Subject: 200 wrong theories for the cosmological constant, by Hooft 't G.
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:18:13 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>

Dear Professor 't Hooft,

Regarding your email of Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, I gratefully accept your suggestion to provide for the 201st reference in your intended paper on the cosmological constant problem, entitled: "200 wrong theories for the cosmological constant."

Should you decide to change the title to "201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant", by mentioning my CD ROM "Physics of Human Intention", please read the essential ideas at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Klauber.html

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Granik.html#note

and in my White Paper,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/white_paper.html

If you wish to learn more about the so-called black holes and gravitational waves, please see the paper by Angelo Loinger at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Loinger.html

and references therein.

As you our acknowledged in your email of Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, our work is not finished. Please do write your paper on the cosmological constant problem.

Wishing you best of luck in your endeavors,

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
 
 

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, "Hooft 't G." wrote:
>
> I do not intend to continue this discussion for very long, but
> mentioning a few facts might help.
>
> As for the existence of black holes: if you take general relativity
> but leave out quantum mechanics, you get a theory that has been
> tested with great precision at the scale of the solar system
> (particularly with compact double star systems in astronomy).
> There seems to be no strong evidence against that theory.
>
> Taking it for granted, one is led inevitably to conclude that black
> holes exist. It is easy to imagine an initial state of matter that will
> lead to implosion and a black hole. Whoever denies that hasn't
> understood the theory.
> There is no reason to object "against the existence" of black holes.
> These objects, though exotic, do not violate any basic law of
> physics, have completely and uniquely predictable behavior, and
> there are several astronomical objects that seem to be quite in
> agreement with these predictions.
>
> In all known black hole solutions, the space-time singularity is
> well-hidden behind the horizon so that their existence has
> absolutely no physical consequence, so they are acceptable
> ingredients of a sound theory.
>
> However, all this applies to black holes that are so large that
> quantum mechanical effects are irrelevant to their description. For
> this to be true, these black holes must be larger than, roughly, 
> 10^(-30) cm. In the theory mentioned above, the size of a black
> hole is a free parameter, it can be anything between 10^(-30) cm
> and many light years across.
>
> Quantum mechanics sheds a different light on them. Tiny black
> holes will not only absorb but also emit particles. This still gives
> them a quite `reasonable' appearance. No reason to suspect
> anything wrong. To the contrary, QM strongly suggests that the
> very tiny black holes behave much like elementary particles, and
> perhaps there is no basic distinction between black holes and
> elementary particles.
>
> The only problem is that the details cannot (yet?) be worked out.
> We are talking about such an esoteric domain of physics that no
> experiments are possible. For doing thought experiments, a new
> mathematical language is needed that does not yet exist. No-one
> should be surprised: our work is not finished.
>
> Then the cosmological constant. it is not understood. I once
> planned to write a paper entitled: "200 wrong theories for the
> cosmological constant", with 200 references. Needless to say that
> most of these theories are also mutually exclusive. The right theory
> has not been found. You are wellcome to provide for the 201st
> reference in my paper.
>
> On some days of the week I am thinking of the possibility that
> general relativity only exists in the quantum Hilbert space that
> describes the statistics of a deterministic theory, but that it does not
> hold for the deterministic theory itself, in other words, that this
> theory shows a preference for flat coordinates. That would do
> away with the cosmological constant problem, but it would put
> many new problems in its place.
>
> Now strings. I am not a very strong supporter of string theory, but
> I do notice the remarkable coherence of the observations made by
> string theorists, and I do not want to dismiss all that as rubbish. It
> may well be that what is called string theory now will occupy an
> important corner of a future theory, but my approach is largely
> independent of that.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Gerard 't Hooft.

===========
 

Subject: 201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant, by Hooft 't G.
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:43:53 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>
CC: Wilma van Egmond <w.j.m.vanegmond@phys.uu.nl>,
     Stefan Nobbenhuis <S.J.B.Nobbenhuis@phys.uu.nl>,
     Mihaela Iftime <mihaela.iftime@bos.mcphs.edu>,
     John Stachel <stachel@bu.edu>,
     Gennadi Sardanashvily <sard@grav.phys.msu.su>,
     Vincent Moncrief <vincent.moncrief@yale.edu>,
     Oliver Pooley <oliver.pooley@philosophy.ox.ac.uk>,
     Paul Steinhardt <steinh@princeton.edu>,
     Piotr Chrusciel <chrusciel@univ-tours.fr>

Hi Gerard,

I very much hope you will complete your paper, entitled: "200 wrong theories for the cosmological constant", and will comment my proposal, as you stated in your email from Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Gerard.html#201

Back on April 6, 2001, you were certain that my proposal will turn out to be wrong. I don't question your expertise in paranormal phenomena,

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/para.html

but let me briefly explain my idea, just in case your mind-reading and other ESP skills were not entirely accurate (it happens).

I will try to elaborate on your unpublished idea [Ref. 1], but from a different perspective on the main issue -- "the discovery of a symmetry that forbids a cosmological constant term to appear". More on this fundamental symmetry at

[snip]

Regards,

Dimi
 

References

[Ref. 1] Stefan Nobbenhuis, Categorizing Different Approaches to the
Cosmological Constant Problem, 5 December 2005, gr-qc/0411093 v3.

Sec. 3.2, Imaginary Space, p. 9:
"As was first observed by 't Hooft (unpublished), we can forbid the
cosmological constant term by postulating that the transformations
(...).
...
"there exists a copy of all known matter particles with negative mass
squared"
...
Sec. 3.3, Energy -->  - Energy, p. 10: "Crucial in this reasoning is that there is no coupling other than gravitational between the normal matter fields and their ghost counterparts, otherwise the Minkowski vacuum would not be stable."
...
p. 30: "Besides, it is conceivable that the need to introduce a very small cosmological constant or some other form of dark energy to explain an accelerating universe nowadays, is a signal that general relativity breaks down at very large distance scales. General relativity however, works very well on scales from 10^-1 mm to at least 10^14 cm, the size of the solar system.
...
p. 48: "Since even the sometimes very drastic modifications advocated in the proposals we discussed do not lead to a satisfactory answer, this seems to imply that the ultimate theory of quantum gravity might very well be based on very different grounds than imagined so far. The only way out could be the discovery of a symmetry that forbids a cosmological constant term to appear.
...
"Throughout this work I have benefited a lot from many valuable discussions with my supervisor Gerard 't Hooft."
 

[Ref. 2] Mihaela Iftime, John Stachel, The Hole Argument for Covariant Theories, gr-qc/0512021 v1.

"Informally this means that if everything is carried along, nothing is changed. The hole argument can only apply to background independent theories!
...
"Therefore, the following principle of generalized covariance should be a requirement on any fundamental theory: The theory should be invariant under all permutations of the basic elements, out of which the theory is constructed."
 

Note: It goes without saying that Prof. 't Hooft does not approve of my understanding of Einstein's GR: he believes that there is no problem with energy conservation (details here), while I believe energy conservation in GR is impossible in principle, because it requires a 'well-defined notion of time'. The latter is, however, the absolute time of Newton. The treatment of the coordinate "time" parameter in GR is entirely different, hence there is no 'back bone' on which you can stack a chain of physical states with well-defined energy states. See also the quasi-local nature of the gravitational analogs of the classical conserved quantities, from Laszlo Szabados here.

If you want math, click here and wait for the fundamental paper by Hooft 't G., entitled: "201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant".

The last time I heard from him, he wrote (Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:24:48 +0100): "I apologetically terminate this discussion." I wonder why. I think his idea [Ref. 1] is fantastic, only he needs help.

"It is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink warm water", says John Coleman.
 

D. Chakalov
December 8, 2005
 

============

From: "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>
To: 'Dimi Chakalov' <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:12:24 +0200 

Yes, but I am considerably more selective than that; the site you mention
contains too much obvious nonsense.
Cordially,
G. 't Hooft

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimi Chakalov [mailto:dchakalov@gmail.com] 
Sent: dinsdag 4 april 2006 3:45
To: g.thooft@phys.uu.nl
Subject: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...

Dear Dr. 't Hooft,

RE your quant-ph/0604008 v1, perhaps you may wish to see what other people have said on the issue,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

D.C.

===========

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 23:43:30 +0300
From: "Dimi Chakalov" <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>
Subject: Re: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
 

On 4/4/06, Hooft 't G. <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl> wrote:
> Yes, but I am considerably more selective than that

Like Eq. 2.1, the "clock that gives a tick at every time step" maybe?

"For simplicity we therefore omit specific references to any clock 
(footnote 1)". Footnote 1: "Thus, we do, as yet, use an absolute notion of time. Special and general relativistic transformations are left for future
studies."

That's sheer nonsense, although not entirely obvious, since you've left it "for future studies". Unless, of course, you have already written your fundamental paper "201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant", and have proposed the 202nd theory, which is the correct one, hence can elaborate on your tantalizing Eq. 2.1.

Cordially,

D. Chakalov

 

================

Subject: RE: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:41:55 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Gerardus <g.thooft@uu.nl>, w.j.m.vanegmond@uu.nl
Cc: Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:12:24 +0200, "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl> wrote:
>
> Yes, but I am considerably more selective than that; the site you
> mention contains too much obvious nonsense.

You've so far failed to produce any proof for "obvious nonsense" at my web site.

I hope you are not only a theoretical physicist, but gentleman as well, so please be so kind as to show some "obvious nonsense" in my interpretation of QM at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Summary at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Chakalov

Nu rush, take your time. Chris has been quiet for seven years; I trust you can do better, as both physicist and gentleman.

Dimi
 

 

 

 

Back home