Message-ID: <44292D5D.9C3D7AE4@chakalov.net>
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
Subject: What if LIGO and LISA fail?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:34:37 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: G Heinzel <gerhard.heinzel@aei.mpg.de>
CC: D Sigg <sigg_d@ligo.caltech.edu>,
     David Shoemaker <dhs@ligo.mit.edu>,
     Paul McNamara <Paul.McNamara@esa.int>,
     Neil J Cornish <cornish@physics.montana.edu>

Dear Dr. Heinzel,

I expect the Advanced LIGO and LISA [Ref. 1] to fail. It's a shame that your LIGO colleagues do not examine critically their assumptions, but interpret their consistent failures as helpful hints "to establish a set of upper limits" [Ref. 2]. I think this is highly irresponsible behavior, since the fundamental problems are well-known,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Stachel.html#C4

I will be happy to elaborate.

Please confirm the receipt of this email.

Sincerely yours,

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

References

[Ref. 1] G Heinzel et al., LISA interferometry: recent developments,
Class. Quantum Grav. 23 (2006) S119-S124

"The LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) mission [1-10] is now firmly entrenched in the planning of both NASA and ESA and is planned to be launched around 2014."
 

[Ref. 2] Daniel Sigg (for the LIGO Science Collaboration), Status of the
LIGO detectors, Class. Quantum Grav. 23 (2006 ) S51-S56

"No gravitational-wave signals were detected in 9.98 days of analysed data."
...
"No signals from gravitational waves were observed. This allowed us to establish a set of upper limits."
-----
 
 

Note: I got the first response from Daniel Sigg: sender <dimi@chakalov.net> is blacklisted (see the transcript below).

If an ostrich sees an immediate danger, it would react in the same way. Let's hope that at least Gerhard Heinzel will reply.

Can we observe phonons? Yes we can. It's a collective, quasi-local phenomenon; see also the shoal of fish on p. 7 from gw.pdf. All GW detectors are manifestly blind and deaf to the quasi-local nature of GW energy: there are huge differences between phonons and GWs. Also, LIGO 'n LISA need a reference object with UNdisturbed metric, with respect to which they can detect the strain of GWs. See John Stachel at the link above, and recall the warning by Steven Weinberg: "The device measuring, say, the displacements of free mirrors in an interferometer would be "stretched and squeezed" as well." Also, it is impossible to produce such UNdisturbed reference object, because, unlike EM radiation, you cannot cancel the phase of GWs: see p. 3 from gw.pdf. Kip Thorne rightly stressed the enormous difference between GWs and EM waves: "electromagnetic waves are oscillations of the electromagnetic field that propagate through spacetime; gravitational waves are oscillations of the "fabric" of spacetime itself." Yet he and all the proponents of GW astronomy are treating GWs exactly as 'propagating through spacetime'. But where is the "direction" of the expansion of 3-D space due to the "dark" energy? That's what you need in the first place, to detect the passage of GWs online, as they proceed from point A to point B. This is one of the many differences between phonons and photons, and GWs.

It's a shame that nobody reads Angelo Loinger [Ref. 3]. He too is blacklisted by Paul Ginsparg's talibans, in the sense that can post his research papers only in sec. General Physics of arXiv server but is banned from cross-listing to other sections. My paper was deleted.

We can, of course, convert those long dark air-conditioned tunnels of LIGO to wine cellars, but I'm not sure what can be done with LISA, in case it also fails. Hope to learn it from Gerhard Heinzel [Ref. 1]. I sincerely hope he will not reply like his colleague Jack Sarfatti.
 

D. Chakalov
March 28, 2006
 

[Ref. 3] A. Loinger, Relativity and wavy motions, physics/0603214 v1.

"4.– It is instructive to compare the e.m. waves with the GW’s. The propagation substrate of the e.m. waves of Maxwell theory is Minkowski spacetime, that is a uniform (i.e., homogeneous and isotropic) manifold, for which the infinite class of the Galilean frames is physically privileged. When we re-write Maxwell theory according to the formalism of Riemann-Einstein spacetime, the “physicality” of its concepts remains unchanged, in particular the “physicality” of the e.m. waves. On the contrary, the GW’s are undulations of the metric tensor gjk, which is the “substance” of Riemann-Einstein spacetime, i.e. of a not “fixed” manifold, that does not possess a class of physically privileged reference systems. Emission “mechanism” of the e.m. waves can be simply the acceleration of a charge, whereas the acceleration of a mass does not generate any GW [6]. (For the special case of the GW’s in the linear approximation of GR, see sect.8 infra.)
...
"The non-existence of physical GW’s has the following consequence: if we displace a mass, its gravitational field and the related curvature of the interested manifold displace themselves along with the mass: under this respect Einstein field and Newton field behave in an identical way [11]. For the GW’s in the linear approximation of GR, see sect.8.
...
"It is regrettable that various physicists insist on publishing useless considerations and computations on hjk–waves [13]. It is time that astrophysical community desist from beating the air – and from squandering the money of the taxpayers."
 
 

Note: In the recent opus from LIGO Scientific Collaboration ("Searching for a Stochastic Background of Gravitational Waves with LIGO", LIGO DCC number: P060012-05-D, astro-ph/0608606 v1, 28 August 2006) we read the following: "The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) has performed the fourth science run, S4, with significantly improved interferometer sensitivities with respect to previous runs."

The good news is that the number of scholars searching for GWs has been "significantly improved" from 395 to 420 (three pages with names only), but the bad news is that they failed again to detect any trace of GWs.

However, in the latest news by David Shoemaker (What’s new in LIGO, gr-qc/0609045 v1, 13 September 2006, p. 5), the LIGO Scientific Collaboration are promising "interesting data in 2014":

"The Advanced LIGO instrument will have more than a factor of 10 better sensitivity than the Initial LIGO instruments now running, increasing the number of candidate sources by more than 1000, and should make observation of gravitational-wave sources a common event. We plan to start the project in 2008, start installing the new instruments in 2010, and be collected interesting data in 2014."

Read my mind.

D. Chakalov
September 14, 2006
 
 
 
 

---------

From - Tue Mar 28 16:07:34 2006
X-Original-To: dimi@chakalov.net
Delivered-To: dimi@chakalov.net
Received: (qmail 8609 invoked for bounce); 28 Mar 2006 12:35:40 -0000
Date: 28 Mar 2006 12:35:40 -0000
From: MAILER-DAEMON@dsl-pw-ha1.btc-net.bg
To: dimi@chakalov.net
Subject: failure notice
Message-Id: <20060328123542.08CA228000B4@mx3.b-one.net>
 

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at dsl-pw-ha1.btc-net.bg.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<sigg_d@ligo.caltech.edu>:
Connected to 131.215.115.14 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 Sender <dimi@chakalov.net> is blacklisted

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
[snip]


 
 

Subject: Grape, maybe?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:59:31 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>
CC: David Shoemaker <dhs@ligo.mit.edu>,
Paul McNamara <Paul.McNamara@esa.int>,
Neil J Cornish <cornish@physics.montana.edu>

Hi Jorge,

I learned from your last MOG No. 27, Spring 2006, that at the APS April meeting in Dallas, one of the Lead Speakers, Neil Cornish, will deliver the talk "The LISA Observatory: Preparing for a bountiful harvest".

Grape, maybe? I think your colleagues should be prepared to convert those long dark tunnels of LIGO to wine cellars,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/gw.pdf

More info is available upon request.

Regards,

Dimi
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html#coin


 

Subject: Re: GWs in gr-qc/0605033 v2
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 15:22:18 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Michel Leclerc <mleclerc@phys.uoa.gr>
CC: G Heinzel <gerhard.heinzel@aei.mpg.de>,
Angelo Loinger <Angelo.Loinger@mi.infn.it>

Dear Michel,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

> Now to your question. The oscillation of the "fabric of spacetime
> itself" is the correct description, but on the level of the linear
> approximation, you can always separate the oscillating part of the
> metric from the background metric.

But you have severe limitations from the "linear approximation", as shown by Hermann Weyl (Amer. J. Math. 66 (1944) 591; physics/0407134).

> Then you get a perturbation propagating to a background
> spacetime.

... and the crucial difference is completely blurred: you get GWs
'propagating through spacetime' just like EM waves propagating to a
background spacetime.

See also

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Heinzel.html#3

If you wish to investigate an artifact from the "linear approximation" as an intellectual exercise, that's perfectly fine. The problem is that some people want to do that with taxpayers' money.

I wonder if you and Herr Dr. Heinzel agree.

Best regards,

Dimi

On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:52:48 +0300, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
> Dear Michel,
>
> In your gr-qc/0605033 v2, you acknowledged that you and those
> experts in GWs are "not the only ones to which the situation was not
> entirely clear", and I wonder if you can elucidate the crucial difference
> b/w 'propagating through spacetime' vs 'oscillations of the "fabric" of
> spacetime itself', after Kip Thorne,
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Heinzel.html#note
>
> Regards,
>
> Dimi

---------

Subject: Re: GWs in gr-qc/0605033 v2
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 19:51:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Michel Leclerc <mleclerc@phys.uoa.gr>
CC: Angelo Loinger <Angelo.Loinger@mi.infn.it>

Dear Michel,

> Third, I do not believe that GW's are an artifact of the linear
> approximation.

Perhaps you didn't have time to click on the link from my preceding email,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Heinzel.html#3

> It is true that in the linearized theory, the
> stress-energy tensor has a vanishing divergence, and thus leads upon
> integration to free particle motion (as pointed out by Weyl), which is
> obviously in contradiction with the presence of the (albeit linearized)
> gravitational field. This, however, is simply because the linearized
> theory by itself is inconsistent. It is well known that there is no
> consistent special relativistic spin 2 theory. Any attempt to fix the
> spin 2 theory by modifying it in order to remove the inconsistencies
> will ultimately lead to general relativity. This, however, does not
> mean that the linearized theory does not give us the first
> approximation of the true situation as described by the full,
> non-linear theory. It is common practice in all branches of physics
> to omit higher order effects in order to get a first impression
> of what is going on.

To get a first impression of what is going on, may I suggest to follow the link above.

> Quite generally, I cannot understand your negative attitude towards the
> experiments involving GW's. Even if you do not believe that GW's exist
> (or are detectable), shouldn't you verify this experimentally?

1. It's not a matter of belief. Read Angelo Loinger.

2. My paper was deleted, and I was not allowed even to speak at GR17.

3. The experimental verification of GWs by LISA will be in 2013.

4. The way I see it, the controversy around GWs boils down to the
dynamics of GR, and I'm not a big fan of Dirac-ADM, to say the least.

5. I don't want to wait on #4 above: I've been trying to understand the dynamics of GR since 1972, with no success. My version is on my web site, but ... see #2.

Best regards,

Dimi

=================
 

Subject: Are GWs detectable, then?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 05:22:06 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Leszek Sokolowski <uflsokol@th.if.uj.edu.pl>
CC: Andrzej Staruszkiewicz <staruszkiewicz@th.if.uj.edu.pl>,
     szwed@th.if.uj.edu.pl, angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it

RE: Leszek M. Sokolowski and Andrzej Staruszkiewicz, On the issue of gravitons, gr-qc/0606111 v2.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606111
Class. Quantum Grav. 23 (2006) 5907-5917
 

Dear Dr. Sokolowski,

You and Dr. Staruszkiewicz acknowledged that the linearized gravity is a "defective theory" (p. 13), and went further by stressing that in the "full (nonlinear) general relativity the (ADM) energy is, for fundamental reasons, unrelated to wave phenomena, in particular it is disconnected from the wave frequency" (ibid.).

I wonder if you believe that GWs are detectable *in principle*. If you believe they are, I would appreciate to learn about the opposite possibility, which would make them unobservable *in principle*, but leads to contradiction with theory or experiment, hence you've chosen the first possibility.

Thank you very much for your time.

Kindest regards,

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

================
 

Comment: Apart from A. Loinger's papers and monographs, this is one of the best treatises of the gravitational energy in linearized GR I've read; see pp. 2-3 and Sec. 4 (particularly the discussion of Wentzel Lagrangian on p. 10) from 0606111.pdf v2.

Notice the last paragraph on p. 6, which ends on p. 7 with an unresolved question: "... should one take into account a whole system of gravitationally bounded particles (i.e. it is the system that is subject to a quantum interaction with a single graviton?)".

In my opinion, this question captures the essential nature of non-local (or rather quasi-local) interactions in the exact nonlinear GR, and is also a very clear case of 'relational ontology'. If you look at a tree from a forest, you don't need to measure/see the states of all trees from the forest to be able to measure/see the particular tree you're looking at. In the full GR, however, you need to somehow "connect" to all trees from the whole forest in order to "see" any given tree. In this sense, the interaction is "quasi-local", since any "tree" is what it is because of 'the rest of trees' from the forest: "both emission and absorption of gravitons by a body is a kind of collective process (emphasis added - D.C.) arising due to the correlation between all particles of the body" (ibid., p. 6).

My email above was prompted by the energy considerations in the last paragraph on p. 11, which ends on p. 12 with the conclusion that "the pseudotensor and the total ADM energy are zero (regardless of that the plane waves are not asymptotically flat). One cannot view plane 
gravitational waves as a classical low energy approximation to a swarm of quantum particles carrying energy".

So, I should have used the phrase 'a swarm of trees' above.

Finally, L. Sokolowski and A. Staruszkiewicz stressed again that in Einstein's GR the total ADM energy has a unique status: "In no other theories of physics is energy effectively a charge (emphasis added - D.C.) and the same holds for momentum" (pp. 12-13).

Are GWs detectable, then?

I'm afraid nobody from LIGO Scientific Collaboration (420 distinguished scholars) will bother to read L. Sokolowski and A. Staruszkiewicz, nor A. Loinger. LSC got all the cash needed to play with their Barbie: "We plan to start the project in 2008, start installing the new instruments in 2010, and be collected interesting data in 2014."
 

D. Chakalov
October 9, 2006
 

===================
 

From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: <uflsokol@th.if.uj.edu.pl>
Cc: <staruszkiewicz@th.if.uj.edu.pl>; <Angelo.Loinger@mi.infn.it>
Subject: Re: Are GWs detectable, then?
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:34:20 +0300
 

Dear Dr. Sokolowski,

Thank you for your reply from Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:18:26 +0200 (CEST).

> We are convinced that the above is a satisfactory answer to your
> questions.

You didn't even mention the rigorous proof by Prof. Angelo Loinger that GWs cannot exist in the full non-linear GR,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Heinzel.html#3

Therefore, I cannot consider your reply as satisfactory. To be specific, you wrote:

> The universe is a great energy loser. You may regard this as a big
> disadvantage of GR but unless you find a better theory of gravity which
> ensures universal energy conservation you should accept that the world
> is such as GR tells.

1. Unless you and Prof. Staruszkiewicz develop a brand new theory of gravity that can explain the dynamic dark energy & dark matter, you can talk only about 4 per cent of the stuff in the universe.

> However from this statement it does not follow that GW do not exist or
> are undetectable. They do exist mathematically as regular solutions to
> Einstein field equations and in this sense they are logically inevitable.
> Whether they actually do exist in nature is a question directed to
> experimental physics.

Before jumping to experimental physics, I believe you should do your
homework on a plain sheet of paper. Two additional remarks follow:

2. GWs exist mathematically as regular solutions to Einstein field
equations, but only and exclusively only in the "defective", as you put it,
linearized approximation of GR. In the framework of the true, full, exact,
non-linear GR, GWs *do not and cannot exist*. Please see the link above.

3. If you and Prof. Staruszkiewicz develop a brand new theory of gravity
(cf. #1 above), I will be happy to discuss with you the questions (i)
whether GWs do exist in your (yet unknown) theory of gravity, and (ii)
whether they are observable with any kind of ground- and space-based
measuring device. At this moment, all we know is that GWs are nonexistent in the exact, full, non-linear GR.

See again the paper by Prof. A. Loinger at the link above.

> (it seems that many people dealing with GWs are unaware of existence
> of exact theory of gravitational radiation).

Maybe because they have read A. Loinger. See the link above.

> In your letter you ask:
>
> I wonder if you believe that GWs are detectable *in principle*. If you
> believe they are, I would appreciate to learn about the opposite
> possibility, which would make them unobservable *in principle*, but
> leads to contradiction with theory or experiment, hence you've chosen
> the first possibility.
>
> Then our answer is: yes, GWs are detectable in principle. Their
> nonexistence would lead to contradiction with the exact theory of
> gravit. radiation in GR.

But there is no such things as "exact theory of gravit. radiation in GR" --
unless you and/or your colleague prove A. Loinger wrong. See the link above.

> If it were reliably shown in experiment that the waves do not exist it
> would have been a very serious blow to GR, a blow indicating that GR
> should be substantially modified or even rejected. At present nothing
> indicates in this direction.

I'm afraid you are wrong. At present there is clear evidence that GR must
be substantially modified (cf. #1 above), firstly because its Hamiltonian
formulation is in sharp contradiction with the basic rules introduced by
Hermann Minkowski since 1908,

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

Should you and/or your colleague wish to reply, please first use your internet connection and read the text at the two links in this email.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
 

================
 
 

Note: Regarding the dynamics of GR, recall that there is no fixed background (recall the Hole Argument) for the Gravitational Waves (GWs) [Ref. 3], hence they have to propagate within themselves, and with respect to themselves. Moreover, in order to propagate as ripples of spacetime metric, they ought to have their "next step" of spacetime laid out in front of them, which is a bit difficult, unless they have the ability to act on themselves like Baron von Münchausen. Just like the human brain, the dynamics of GWs requires the global mode of spacetime. Yes, GWs do exist, but cannot be observed "online" with inanimate measuring devices, such as LIGO, LISA, etc. Catch my drift?
 

D.C.
May 31, 2006
Last update: June 16, 2006 
 
 
 
 


 

Message-ID: <4429631A.7010009@chakalov.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:23:54 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@well.com>
Subject: Re: Emergent gravity?

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:54:49 -0800, Message-Id: 
<8DBE981B-6E39-414A-8ED6-1F613AA82B83@well.com>,
Jack Sarfatti wrote:

>> Jack:
>>
>> Ten years ago, you called me "an arrogant fool", remember?
>
> No. I have forgotten who you are completely.
[snip]

> I will look one more time in case I am too hard on you. Nope, I was 
> right the first time. Now, you really are a "crackpot", "crank" and "kook."

Are you on drugs or what?

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