|Subject: Scale-invariant gravity
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:26:39 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Bryan Kelleher <email@example.com>
CC: Carlos Barcelo <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
G E Volovik <email@example.com>,
Hrvoje Nikolic <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Alexander Vilenkin <email@example.com>,
Jacob D Bekenstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Professor Kelleher,
I am very much impressed by your theory [Ref. 1], and I wonder if you and your colleagues would shed some light on the following three issues:
1. The puzzle of 3-D space in GR,
2. The Hilbert space problem,
3. The nature of so-called dark energy,
[Ref. 1] Bryan Kelleher, Scale-invariant gravity: Spacetime recovered, gr-qc/0307091 v3. Journal-ref: Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 483-495
"The differences are entirely due to the emergence of
a preffered frame and it is this which breaks the explicit 4-covariance
of the theory. Of course, there will be a quite different cosmology not
least due to the fact that since the volume does not change expansion is
automatically ruled out along with anything explained by expansion (most
notably the redshift).
"Whether or not conformal gravity proves to be a viable
theory of gravity remains to be seen. Nonetheless, the quantisation of
the theory may teach some valuable lessons with regard to a full quantum
theory of gravity."
[Ref. 2] Alexander Vilenkin, Anthropic
predictions: the case of the cosmological constant,
[Ref. 3] Jacob D. Bekenstein, Black Holes:
Physics and Astrophysics - Stellar-mass, supermassive and primordial black
Note: Let me quote from Bryan Kelleher's paper [Ref. 1], Sec. Introduction:
"As formulated by Einstein, the natural arena for gravity as represented by general relativity is spacetime. We have a purely 4-dimensional structure and the 4-geometry reigns. The reformulation of the theory in canonical dynamical form by Dirac  and Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (ADM)  led away from the 4-dimensional picture and placed the emphasis more on the 3-geometry. The configuration space is superspace and general relativity describes the evolution of the 3-geometry in time (geometrodynamics)."
This is how everything went wrong. I mean, very wrong. Double standards have been introduced here, for time and for 3-D space. Karel Kuchar, among many others, takes for granted that "our space is three-dimensional and a theory which makes an effective use of this fact is not to be blamed", but he misses the fact that the continuum of our 3-D space is a great mystery. In order to solve it, we need to solve the paradox of transience, and hence the first, and most obvious, approach to this whole bundle of tasks comes from human brain dynamics. Needless to say, we have to solve the puzzle of 3-D space as well. This is not some purely academic issue, since millions of U.S. dollars have been poured into a project for gravitational wave astronomy, and yet nobody seems to care about the challenge with the energy of these hypothetical GR waves. What if they are empty waves "traveling" on a null-plane only?
Let me stress that all this is not new to theoretical physicists. Karel Kuchar himself has explained the origin of problem of quantum geometrodynamics twelve years ago: "classical geometrodynamics does not seem to possess a natural time variable, while standard quantum theory relies quite heavily on a preferred time." Five years ago, he even spoke about some "hidden unmoved mover".
I've talked with John Wheeler on May 22, 1989, but he didn't show any interest. I also talked with Alex Vilenkin by phone in January 1990, from Boston, but he wasn't interested either. I don't take their ignorance personally, since these guys have the same attitude toward Karel Kuchar: he was not invited to deliver a Keynote address at GR17, and was able to speak for just 15 min (Thursday, July 22nd, 16:15-16:30). Bill Unruh was not even invited at GR17.
On the other hand, Lee Smolin was awarded three talks at GR17. I suspect that at the closing session of GR17 all participants have agreed that 'more research is needed', but have they mentioned the basic problems of GR known since 1917? Read about them here. The opinion of Albert Einstein can be read here.
Don't try to invent the wheel, or you'll waste your time, like J. Bekenstein with those "black holes".
Can you read this? If yes, there are no "naked singularities" nor "black holes". Why? Because 'black holes & naked singularities' is a bundle. Both are artifacts from the wrong approach to Einstein's GR.
Certainly not Professor Sir Roger Penrose, F.R.S. His newest book The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Physical Universe (hardcover, 1000 pages, July 29, 2004; paperback for £15.00 on 1 September 2005) contains just about everything, perhaps even his recent talk at GR17 on 'fashions in science'. What is definitely missing, however, is the knowledge which Sir Roger has gained from this web site. He has never replied to any questions posted to Q-Mind forum either.
Let me set the record straight.
I personally don't need the feedback from Roger Penrose and company.
I am outraged because Roger Penrose and many other "prominent physicists" do NOT say the whole truth to their readers. Our kids have the right to know everything we know. This is their ultimate right. We must never hide anything from them.
It's not fair, Sir Roger. But I'm sure you will keep quiet, as always. Have a nice summer.
I will soon post some excerpts from
Roger Penrose's book
The Road to Reality
on his dedicated web page,
along with my comments. Once I print my CD ROM, it will be
available for free. I hope that many kids will download it, and will never allow
to be brainwashed. Never ever.
Old Tanzanian saying
Re: World Year of Physics 2005 July Newsletter
Thank you for your email.
I believe my web site dedicated to Albert Einstein is unique, since nobody -- to the best of my knowledge -- from the established theoretical physics community is caring about his heritage.
I wonder if you would agree.