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 socalled
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
spacetime singularity
is
> wellhidden 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. Noone
> 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@univtours.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.Goddoesnotplaydice.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 mindreading 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, grqc/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, grqc/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
'welldefined
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 welldefined energy states. See also the quasilocal
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 quantph/0604008
v1, perhaps you may wish to see what other people have said on the
issue,
http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.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.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert
Summary at
http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.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
