also ask Chris Isham, after reading Ch. 9 from his famous textbook.
Philip Pearle, Wavefunction Collapse and
Conservation Laws, Philip Pearle: "... the collapse postulate of standard quantum theory can violate conservation of energy-momentum and there is no indication from where the energy-momentum comes or to where it goes." Dharam Vir Singh Ahluwalia, Three Quantum Aspects of Gravity, p. 2: "The second observation that I wish to report here is that the collapse of a wave function is associated with the collapse of the energy-momentum tensor. Since it is the energy-momentum tensor that determines the spacetime metric, the position measurements alter the spacetime metric in a fundamental and unavoidable manner. Therefore, in the absence of external gravitating sources (which otherwise dominate the spacetime metric), it matters, in principle, in what order we make position measurements of particles [D.V. Ahluwalia, Quantum Measurement, Gravitation, and Locality, gr-qc/9308007]. Quantum mechanics and gravity intermingle in such a manner as to make position measurements non-commutative. This then brings to our attention another intrinsic element of gravity in the quantum realm, the element of non-locality."
==============================
============================
==========================
=============================
not the (local) time read by our mischievous clocks. It is the global mode of time produced by the dynamics of 3-D space itself (cf. Fig. 2 above). Any approach based on the Hamiltonian formulation of GR is inadequate from the outset, because the intrinsic dynamics of 3-D space, produced by its "dark" energy, cannot be captured within the 3-D space itself. You can never identify some isolated system in GR, and will always be haunted by problems at "infinity" (Paul Tod, 01:19-02:05):
Steven Weinberg, p. 68: "Although inertial forces do not exactly cancel gravitational forces for freely falling systems in an inhomogeneous or time-dependent gravitational field, we can still expect an approximate cancellation if we restrict our attention to such a "There is a little vagueness here about what we mean by "the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems," so to avoid any possible ambiguity we can specify that by this we mean the form given to the laws of nature by special relativity, for example, such equations as (2.3.1), (2.7.6), (2.7.7), (2.7.9), and (2.8.7). Comment (D.C.): This isn't any mathematical treatment of " Comment (D.C.): Such kind of thinking is typical to people like CEOFOP. Comment (D.C.): Pure poetry, again. "Thus we cannot learn anything about the time evolution of the gravitational field from the four equations {XXX} (7.5.1). Rather, these equations Comment (D.C.): Typical Comment (D.C.): Comment (D.C.): After the discovery of the "dark" energy in the fall of 1997, Steven Weinberg didn't re-examine the source of the problem: you get "dark" energy because you Regarding the dynamics of "the scale factor R( But as Chris Isham said eight years ago, ... (no comment).
=========================================
I also mentioned your Lecture Notes and articles by your colleagues at
The
As to the everywhere. The topology of such universe is unknown, of course.
Final comments: Previously, I tried to contact Jean-Philippe Uzan on Fri, 06 Jun 2003 15:19:29 +0300; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:39:48 +0200; and Thu, 18 May 2006 14:50:21 +0300. My last effort was made yesterday, regarding his review on varying "constants". We don't need any anthropic parapsychology: check out Pauli's solution from 1948 quoted here, and Eq. 2 on p. 36 here. This is just business; nothing personal. I could be totally wrong, too.
======================================
D.C.
Footnote 1, p. 1: "S. Lloyd tells the amusing anecdote[?], “I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder. I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ "The best we can do is to think of consciousness as sequentially illuminating certain fixed events, then others, with all the events already right there in the solution."
Subject: Re: torsion Pity Brian Dolan didn't have time to check out the links. Your wristwatch does read the standard second The mystery of these "just another crank" D.C. May 2, 2010
It is argued that the Hamiltonian formulation of GR cannot address the dynamics of space due to its "dark" energy from the quantum vacuum, hence new degrees of freedom should be introduced to the dynamics of space -- an arrow of space. The scope of 'relative
scale principle' (RSP), announced on 21 September 2008, is to introduce "boundaries" on spacetime, such that an isolated system endowed with 'finite infinity' can be constructed. The ontological assumptions in RSP are about 'necessary and sufficient conditions for spacetime': the former concerns physical substratum (positive energy density), while the latter condition refers to a global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean state of the whole universe as ONE.-------
Yes, you got it right: the first picture is a negative image from the original. You may also say that, unlike Chuck Norris, those people at NASA, who offer a meta-observer view on the "expanding" 3-D space, use lots of math, but that doesn't really matter, because the essential similarity is that both images are jokes. Back in 1963, Roger Penrose offered a recipe for reaching infinity from any location in space, which was also a joke, although spiced with lots of math. Here's the problem of "more space". Some prelims from GR textbooks: unlike STR, the spacetime in GR textbooks is considered "dynamical", such that, to follow a well-know metaphor, the "actors" (matter) and the "stage" (spacetime) engage in a We all agree that 'time' is no longer a fixed background parameter, but the To elucidate the second major difference in treating the 'tangent vectors', recall that in GR textbooks you are invited to take the same meta-observer, bird's-eye view on the whole spacetime as in the NASA picture above: to explain the alleged "curvature" of spacetime, "it is easy to see it in a 2-dimensional surface, like a sphere. The sphere fits nicely in 3-dimensional flat Euclidean space, so we can visualize vectors on the sphere as 'tangent vectors'" (John Baez). Then you've been taught by Bob Wald "to work The new (to GR textbooks) "direction", resulting from the very "expansion" of space due to "dark" energy, is
The new "direction" from the "dark" energy is The crucial "direction" of the so-called "expansion" of space due to the "dark" energy from
On the other hand, the 3-D Flatlanders (local mode of spacetime) will only notice that the two 'ideal endpoints' or "edges" of the everywhere.But they will also notice some puzzling "projection" from the dark energy, cast on the 3-D space, just as they can notice, and indeed measure, the "projection" of space curvature, cast on the 3-D space (see Larry Krauss, p. 12). While we don't know the nature of gravity, we are accustomed from GR textbooks to treat it as 'curvature of The "projection" from "dark" energy, cast on 3-D space, is just as weird and misleading as the 'curvature of space', yet it bothers people much more than the puzzling nature of gravity (the latter People from NASA may ask, what kind of stuff is "expanding", creating the illusion (see also the misleading picture below) about galaxies "running away" from each other, in line with the Hubble Law?
The picture below (as well as the one from NASA above) can only be seen by some meta-observer, who can also see the whole universe, and of course count to infinity (like Chuck Norris). The 3-D Flatlanders can't.
Such kind of illusionary "expansion" (much like the "curvature" of space) may be caused by some 3-D "projection" from Perhaps Einstein would only look at my efforts and say ... well, he was a very polite person. But because he also was, on some occasions, driven solely by his personal taste and instinct, rather than sound physical principles [Note 1], let me try to follow his style. I also admit that SRP is direct prediction of my theory, hence if it turns out to wrong, so will be my whole project, as started in January 1972. I believe physical objects can be considered "large" bzw. "small" only with respect to the We have Consider a table with length two meters, located And the third view is that of a But the center of the sphere is not a Thus, an S) and (ii) an arbitrarily large (inverse-proportional to S) volume of space (L).Now an omnipresent observer can simultaneously "see" the It doesn't matter whether this What matters is that the good old 3-D space has just been The global mode of time runs Such symmetry over 'space inversion' and the two "superposed" inverted views of Claudia (needed for derivation of After this shaky exercise with We postulate: If we think of The Beginning as the case in which Notice that Escher's hands can be moved only
This is the This is a very old idea ' only one frozen snapshot from Die Bahn.The Notice, however, that the Another important feature of SRP is the difference between
And because The Aristotelian Connection produces not just one "point" (as in the Thompson Lamp paradox) but an infinite "number" (uncountably infinite) of such purely geometrical "points" -- simultaneously, with potential states available to the particular "point" to choose from, and we get the local mode of already-correlated facts -- one-at-a-time, along Die Bahn (the arrow of space).Nobody and nothing "plays dice" here: God casts the die, Going back to the pre-geometric plenum: perhaps the Also, our wristwatches [Note 3] are perfect examples for quantum-gravitational measuring devices, as they can in fact read Everything said here pertains only to the kinematics of spacetime; to obtain its dynamics (the arrow of spacetime) we need to include the Aristotelian First Cause "by hand", because In modern parlance, SRP is expected to "suffer" from Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but because of the fundamental nature of SRP, the additional elements in it, which belong to some 'meta theory', will inevitably come from 'outside science'. To be specific, the introduction of Aristotelian First Cause "by hand" means endowing the universe with the faculty of Perhaps at As to the "expansion" of space depicted in the drawing from NASA, perhaps the projection of the metric in 'the Large' onto the macroscopic scale produces the As suggested above, the cosmological horizon is 'ever expanding' along the arrow of spacetime, while the Planck scale is
I wish I knew what is 'space' [Note 4]. There is so much
"I have again perpetrated something relating to the theory of gravitation that might endanger me of being committed to a madhouse." (Ich habe wieder etwas verbrochen in der Gravitationstheorie, was mich ein wenig in Gefahr bringt, in ein Tollhaus interniert zu werden; English translation by N. Straumann).
"The right side (the matter part) is a formal condensation of all things whose comprehension in the sense of a field theory is still problematic. Not for a moment, of course, did I doubt that this formulation was merely a makeshift in order to give the general principle of relativity a preliminary closed expression. For it was essentially not anything more than a theory of the gravitational field, which was somewhat artificially isolated from a
--------- ZERO'. The sole question from the readers of this web site has been, 'why don't you publish all this in a book, to explain your ideas' (or something similar).The criticism is fully justified: reading my web site is anything but fun. I am considering writing a book, but it will be intended to kids age 15+, and will have to be complemented by a DVD with video lectures, to explain the crux of the idea about 'the universe modeled as a brain'. Why kids? Because the future belongs to them (I will soon hit 58, Thinking about the future, I can imagine only two developments regarding
RSP. One possible case will be that it is just crap and delusion, so But could
RSP be correct, really? Well, as I mentioned previously, the And nobody is curios anyway. (For those who are: I believe
RSP, embedded in an arrow of spacetime, offer Therefore, there is no need to use paper -- everything I need to say is, and always will be posted at this web site, available to anyone interested. If some day it turns out that
RSP in 'the arrow of spacetime' had hit Besides, we don't live in 18th century: "When this lowly chap informed the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics that he had formulated the inverse square law of gravitation years before the publication of
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with youth."
p. 1: "Equivalence principle implies no Comment: I highly recommend B. Schutz' video lecture D.C.
Notice that the UNdecidable Kochen-Specker state at the first link above is a To cut the long story short, "quantum computing" is impossible, even if it is "topological"
Now, if we look at GR, we have a similar puzzle with the equally incomprehensible "proper time Not surprisingly, Mike Freedman didn't respond to my email (nor mentioned my efforts at the second link above). Due to the lack of interest, I will only reiterate the startling characteristic feature of 3-D space: finite things. If you wish to explain an elephant, all you need is to "obtain" its unique trunk; likewise finite things for 3-D space. Details in my note on quantum gravity below. No other choice for All this is a tentative answer to Michael Teller's question ( Well, if The Universe does work like a brain, perhaps we may wish to consider an entity resembling our mind and consciousness. Say, [John 1:1]. Is the all-mighty Microsoft interested, I wonder.
======================================
=====================
Look at the following statement, from Stephen Hawking's "Grand Design" (to be published on September 9, 2010): “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. (...) If there are trillions of universes as M-theory proposes, that luck and probability are enough to make our existence feasible, so no God was needed.” Ignore the second and third sentences (spontaneous creation of an infinite multiverse doesn't make sense at all, or implies a very dumb and sloppy god). How many factual and logical errors can you identify in the I think our understanding (S. Hawking, C. Isham, and myself included) of gravitation and the origin of inertia resembles my wife's knowledge in electricity, as she can comprehend Ohm's Law only by some analogy of water running in a flexible hose. As to Hawking's conjecture about "singularity", it was formulated as a theorem many years ago, and only after very specific and crucial presumptions, which do not hold in a world dominated by [we-do-not-know-it]. Yet Chris Isham will always praise his colleague, Stephen Hawking, and will never expose the factual and logical errors ( According to Gerard 't Hooft, “Isham believes another mathematical language may help, but I don’t think so. It sounds a bit as if describing the world in German is better than in Chinese.” Well, at least the "German" approach emphasizes on KS Theorem, which is usually obscured in the mainstream "Chinese" version of QM.
Isham believes that "every physical system, from atomic particles to the universe as a whole, can be viewed through different topoi" (source here), and suggests the notion of ‘pseudo-state’ (Würst); see Slide 28, from his January 2008 lecture "Topos theory in the formulation of theories of physics", http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/conferences/categorieslogicphysics/clap1/clap1-chrisisham.pdf From Heidegger’s perspective, there is ‘ One important implication is that, on the one hand, the truth value associated with 'potential reality' is Thus, we need two This is an The paradoxical situation is that I am strictly following Chris Isham's path to quantum gravity, announced in 1993. In my opinion, I am more 'Chris Isham' than he currently is. All differences boil down to the way he and I understand the continuum hypothesis and the quantum of action: This is the motto of my web site, since July 1998. Let me try to explain it, by offering my version of 'the quantum principle'. Then I will try to answer the question about time posed above. In simple words, If you examine the Gedankenexperiment with four dice, you will see that the transition from any
As to the question by Chris Isham above: 'time' is provided by the Of course, there is no way to find out if someone has found 'the right track', but at least I can As I'm still learning, since January 1972, perhaps some day I could say more on "the bridge"; check out the current version of my note on GWs at http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf What looks really impossible, I'm afraid, is some day Chris Isham to defend his insulting claim from 23 October 2002. No way. He will keep quiet, and will praise Stephen Hawking. Apart from that, I must acknowledge that Chris Isham is a very nice person. We met on November 13, 1998, and had many discussions in his Office. At our last meeting on March 9, 2006, he offered me a cup of tea, which was delicious. "just another crank" D.C.
Slide 40, "A contextual theory would allow the value assigned to some operator Â to depend on the Andreas Döring, 1:32:40 - 1:33:00: "I must really admit it is not clear to me how much sense this could make."
Note: The so-called PR Or don't. It's your free will choice, in line with the PR I'm just a psychologist, don't need quantum gravity. Even if someone explains the origin of inertia and sorts out the quantum vacuum energy with exact equations, all this will be redundant information, just as I don't need to know the exact biochemistry of food processing in order to enjoy a beef steak, say. Does a fish need a bicycle? D.C.
"The seemingly puzzle is analogous to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, in which a pair of entangled particles are measured separately by Alice and Bob. In the context of special relativity, if the two measurements are conducted at two spacetime events which are spacelikely separated, the time-ordering of the two events can The UNdecidable state of Well, Manfred Requardt doesn't like it, for reason he never explained. Anyway.
===============================
I will spare the reader the usual excursion to Bell's theorem, EPR argument and its inevitable pitfalls (e.g., "quantum correlations happen without any time-ordering", and "nonlocal quantum correlations seem to emerge, somehow, from outside space-time", Nicolas Gisin), and will only stress that Alice&Bob are confined in the Hilbert space, hence can never "see" the quantum coin "in the air". The UNdecidable KS state shows up Look carefully at R.I.G. Hughes, p. 164, and notice the difference between the geometrical presentation -- in the Not so in the case of spin-1 system: the Now, Kochen and Specker have shown that, if you consider any You can't have There is no backward causation nor retrocausality, because 'potential reality' does not live on the Notice also the logic of propositions regarding the "content" of potential reality, encapsulated with a single I firmly disagree with the opinion in Wiki that KS Theorem (details in Mladen Pavicic Regarding Bell's Theorem, Tim Palmer rightly noticed that (p. 7) "in order to establish Bell’s theorem, we need to consider correlations between pairs of measurements when the magnets have different orientations, let’s say There is no counterfactual "reasoning" in KS Theorem, ladies and gentlemen. Quite the opposite. Check out Ernst Specker above. In summary, all quantum, as well as all gravitational "states" are contextualized Any comments? Please don't hesitate, like Chris Isham and his PI colleagues. D.C.
=====================================
Dear Colleagues,
Prove it. The task is interesting to me because my brain has roughly 10 D.C.
==================================
p. 2: "Over the past several years, evidence for another basic feature of small-scale spacetime has been accumulating: it is becoming increasingly plausible that spacetime near the Planck scale is effectively two-dimensional. No single piece of evidence for this behavior is in itself very convincing, and most of the results are fairly new and tentative.
To quote from the link above: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. (...) If there are trillions of universes as M-theory proposes, that luck and probability are enough to make our existence feasible, so no God was needed.” =============================
===========================================
Note: Recall the correlation puzzle with relic GWs (Scott Dodelson If you use the 'spherical cow' (linearized) approximation of GR, the "puzzling synchronization" mediated by relic GWs will have to propagate If you drop the 'spherical cow' (linearized) approximation of GR, you will have to use pseudo-tensors to Ed Bertschinger, "Gravitational Radiation Emitted Power", If you succeed, we all will hear about it on CNN Breaking News.
Dimi Chakalov
I suppose you are fluent in Russian and know the original edition. Look at the end of Ch. VI, and will notice that the notorious KGB agent didn't like "black holes". "Show that assigning energy to vacuum we do not revive the notion of ”ether”, i.e. we do not violate the relativity principle or in other words we do not introduce notion of absolute rest and motion relative to vacuum." I emailed Dr. Yerokhin and said that the task seems impossible (I don't know how to define the The reply by Dr. Den Yerokhin (answer.pdf), along with his permission to post it on this web site, can be downloaded from Yerokhin.zip. You be the judge. I am still unable to understand how to "assign" energy to the vacuum, as its contribution D. Chakalov
==============================
"This means that inertial and gravitational effects are both embodied in the spin connection [XXX] and cannot be separated because of the equivalence principle (notice that inertial and gravitational effects "As a consequence of this inseparability, the energy-momentum If we define the energy-momentum More in my talk on Wednesday, 25 November 2015, about what looks in current GR like "torsion". Forget about tensors. Let's start from scratch [Ref. 1]. I mentioned above that inertial and gravitational effects Now, what is the " D. Chakalov
"However, it’s somewhat misleading to say that the equations of motion emerge from the field equations without having been imposed as a separate assumption. They follow as a direct consequence of the fact that particles follow “straight and uniform” inertial paths in each infinitesimal region of spacetime, and this in turn is a direct consequence of the local conservation of energy-momentum. It’s true that the field equations of general relativity imply this conservation, as can be seen by the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the Einstein tensor "The field equations simply equate this to the energy-momentum tensor T ...... "So, despite Einstein’s hopes, general relativity does not in any way explain or obviate the principle of inertia. Granted, if the field equations didn’t include the trace term (so that the covariant divergence didn’t vanish), the resulting theory would have many problems and be subject to many objections, but this goes without saying. No one disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely well-founded in observation. It is an extremely well-justified postulate – but it is still a postulate. General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal theories on the topology and morphology implicit in the principle of inertia and the associated distinguished coordinate systems."
A. Einstein, 4 April 1955: "(T)he essential achievement of general relativity, namely to overcome ‘rigid’ space (ie the inertial frame), is only indirectly connected with the introduction of a Riemannian metric. The directly relevant conceptual element is the ‘displacement field’ (XXX), which expresses the infinitesimal displacement of vectors. It is this which replaces the parallelism of spatially arbitrarily separated vectors fixed by the inertial frame (ie the equality of corresponding components) by an infinitesimal operation. This makes it possible to construct tensors by differentiation and hence to dispense with the introduction of ‘rigid’ space (the inertial frame)."
====================================
"Postulate of locality: An accelerated observer (measuring device) along its worldline is at each instant physically equivalent to a hypothetical inertial observer (measuring device) that is otherwise identical and instantaneously comoving with the accelerated observer (measuring device)." More on what looks like "torsion" in present-day GR at =====================
F.W. Hehl, Spin and Torsion in General Relativity. I. Foundations, General Relativity and Gravitation, 4 (1973) 333-349 The null-energy conditions needed for singularity "theorems" and Tipler's theorem are Compared it with the ultimate free lunch from DDE (August 2006): "Suppose you accelerate a car, but the gauge fuel shows that you're actually We cannot apply Newton’s third law (Hans Ohanian) to the The alleged Newtonian limit is totally unclear as well -- notice the self-force from DDE in Machian gravity [Ref. 2] in the text below. Once we accept that space itself has become dynamical, it's a whole new ball game for the current GR. Perhaps the reader may wish to consider a fiber over a point Look at the fiber bundle hairbrush at Wiki, and compare it with the "spinning" (along two "circles" resembling
Clarifications: the quantum hedgehog has infinitely many "bristles", which should also facilitate the Notice that every "fish" should be enabled to choose its quasi-local "geodesic" Also, the quantum hedgehog should That's all for now. I have five years to clarify my hedgehog Perhaps the inherent nonlinearity in the geodesic equation (Wiki) points to a new, This "smuggling" can be explained by recalling that neither the coordinate time To be precise, at point holistic input from 'the school of fish' is wiped out completely, by "cancellation of energy and energy flux of the real gravitational field with the energy and energy flux of the inertial forces field" (Janusz Garecki); hence the "ether" (global mode of spacetime) cannot show up (M. Montesinos). In the fleeting linearized "snapshot" at p (local mode), the total energy of the gravitational field is always _{n} zero, the Einstein tensor and the energy-momentum tensor vanish identically, and all "dark" stuff has been linearized and physicalized. The same re-cancellation occurs at the next point p along the Arrow of Space, but because these seemingly "neighboring" points belong to two _{n+1} different universes from the "flattened" local mode of spacetime (cf. Fig. 1 above), their fleeting physical content is different , while the holistic origin of this difference is "dark". Hence no "fish" can register any "deviation" (with respect to what?) during its re-created quasi-local geodesic: its "geodesic equation" has been updated dynamically, at each and every next point p -- a genuine Phoenix Universe (Georges Lemaître, 1933). In the terminology of Karel Kuchar, this infinitesimal shift is mediated by the Perennial, which governs the dynamics "from outside as an unmoved mover". Notice that "all time _{n+1}τ is eternally present" (K. Kuchar), as it should be.In general, if we agree that gravitational energy should be defined over Hence the idea about a null-surface formulation of 'emergent spacetime' along the Arrow of Space, in line with the so-called biocausality.
The latter is defined with respect to the As I said above, I don't like miracles, like "decoherence" and "ideal Schrödinger time" [Ref. 7]. The calculations in QM and QFT explicitly That's what went wrong in 1915. We need new ideas about the origin of space. If you look carefully at the Finite Infinity and the pre-geometric plenum, you will realize that these are This is the To explain the claim in the preceding sentence, let me elaborate a bit more on the
There is no "accelerated" stage (Emil Mottola) in "shrinking" or "expanding" the volume of space by approaching asymptotically (The very The 'physical size of lengths in 3-D space' (the scale factor) would have to actually expand if we were limited to Archimedean geometry only. Were that the case, one could eventually picture some conformal recipe for reaching infinity by "rescaling the metric", as envisaged by R. Penrose. Regarding the "size" of ' Finally, notice the Gedankenexperiment with an observer witnessing a "shrinking" I intend to elaborate on the time-and-space reversed "direction" (inverted space with its CPT symmetries, like inverting a rubber glove inside out) and the VGP formulation of GR on 25.11.2015. The full original drawing here offers some hints for interpreting the possible forms of 'mass' (Yakov Terletskii) and the As it happens very often, I'll probably admit in November 2015 that what I wrote today, 15.11.2010, was very confusing. Sorry, I'm just a psychologist and my efforts are stereotyped as "just another crank". Well, you be the judge. Maybe there are indeed wrong ideas at my web site, but recall Christopher Columbus: If we don't leave for India, how can we discover America?
----------
Footnote 5, pp. 5-6: "Locality, for which the metric tensor g
p. 14: "In general relativity the problem of gravitational field energy is notoriously more subtle and complex. This is due to the nonlinearity of the field equations, which in turn is related to the fact that gravity carries energy and is thus a .... p. 17: "At present it is certainly not clear what might replace our present concept of spacetime at the Planck scale."
G. Cavalleri, E. Tonni, Negative masses, even if isolated, imply self-acceleration, hence a catastrophic world, Nuovo Cimento 112B (1997) 897-904 Banesh Hoffmann (1964), Negative Mass as a Gravitational Source of Energy in the Quasistellar Radio Sources, in: Thomas Valone
and in Please see
non_conservation.jpg attached, from p. 3.
"Although inertial forces do not exactly cancel gravitational forces for freely falling systems in an inhomogeneous or time-dependent gravitational field, we can still expect an I will address (1) the localization of gravitational energy and (2) the notion of 'isolated system'.
If you're interested, please read the text by following the links, and email me with your questions. Anything you weren't able to understand will be The most difficult puzzle to me is that our wristwatches are 'canonical clocks' that are The usual renorm recipes won't work, because we cannot pinpoint some latent yet "carefully defined In other words, the "cracks" left for the holistic ("dark") energy of 'the shoal of fish' (see above) are incredibly All this unfolds from the textbook interpretation of those 'twice contracted Bianchi identities', as stressed by Hans Ohanian. Aren't you interested? Please feel free to disagree, and explain why. But if you trust Chris Isham -- don't bother to reply. Follow 'comma to semicolon rule', whenever possible, and be happy with the available "boundary conditions" and "geodesic hypothesis". D. Chakalov
Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. That an erroneous theory can seemingly account for various observed phenomena is not new to science. The Ptolemaic system of epicycles accounted for various celestial phenomena but is nonetheless an erroneous theory.
The whole 'geodesic hypothesis' looks clear only to undergraduates -- check out A. Rendall's lrr-2005-6, 9.6 The geodesic hypothesis. Dimi An Introduction to GENERAL RELATIVITY, March-April/2004,
quasi-local emergent geodesic, resembling the trajectory of a fish -- it gets its nonlocal gravitational corrections and contributions from 'the whole school of fish', and follows locally a trajectory comprised of "points" -- one-correction-at-a-point along AOS. It makes no sense of talking about "curvature" (§3.81), because an ideal observer (§3.11) doesn't have Akasha-like memory to "recall" its experience without such corrections and contributions from gravity. The quantum-gravitational "fish" is a contextual and Machian-like relational entity, hence it must never be "free from external forces" (§3.11).
If, however, we have "time-dependent gravitational field, we can still expect an The solution to the two tasks above is utterly needed. Do it, and if you come up with ideas different than those proposed here, I will consider my work redundant, hence wrong. Good luck. D. Chakalov
=======================================
Dear Iegor,
Subject: Re: “On Primitive Elements of Musical Meaning” You hit the nail on the head (Consciousness.pdf, p. 6/8):
Subject: Re: Kommunikationswissenschaft 101
I've been arguing for many years that these Platonic ideas have
Likewise, the manifestation of 'potential reality' is two-fold, as we observe It is 'potential reality' what makes It is very difficult to thing If you prefer parapsychology instead of quantum gravity, watch Criss Angel; more here. D.C.
But you can't get unique partial derivatives in the most important case here. The problem is General Relativity is only a temporary patch or "makeshift", because "we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception." If the space itself is dynamical object, we may recover its 'global time' and 'reference fluid' from Quantum Theory. That's all. D.C.
Check out the continuum limit: this is the condition for 'finite space', which allows us to see through 3-D space "as far as we like" (Lee Smolin). Now, try to implement this continuum limit condition in the alleged continuum limit of "loop quantum gravity" (LQG), or any other background-independent approach, causal dynamical triangulations (CDT) included. Carlo Rovelli won't even try, because he There is a fundamental difference between all background-independent approaches to quantum gravity, published on paper, and the Machian quantum gravity (MQG), which is outlined at Henry Margenau's web page. It is about how we implement the continuum limit condition. The With the exception of MQG, all approaches use some technique (more or less ingenious) to "zoom" onto Another idea is that there is So far so good, but notice the crucial notion of 'nothing' in the concept of 'continuum': the consecutive points of a line Now, how do you get this "zero thing", given its seemingly incompatible faculties? Can we 'have our cake and eat it'?
To obtain (s Thus, we obtain never present in the local (physical) mode of spacetime. We can only speculate about a special "boundary" by which 'space' is bounded at The Small, such that ds and dt match s ._{0}This is the mystery of ds of a line (1-D Euclidean space) must succeed each other without any interval. On the other hand, we have to fulfill an equally important requirement that s must _{0}somehow exist in order to prevent all (uncountably infinite) points ds of a line to fuse into one ds . We need to 'have our cake and eat it', as sated above.The metaphysical idea of 'continuum' is addressed in LQG with the mundane notion of 'zero Why? Because the Details available upon request. Just a hint: because we don't live in some privileged or unique place in the universe, consider a finite volume of space with radius 7.3 billion light years (cf. Yuan K. Ha), which amounts to radius of 690.10 Obviously, LQG is a joke. Even in CDT, which is not supposed to suffer from the splitting of spacetime, the best guess yields spatial Hausdorff dimension d In MQG, the notion of "zero thing" is not present in the patch of continual finite space even at the mathematical level of 'manifold'. From the viewpoint of the local (physical) mode of spacetime, it is 'zero nothing':
Thus, we can build an Arrow of Space, producing quantized spacetime from the outset -- 'have our cake and eat it'. And we always have the reference fluid of GR to 'hold onto': the non-Archimedean It is General Relativity itself which In another email, Carlo Rovelli stated the following: "All of us keep looking around, reading, checking out the papers in the archives, and when we find ideas that seem interesting to us, or potentially good, we react. There is no shortcut to that." It is like refusing to read the news on your mobile phone, because news must be either displayed on TV or printed on paper. That's how Carlo Rovelli implements his rule of 'scrupulous intellectual honesty'. He will keep preaching to the choir and publishing papers on LQG in the next twenty-five years, and will probably end up like Alain Connes. This whole story is anything but 'news', as it can be traced back to Lucretius, some 2060 years ago. However, as John Coleman rightly noticed, "it is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink warm water." The results are indeed laughable, like the chewing over how time "proceeds in Whether such jokes are pathetic or not -- you decide.
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:42:04 +0100, Message-ID: =================
Pity Carlo Rovelli chose to run away. For those interested in his viewpoint on LQG in arXiv:1012.4707v2 [gr-qc], let me offer just two excerpts (emphasis and links added) and my comments: p. 7: "Meaning of quantum mechanics. The same C. Rovelli stressed in his gr-qc/0604045, p. 4: "The proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable." I do not know how "standard quantum theory" and LQG have been "slightly generalized" to "make room" for the To understand the difference in the interpretations of "standard quantum theory", and their implications for LQG, see Robert Geroch, Second excerpt from arXiv:1012.4707v2 [gr-qc], p. 12: "The “problem of time” is not anymore a conceptual problem in quantum gravity since the conceptual issues have been clarified, but remains a source of technical difficulties. The problems can in principle be solved using the relational formalism. That is, defining observables not with respect to unphysical space time points but in terms of relations between dynamical fields. (...) One possibility of constructing relational observables is to couple the theory to effective matter fields and use these as reference systems, in order to formally circumvent the difficulties deriving from general covariance [80]." Rovelli's claim that "the problems can in principle be solved using the relational formalism" is nothing but wishful thinking -- check out Karel Kuchar's research (references at this web site). Of course, he does not offer in arXiv:1012.4707v2 [gr-qc] reference to C. Rovelli does not mention Claus Kiefer's monograph Quantum Gravity (2nd ed., 2007) either. Notice Ch. 6.3 therein, 'Quantum Hamiltonian constraint', p. 194: "The exact treatment of the constraint is the central (as yet open) problem in loop quantum gravity." Why is that? Because LQG is stuck at its kinematical stage. To obtain the dynamics, the first off task is to make sure that, in the Forget it, Carlo. LQG is a joke, just like your "scrupulous intellectual honesty". D. Chakalov
Subject: Re: arXiv:1012.1739v2 [gr-qc]
=================================
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html I am sure he will never take any risks with his beloved dog :-)
finite volume of space to 'the whole universe', and apply the interpretation of redshift effects from the former to the latter, assuming that some unique reference frame may offer a bird's eye view on 'the whole universe'. The same anti-relativistic error is made in NASA's drawing of 'the cosmological time' en bloc, after assuming some unique reference frame for the Weyl Principle. The simples explanation of this error is to examine carefully the misleading balloon metaphor, bearing in mind that we deny the physical existence (local mode of spacetime) of both "the center" of the balloon and some 4-D spatial "direction" pointing to some not-yet-occupied space, waiting patiently for the universe to expand into. Instead, we keep them in the global mode of spacetime, which is assumed to be a pre-geometric plenum located "between" the points of the spacetime manifold, in which a torsion-like "loop" or "handshaking" is performed -- totally hidden by the "speed" of light.Hence one can postulate the Arrow of Space producing the global Heraclitean time, But if you subscribe to the "block universe", nothing could help you identify the error of assuming such unique reference frame. Unless you try to define an 'isolated system in GR', to address the energy balance of 'the whole universe' and speculate about its "dark energy", you may never notice the anti-relativistic error. So, try to define 'isolated system in GR', with "dark energy". Try any conformal or you-name-it recipe, your choice. Can't make it. Why? Because what makes the energy from Alternatively, you may wish to start with a modification of G F R Ellis' FI. Or keep quiet, like Sir Martin Rees and his dog. It's your free will choice. D. Chakalov "The cosmologist Martin Rees, former president of the Royal Society, has won this year's £1m Templeton Prize – the world's largest annual award given to an individual. He was awarded the prize for his "profound insights" into the nature of the cosmos that have "provoked vital questions that address mankind's deepest hopes and fears". Probably by offering even deeper insights into the nature of the cosmos and provoking the ultimate vital questions that address mankind's deepest hopes and fears from ... the multiverse ? Just guessing. D.C.
=====================================
1 "meter" table = 0_________1 , relative to observer A (cf. below). Observer A will see redshifted light from some objects receding from her with increasing "speed" proportional to the "increasing" volume of space, as she perceives a galaxy as many times "larger" than her 1 "meter" table. Observer B won't notice any difference to the "size" of Who has "the right meter" ? Nobody. This is the essence of
Relative Scale Principle. It is applicable only to 'finite things'. There are two images from 'the universe as ONE' which is indeed Notice that the "number" of points in the two cases above is the same: uncountably infinite (non-denumerable). This is the non-Archimedean world of It goes without saying that nobody is interested. People keep arguing about the "expansion" of space "during" some "inflationary stage", as well as if you take the stand of an observer placed in 3-D space, such that there are finite volumes of space that you can identify -- inside vs outside or Small vs Large -- you cannot, not even in principle, extend this viewpoint to some absolute "bird's eye view" to include 'the whole universe', as with the NASA drawing, nor can you "see" the alleged "curvature of space".If you could somehow reach the non-Archimedean realm of 'geometry', you may be able to see the whole universe
If you insist on talking about some redshifted "ambulances" receding from you with speed proportional to the distance, after the Hubble Law, keep in mind that you are again In the framework of present-day GR, you cannot have any privileged class of "fundamental observers" (Jean-Philippe Uzan) nor absolute coordinates of Earth in the absolute reference frame of the cosmic equator (Craig J. Copi The solution is simple and non-trivial: Again, in present-day GR, you can't define any external and absolute parameter to map the END result from DDE to some cosmological "timeline", so that you can propose some "equation of state" (EOS) of DDE. It is just as wrong as are the following statements ("Big Bang 'soup recipe' confirmed," by Rolf H. Nielsen, "A Such statements about the age of the universe are not better than the "discovery" of the Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher that the Earth was formed at 6 p.m. on 22 October 4004 BC. Only Chuck Norris can, at least in principle, measure the absolute age of the universe, but hasn't yet publish his calculation. Wilma, did you notice how fast was the latest inflation? And look at the scale factor: it changed Fred, don't talk like a Russian cosmologist. Get real. D.C.
====================================
et al. [Ref. 1] is the best review of the "dark" puzzle I've ever read. It is exceptionally clear and well organized. It is a joy to read and study.My email above was prompted by the statement on p. 5: "The null energy condition is marginally satisfied." It will be nice if they elaborate on the adverb 'marginally'. Basically, the energy conditions express the idea that the locally-measured energy density must be The catch is in the presumption of As Lau Loi So And the other way around. It's a bundle. But we cannot use pseudotensors. It is a bit as if you're doing an exercise in analytical chemistry, and are trying to prove that you have NaCl in your sample, but have contaminated it with NaCl (pseudotensors) from the outset. Classical pseudotensors cannot prove/disprove anything. Nobody knows how they work, once people manage to shape them the way they want them ("Never make a calculation until you know roughly what the answer will be!", John A. Wheeler), in order to calculate the result they know from the outset. Forget it. We need to find 'the right question' in the first place. The puzzle is best explained in MTW, p. 467. The null energy condition [Ref. 1, p. 5], or rather the averaged null energy condition (ANEC), requires that the null-null component of the stress-energy tensor, integrated along a But how do you envisage 'a complete null geodesic' in an " But again, these are just my scattered thoughts about the adverb 'marginally'. I think we shouldn't have jumped into conclusion that the "dark puzzle" originates The review by Miao Li D.C.
p. 5: "Of course the strong energy condition is not something sacred. The null energy condition is marginally satisfied."
Subject: Re: "Of course, it may just be that something else is wrong at a more fundamental level," arXiv:1102.1148v1 [gr-qc] ====================================
Sorry for this unsolicited, and too long, email. Maybe you have similar ideas, in which case I will be more than happy to study them in details. I just don't want to invent the wheel.
D.C.
If I knew the math, I wouldn't be writing these lines. Perhaps one day some young and hungry grad student will crack the puzzle. Then perhaps we will learn how to extract energy from space with our brains. If 'the universe as a whole' works like a huge brain, the release of Of course, we first need to find out the mechanism by which only one "charge" of mass is produced in the local mode of spacetime. Is 'potential reality' charge-neutral? How can AVCs (alien visiting craft) fly quietly and unconstrained by inertia-related dynamics (watch William Pawelec, 0:57:00-0:59:20)? Which begs the question of how to "separate" gravitational from inertial mass. Locally, they do look identical in some 'free falling elevator', but this 'elevator' belongs to the local mode of spacetime only. It can't fly like an AVC. More on 25.11.2015. D.C. ============================================
It is unbelievable. Sounds like a dumb joke. Check out the 1976 article by Jürgen Ehlers Jürgen Ehlers, A. Rosenblum, J. Goldberg, and P. Havas, Comments on Gravitational Radiation and Energy Loss in Binary Systems, |