| 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
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, "Hooft 't G." wrote:
===========
Subject: 201 wrong
theories for the cosmological constant, by Hooft 't G.
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 I will try to elaborate on your unpublished idea [Ref. 1], but from a different perspective on the main issue -- "the discovery of a symmetry that forbids a cosmological constant term to appear".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 http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#Negative_Mass It should be *the* largest possible
symmetry group, but I wouldn't
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Wald.html#note Do you or any of your colleagues believe GR can be properly applied at scales larger than 10^14 cm, the size of the solar system [Ref. 1]? There is a lot of "dark" stuff there, which I believe are effects of the global mode of spacetime, http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Minchin.html It cannot be visualized, just as we cannot imagine the "spin" of elementary particles, nor the "spin" of the whole universe, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/map_model_2.gif To cut the long story short, I do believe in your hunch [Ref. 1], and regret that it wasn't published. How come you set the right track [Ref. 1, Eq. 10] with your 'intuitive knowledge' (scientia intuitiva, Benedict De Spinoza), but couldn't see the path? Anyway, once you're ready with your fundamental paper, please drop me a line and I'll send you my proposal for your consideration. Regards, Dimi
References [Ref. 1] Stefan Nobbenhuis,
Categorizing Different Approaches to the
Sec. 3.2, Imaginary Space, p. 9:
[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!
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 see the shortest explanation of 'global mode of spacetime' 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
============ From: "Hooft 't
G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>
Yes, but I am considerably more selective
than that; the site you mention
-----Original Message-----
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
On 4/4/06, Hooft 't G. <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>
wrote:
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
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
'Why does Nature prefer a flat spacetime?', asks S. Nobbenhuis [Ref. 3]. Perhaps because the local mode of spacetime is being created as a flat spacetime and perfect continuum. It is a scale-invariant 'back bone' of the whole physical world, from the Planck scale to the cosmological horizon. Once the inflationary stage was completed, the "two elephants" have an equal and opposite "pressure", and the space is brought to a dynamical stage of being "flat". If you look at the explanation offered by Eli Michael back in 1999, our understanding of the cosmic scale factor needs to be modified, in order to resolve the coincidence problem. Eli Michael wrote (links and emphasis added):
"The coordinates [X], [X], and [X] in the metric
equation are "comoving" coordinates. A comoving coordinate system is one which
expands with the universe. Therefore, the comoving distant between two points
remains constant during the universe's evolution. The physical distance between
two points does however change as the universe expands.
"It is the fact that pressure also contributes to
gravity that makes the inclusion of the cosmological constant interesting. If
the field equations are rewritten so the cosmological constant appears on the
right hand side of the equation, the cosmological constant term can then be
associated with a vacuum energy density: [XXX] "So the cosmological constant behaves gravitationally like matter and energy except that it has negative pressure. The net effect of a positive cosmological constant is then to create a repulsive gravitational force. This repulsion acts to expand the universe. "The vacuum energy density behaves differently from matter and energy density in another regard. As the universe expands, matter and energy are spread out over more physical space and thus their gravitational attraction is diminished. For the vacuum energy, however, the PdV work done by the vacuum during adiabatic expansion provides exactly the amount of energy to fill the new volume to the same density. Therefore the cosmological constant remains truly constant, and its gravitational repulsion (or attraction) never changes during the universe's evolution." Only it does change during the universe's evolution, which is the crux of the coincidence problem, firstly, and secondly -- the so-called 'coincidence problem' is actually the problem of discovering the true dynamics of the gravitational field. Since the cosmological "constant" appears on the right hand side of the equation, what should be added to the left hand side to achieve the perfect balance of gravitational repulsion & attraction of the flat spacetime? NB: This perfect balance must be achieved and sustained during an accelerated expansion of the flat spacetime. Also, we need an additional degree of freedom that would allow dynamical adjustments of [lambda] during the whole evolution of the universe. That's the real challenge. The "effective" or "net effect" of the dynamical contributions of the vacuum require a brand new degree of freedom of the spacetime: the 'global mode' of the potential reality. It is not in the right hand side, nor in the left hand side of Einstein's equation, because the latter requires [lambda] to be a constant. Moreover, if we search for explanation of the Dynamic Dark Energy (DDE) in the framework of GR, as constrained by its Hamiltonian "dynamics", we inevitably reach the following formulation of the task: DDE creates the cosmological time, and in the same time DDE evolves in the time that is being created by it. It's ridiculous. Of course we have to modify GR [Ref. 3, p. 149]. Notice that the mechanism postulated for the adjustments of [lambda] is dynamical, such that the effective cosmological constant is currently "incredibly small". Just drop the presumption that the matter energy density "obviously decreases as the universe grows larger and larger" [Ref. 3], because an evolving cosmological "constant", as noted by R. Penrose, "would have to be accompanied by a compensating non-conservation of the mass-energy of the matter". We're dealing with 'potential reality', which is why "it is reasonable to look for modifications" of both GR and QM [Ref. 3, p. 149], as outlined here. If you decide to ignore the potential reality, you'll face an insurmountable task: the second law of thermodynamics states that the universe must have started in an extremely low entropy state, and R. Penrose has argued that this makes the choice of our Initial Conditions very special indeed, namely, the probability to enjoy the universe around us, as evolving from this most special and unlikely choice, is as likely as 1 part in (1010)123. So, if you don't like miracles or "anthropic" parapsychology à la Steven Weinberg, your only way out is to employ the potential reality, to which the second law of thermodynamics simply do not apply. Why not? Because you simply cannot apply the laws of thermodynamics to 'the whole universe as ONE'. To sum up, I think Stefan Nobbenhuis is a brilliant physicist, and I will be more than happy if he resolves the first off puzzle: the phenomenon that makes the Dynamics Dark Energy "dark". Since DDE has nothing to do with thermodynamics, perhaps Stefan Nobbenhuis would like to explore the Brans conjecture, namely, some "not smoothly embedded structure" of the spacetime manifold, which could accommodate "as many negative energy as positive energy states" [Ref. 3, p. 75]. (It's tricky, because in the local mode we don't get "negative energy" but two worlds, material and tachyonic, separated by a timeless luxonic "barrier"; more here). But I sincerely hope he will never be awarded a Nobel Prize: although it is the best thing that can happen to a man, it is the worst thing that can happen to a theoretical physicist. Consider, for example, Gerard 't Hooft, who said above that "the site you mention contains too much obvious nonsense." Is the proposal for 'local mode of spacetime' (cf. above) "obvious nonsense"? Here's what you have to do to verify the claim by Gerard 't Hooft: First, solve the puzzle of the classical world. Recall Asher Peres (Interpreting the Quantum World, quant-ph/9711003): "In classical mechanics, a dynamical variable indeed has a definite value at each point of phase space. Specifying a point in phase space is the standard way of indicating the state of a physical system. However, in quantum mechanics, a dynamical variable is represented by a Hermitian matrix (or, more generally, by a self-adjoint operator). It is manifestly pointless to attribute to it a numerical value." I believe there should exist a Lorentz-invariant, reversible, bi-directional, and smooth transition from the hidden unobservable quantum reality to the normal world of tables and chairs, and back to the hidden unobservable quantum reality. That's the puzzle of the classical world. Please take part in the 'flipping a quantum coin' quiz here, and report your choice. (Recall that POVMs were designed to bypass, not resolve, the Pauli's argument that there is no self-adjoint time operator canonically conjugating to a Hamiltonian if the Hamiltonian spectrum is bounded from below.) More here. Then comes the second hurdle: the dynamics of GR. It is manifestly pointless to attribute to the energy of the gravitational field a precise, numerical value: the alleged Dirac-ADM "dynamics" doesn't work. The problems are widely known, of course. What is the common task? You need a mechanism for selecting "a definite value at each point of phase space", in both QM and GR. If your brain can do it, Mother Nature can to do it as well. Hence you get a scale-invariant 'back bone' of the whole physical world, from the Planck scale to the cosmological horizon: the local mode of spacetime. How? From the global mode, of course. Is this "too much obvious nonsense", as Gerard 't Hooft claims?
Please follow
the links, and then ask G. 't Hooft for clarification. Being a renowned
mind reader and clairvoyant, he declared five and a half years ago, on
April 6, 2001, that my proposal will turn out to be wrong.
[Ref. 3] Stefan Nobbenhuis, The Cosmological Constant Problem, an
Inspiration for New Physics. Ph.D. Thesis, defended June 15, 2006. Supervisor:
Prof. Dr. G. ’t Hooft.
gr-qc/0609011
v1, 4 September 2006
|
