X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
Subject: What if LIGO and LISA fail?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:34:37 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <email@example.com>
To: G Heinzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CC: D Sigg <email@example.com>,
David Shoemaker <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Paul McNamara <Paul.McNamara@esa.int>,
Neil J Cornish <email@example.com>
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,
I will be happy to elaborate.
Please confirm the receipt of this email.
"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."
"No gravitational-wave signals were
detected in 9.98 days of analysed data."
Note: I got the first response from Daniel Sigg: sender <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
[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
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 . (For the special case of
the GW’s in the linear approximation of GR, see sect.8 infra.)
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.
From - Tue Mar
28 16:07:34 2006
Hi. This is the qmail-send program
--- Below this line is a copy of
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,
More info is available upon request.
Thank you for your prompt reply.
> Now to your question. The oscillation
of the "fabric of spacetime
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
... and the crucial difference is
completely blurred: you get GWs
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.
On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:52:48 +0300,
Dimi Chakalov wrote:
Subject: Re: GWs in gr-qc/0605033
> Third, I do not believe that GW's
are an artifact of the linear
Perhaps you didn't have time to click on the link from my preceding email,
> It is true that in the linearized
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
1. It's not a matter of belief. Read Angelo Loinger.
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
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.
Are GWs detectable, then?
RE: Leszek M. Sokolowski and Andrzej
Staruszkiewicz, On the issue of gravitons, gr-qc/0606111 v2.
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.
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
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."
From: Dimi Chakalov <email@example.com>
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
You didn't even mention the rigorous proof by Prof. Angelo Loinger that GWs cannot exist in the full non-linear GR,
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
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
Before jumping to experimental physics,
I believe you should do your
2. GWs exist mathematically as regular
solutions to Einstein field
3. If you and Prof. Staruszkiewicz
develop a brand new theory of gravity
See again the paper by Prof. A. Loinger at the link above.
> (it seems that many people dealing
with GWs are unaware of existence
Maybe because they have read A. Loinger. See the link above.
> In your letter
But there is no such things as "exact
theory of gravit. radiation in GR" --
> If it were reliably shown in experiment
that the waves do not exist it
I'm afraid you are wrong. At present
there is clear evidence that GR must
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.
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
von Münchausen. Just like the
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?
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:54:49 -0800,
> I will look one more time in case
I am too hard on you. Nope, I was
Are you on drugs or what?