|Subject: Res super-extensa: Where and how does
it happen ?
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:16:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <email@example.com>
RE your arXiv:physics/0505041v3, perhaps you may wish to see
Notice a reference to Schrodinger from November 1950, which, I believe,
answers the question in the subject line.
Best - Dimi
Subject: Re: Res super-extensa:
Where and how does it happen ?
Subject: Re: How and where does such a
Subject: Re: How and where does
such a thinking happen?
It is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink
Thank you for your beautiful essay.
It seems to me that you haven't had the chance to click on the link in my preceding email. I believe it suggests an answer to the question in the subject line. The link again is
You posed in your essay the following question: "How to "switch on", and above all, what to "switch on" to ?"
I believe the so-called ideal point(s) answer the second part. It is very difficult and tricky to "switch on" to the potential reality, since it is UNspeakable (please see the text at the link above). Yet the human brain flawlessly operates on this "layer" of potential point(s), as I shall try to demonstrate to you with your own brain.
Seven years ago, on Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:50:57 +0000, I posted a note at Q-Mind Forum,
"Again, let's make it quite clear: we operate *simultaneously* on TWO layers, Platonic ideas and their concrete 'here-and-now' explications. There is no "push pull" or zig-zag jumping from one layer to the other. We are *constantly* on both layers, the mental one where the Platonic realm is residing, and the material one, -- our brain."
The realm of Platonic ideas was introduced with the notion of 'potential point(s)' at the first link above.
Now the "jabberwocky" experiment. Consider the following sayings:
1. All are not hunters that blow the horn.
Got the point(s)? That's how pure geometry can affect matter, in Einstein's GR. If your brain can do it, Mother Nature should do it (perhaps even better). Just please recall that 95 per cent from the stuff in the universe is in some "dark" form of potential point(s), which show up as cold "dark" matter and dynamic "dark" energy.
There is another saying: "What is known to three, is known
With all the best wishes for Hanukkah,
Lewis Carroll, Jabberwocky
Glad to hear from you. I'm fine, only the "salt" in my hair is prevailing the "pepper" :-)
> But spare me physics or laser technics.
With utmost pleasure! How about cognitive psychology 101?
If we view it as a set, it may "absorb" an indefinite number of possible explications (in the example at the link above, only 4 such explications were given), hence its cardinality is indecisive. Yet we use it, and it works like a Swiss watch. Hence actual infinity does exist, right above your neck.
A penny for your thoughts!
Subject: Re: How and where does such
a thinking happen?
Thank you very much for your two replies, from Thu, 05 May 2005 10:56:28 +0000 and Thu, 05 May 2005 20:26:24 +0000. I'm afraid I can only list a number of puzzles, starting from your *very* important paper [Ref. 1]. Probably I'll say a lot of stupid things, so please feel free to correct me.
I extend this request to Prof. John Coleman and Prof. Graham Nerlich.
Regarding mathematical thinking [Ref. 1]: suppose our thinking were totally constrained by the Special Relativity Theory (STR). If so, Einstein would have never discovered STR, since the very judgments of simultaneous events [Ref. 2] *tacitly* presuppose some sort of 'outside-STR panoramic view'. Well, this is my answer to the question in the subject line, as raised in your fundamental paper [Ref. 1].
Things become more tricky when we examine the so-called
Once we start thinking in the framework of Einstein's GR, things become *very* tricky: we use some sort of 'outside-GR panoramic view' to explain the bi-directional "talk" of matter and geometry, after John Wheeler: "Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve."
Perhaps Alfred North Whitehead used this 'outside-GR panoramic view' to stress a genuine puzzle in Einstein's GR [Ref. 4]. As John Coleman put it, "Only if you are born with a God-given intuitive ability to follow geodesics in space-time would you be able to measure anything!" [Ibid.]
Then if we read Graham Nerlich's "The shape of space" [Ref. 5], things become far more serious. He wrote (private communication):
"The affine structure is a further primitive (not definable from mere differential structure) structure which you can postulate using some representation or other of it. You can postulate it as a covariant derivative, a connection, or a tensor which can be represented in coordinates by a Christoffel symbol. But that representation makes sense only if the affine structure is already there, so to speak."
So, how and where does such a thinking happen? [Ref. 1] The easiest way to "answer" this tough question is to suggest some ghosts or witches, which operate in our brains, but are totally outside the physical world, because they employ some 'outside-STR-and-GR panoramic view'. Since I don't like ghosts nor witches, my approach is totally different,
If you click on the link above, you'll read about a putative 'outside-STR-and-GR panoramic view' called 'global mode of spacetime'. My preceding email from Wed, 04 May 2005 20:50:40 +0300 was written in this context.
Needless to say, I have great problems with the "scientific" establishment,
"It is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink warm water", says John Coleman [Ref. 4].
[Ref. 1] Elemer E Rosinger, Where and
how does it happen?
"Mathematical thinking, especially in its modern and abstract variants, does not appear to need the assumption of any absolute space, or for that matter, absolute time. Such thinking may appear to unfold during appropriate local time intervals.
"However, when seen all in itself, and unrelated to the
physical body of the respective mathematician, it is quite likely that
such thinking has no location in any space, be it relative or absolute."
[Ref. 2] A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 17, 891 (1905).
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in
which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If
for instance I say, 'that train arrived here at seven o'clock', I mean
something like this: 'the pointing of the small hand of my watch to seven
and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events'".
[Ref. 3] John C. Polkinghorne, Quantum
Theory, A Very Short
"It is as if a singer at 1 was singing a random
series of notes and a singer at 2 was also singing a random
series of notes and only if one were able to hear them both together would
one realize that the two singers were in some kind of harmony with each
[Ref. 4] John Coleman, Whitehead's Principle
of Relativity - Unpublished Lectures by J.L. Synge, FRS. physics/0505027
"Whitehead stated that Einstein's theory of measurement involves a basic inconsistency: one does not know the meaning of "distance" between two events, specified initially by physically meaningless co-ordinates, until Einstein's Equations have been solved with initial conditions given in terms of "metre" and "second" which cannot be defined until the equations have been solved! I have never seen this criticism directly addressed in the Literature of GRT. Possibly MTW thought they did so with their cute story of the student, the ant and the apple in the opening pages of their famous treatise. But what this story implies is that you can give a meaning to "distance" if you are an ant (or astronomer) who has solved the equation for geodesics - which you are unable to formulate.
"Only if you are born with a God-given intuitive ability
"This is such a clear simple inconsistency that I see
no way to avoid
[Ref. 5] Graham Nerlich, The shape of space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 264:
"(W)ithout the affine structure there is nothing to determine
how the [free] particle trajectory should lie. It has no antennae to tell
it where other objects are, even if there were other objects (...). It
*is because space-time has a certain shape that world lines lie as they
Subject: How do we intend to get into
a two way interaction with all those realms?
Thank you very much for your email. I did notice the second version of your physics/0505041. It seems to me that you posed three questions.
Q1: How can we think instantly and simultaneously about phenomena which are no matter how far apart from one another in space or in time?
Q2: How and where does such a thinking happen?
May I offer my speculations, denoted with [S], for your 'night thoughts'.
It seems to me that no causal loop paradoxes happen in our brains, because we operate with a 'strange kind of reality, just in the middle between possibility and reality' (Werner Heisenberg).
Besides, we don't experience any brain inertial effects in our thoughts, and can change the "direction of flight" instantaneously, like an UFO,
I tried to elaborate on this new (to current theoretical physics) potential reality by suggesting a conceptual resolution to the 'relational reality' in GR,
I believe we can avoid CTCs [Ref. 4] as well.
Q3: How do we intend to get into a two way interaction with all those realms about which our only awareness can be that they shall never ever be within our awareness, or perhaps, not even of human awareness as such, no matter how long our species may live?
S3: I don't have a clue; just pray to God.
[Ref. 1] Daniel M. Greenberger and Karl
Svozil, Quantum Theory Looks at Time Travel, quant-ph/0506027 v2,
"FIG. 1: In the path integral one can take all paths (a) that go forward in time, but one excludes all paths (b) that go backward in time."
"FIG. 2: In classical feedback circuit, one inserts a
loop that goes from a later time to an earlier time.
The loop then has two entry ports and only one exit port, so that one cannot
uniquely reverse it, and if tried quantum mechanically, it would violate
[Ref. 4] William B. Bonnor. Closed timelike
curves in general
Note: Imagine two guys, Alice and Bob, who can communicate only with photons. Their job is to demonstrate the real dynamics of gravity by solving Einstein field equations in the real world -- not on paper, like in the misfortunate Hamiltonian formulation of Einstein's GR by Dirac-ADM. That is, Alice will tell Bob how to move, and Bob will tell Alice how to curve, as instructed by John Wheeler. First, we wait for the inflationary stage to complete, because it is totally unphysical and counter-relativistic, and we can't start the talk. But let's suppose that the good old dark energy is currently accelerating the expansion of the universe in some "physical", yet to be discovered, fashion, such that we can at least start the talk.
Let's run it, ladies first: At some instant t0 , as recorded with her wristwatch in her inertial frame, Alice sends to Bob her moving instructions, and patiently waits for Bob's feedback regarding the curving instructions. Only Bob has a big problem: the absorption-and-emission of Alice's instructions is actually one event, so he has to reply "within" that same one event. Tough. Obviously, the dynamics of gravity will be "frozen", much like in the famous Wheeler-DeWitt equation. It won't help if Alice and Bob communicate "instantaneously" or faster-than-light, like an EPR-correlated couple, because "before" Alice sends to Bob her instructions, he must have "already" received them, but before Bob receives Alice's instructions, she must have "already" sent them. Very tough. Doesn't make sense at all. Works only on paper, and with mathematical thinking [Ref. 1].
To understand the dynamics of the self-interacting matter fields in the right-hand side (Bob) of Einstein equations, we need to go "beyond" them (vacuum case included), but without leaving the 'one event' of Alice-Bob talk, which is why we introduce a new degree of freedom "inside" each and every event: the hypothetical global mode of spacetime. Concrete arguments derived from observations are provided here, but can we identify some unique effects from this new 'outside-STR-and-GR' global mode of spacetime?
Let me stress that the observable effects from the putative 'outside-STR-and-GR panoramic view' are inevitably "dark", as explained here. Some speculations on the origin of dark matter-dark energy are outlined here, and black holes-naked singularities here.
1. The hypothetical 'outside-STR-and-GR panoramic view' is the "reference frame" in which we observe the cosmic equator. It is also the "absolute" reference frame of Ernst Mach [Ref. 6]; see the precise expression for Mach's Principle, Eq. (32), in [Ref. 7], and a beautiful article by George Ellis [Ref. 8].
2. Nearly 96 per cent of the stuff in the universe is "dark": the effect of the Holon. This "dark" stuff resides in the global mode of spacetime, and its local effects are embedded in the local physical interactions, producing "anomalous" effects at the large-scale structure of the universe, currently interpreted as dark matter/dark energy.
3. The dark stuff in the Holon can exert a gravitational force "from within" each and every spacetime point, with two opposite components [Ref. 6]. Hence each and every spacetime point (local mode) is endowed with two "opposite" blueprints from the Holon, currently interpreted as dark matter (implosion) and dark energy (expansion/explosion). Locally, we cannot unscramble these two "dark" effects of the Holon, because they are "observable" only in the 'outside-STR-and-GR panoramic view' , as mentioned above. Locally, we cannot detect any "gravitational waves" either. The only "device" that might have access to the Holon is the human brain. It is completely governed by the "dark" effect of the Holon, and can act on itself: Bob thinks about his brain, with his brain. The end result is that Bob's brain becomes a highly non-linear system, as we would expect from every physical stuff in the right-hand side of Einstein equation.
I believe the Machian Gravity can only be elaborated with a complete theory of quantum gravity.
Also, I will demonstrate
a "mini warp drive" on July
12, 2005, at the poster session of ESP13 in Bern, Deo volente.
I haven't lost the hope that by July 10th this year, the day I'll take
a bus drive from Sofia to Bern, some people will show some trace of genuine
interest in my proposals. A silent curiosity (if any) about my work cannot
convince me to demonstrate the effects of the Holon. Theory and experiments
form a package. If I demonstrate the experimental confirmation of
the theory, but without any prior explanation and discussion of
the theory, I'm afraid will be perceived as some street
magician from the BBB world, who has come
to Bern to entertain the leading experts in gravitational
physics and quantum gravity, during a brief poster
session. I don't do street magic or belly dancing, and don't entertain
[Ref. 6] Scott Funkhouser,
An Inertial Reaction to Cosmological Accelerations, gr-qc/0309004 v5, 5
"Newton’s Second Law is incomplete
without a frame against which acceleration is to be defined. According
to Mach’s principle the bulk of cosmic mass constitutes the frame relative
to which acceleration produces an inertial reaction. Mach hypothesized
that there was some yet-unspecified acceleration-dependent induction among
masses that cumulatively generates inertia when a body is accelerated with
respect to the bulk of the mass of the Universe.
"Mach treated the "stars" of the
Universe as "fixed", constituting a static reservoir of mass. (...) However,
the expansion of the Universe has not occurred at a constant rate. The
distant galaxies and quasars are not just receding but receding at a rate
that is changing and are therefore accelerating with respect to
any point in space.
"Since the large-scale cosmos is
expanding spherically symmetrically with respect to any point in space,
the distant masses are all currently accelerating radially outward from
any point. However, even though the Universe should be expanding at the
same accelerated rate everywhere, information about a body’s acceleration
should not be able to propagate
of cosmic mass is therefore causally manifest to any point in space as
accelerating radially inward toward that point. (...) Also, the inertial
reaction to a body’s acceleration relative to the cosmic mass distribution
must be generated in a direction opposite that of the relative acceleration
"Each cosmic mass M would generate a relative acceleration between it and the nearest test-mass m such that the two are being accelerated toward each other. In other words, relative to each cosmological mass M, the nearest test-mass m is being accelerated outward, away from the origin and toward the mass M.
"Each test-mass m should
therefore respond to the cosmological accelerations by experiencing an
inertial induction in the direction away from the nearest cosmic mass M,
toward the origin. This is to say that the test-masses m would
effectively be attracted to each other in
an inertial response to the cosmological accelerations.
"It is not readily apparent how to
calculate in detail any supposed inertial reaction to retarded changes
in the rate of cosmological expansion, particularly since the Universe
is expanding spherically symmetrically relative to every point in space.
"Given the current inability to explain
the accelerations observed in galaxies and clusters without introducing
matter or modifications of gravitational formulations, there is
good motivation to investigate a possible unaccounted effect that generates
attractive forces in ensembles of point-like masses."
[Ref. 7] Christoph
Schmid, The Cosmological Origin of Inertia: Mach's Principle, gr-qc/0409026
"Mach had asked: "What share has
every mass in the determination of direction in the law of inertia?
No definite answer can be given by our experiences" ."
"(W)e conclude that the vanishing
of the vorticity relative to the local compass of inertia is not relevant
as a test of Mach’s principle."
[Ref. 8] G.F.R.
Ellis, Cosmology and Local Physics, gr-qc/0102017 v1,
of "dark" EOS (private)
Dear Drs. Nojiri, Odintsov, and Elizalde,
May I ask a question in private.
Suppose the Hubble parameter dependent term effectively absorbs the coupling between the two interacting fluids (dark energy and dark matter), and the inhomogeneous terms in your EOS are not restricted by any energy conservation law.
I wonder if you can suggest a generalization of "dark" EOS for dark energy & dark matter, such that the evolution of the two "dark" components could match the *qualitative* empirical evidence for their current behavior,
My efforts can be read at
Re: Generalization of "dark" EOS
Thank you for your prompt reply. Please note that I do not imply any *fine* empirical data. I believe the question can be defined on purely qualitative or phenomenological basis.
I'm referring to the most general data, after Philip Mannheim,
On the one hand, the "dark matter" is smart: it "seems to know where, and in what amount, it is to be needed, and to know when it is not in fact needed." Also, it is utterly inhomogeneous, like the neural structure of the human brain,
On the other hand, the "dark energy" is a *perfect* fluid, or else we won't be alive, as explained by Matt Visser,
Just merge these two qualitative, purely phenomenological properties of the dynamical "dark" stuff of the universe, and write down da math, please!
If you can't find the dynamics of these 96 per cent of the stuff in the universe, please note that there is a 'Plan B',
But let's suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that Sergei Odintsov and his colleagues could, at least in principle, discover the Equation of State (EOS) and the dynamics of these 96 per cent of the stuff in the universe. This means that they would have to eliminate all ambiguities generic to the whole "dark" bundle.
Is this task feasible in the current theoretical framework, at least in principle? Suppose it is. Then your 'dynamical dark stuff' would be unitary, you wouldn't need any non-unitary dynamics and 'creatio ex nihilo', and the putative 'outside-STR-and-GR panoramic view' will be physically exposed. You would then be able to say 'I have [X] amount of dark stuff in my reference frame, which has come from The Beginning, according to its Hamiltonian and EOS, and [X] is currently exposed/converted in the form of [Y] physical stuff'.
But then it won't be "dark". It will be totally exposed in your local time, as read by your wristwatch, and you will be able to physically reach and rationally understand The Beginning.
If you understand the problem, you can do better than Stephen Hawking.
identity for dynamical dark energy?
Dear Dr. Koivisto,
May I ask a stupid question, prompted by your "Covariant conservation of energy momentum in modified gravities", gr-qc/0505128 v1. The feedback from your colleagues will be highly appreciated, too.
It's about the clash -- if any -- between the Bianchi identity, which ensures "the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the matter energy momentum tensor" (gr-qc/0505128 v1), and the dynamic dark energy, DDE.
You wrote: "Coupling a dark component of the universe to the curvature in such a way provides an approach to the cosmological constant problem [9, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25]."
It seems to me -- please correct
me if I'm wrong -- that DDE requires an extra parameter which cannot be
embedded into Einstein equations *in principle*. It is a brand new degree
of freedom, which causes a lot of problems (the "coincidence" problem),
and even drives people, such as S.
First, we should allow an explicit violation of the Bianchi identity to incorporate some alien DDE into Einstein equations. If we equate DDE to [lambda], which is the natural choice explored by many researches,
If we model DDE with some ad hoc exotic scalar field and postulate its custom made 'minimal coupling' to the gravitational field, perhaps this first obstacle can be circumvented. But not for long, because there is the next problem: define the dynamics of this ad hoc exotic scalar field to fit (i) its extremely precise dynamic fine tuning throughout the entire evolution of the universe (the "coincidence" problem), and (ii) preserve the Bianchi identity that ensures "the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the matter energy momentum tensor".
Can you 'have your cake and eat it'? This is my stupid question.
I also believe -- perhaps stupidly, again -- that we cannot separate the two dark components of the universe, but must seek a joint solution to the dark matter/energy puzzle,
I looked at the recent review article by A. Rendall, gr-qc/0505133 v1, but couldn't find any such statement, so probably mine is terribly stupid.
Hope you and your colleagues can help.
Note: We've been enjoying, in the past 13.7 billion years, a permanent dynamic fine tuning, called "concidence". The good old cold dark matter is terribly smart, since it known exactly where, when, and to what extent to show up as "dark" matter, and where, when, and to what extent to be completely "dark dog", so that we can happily avoid it.
The good old dark energy is also terribly smart, since it knows how to avoid being collected into potential wells, thus being a perfect ubiquitous "smooth tension" that is being dynamically adjusted to the smart cold dark matter and the trivial luminous one in the past 13.7 billion years.
Coincidently or not, the ultimate fate of the universe is undecidable (Paul Frampton and Tomo Takahashi, astro-ph/0211544). Perhaps this is as it should be, since 96 per cent from it is terribly smart.
We have similar "coincidences" and
"fine tunings" (a.k.a. 'relational reality' and Synchronicity)
in life sciences, which is why I proposed to model the universe as a human
brain, but this was obviously a stupid idea, and my talk "Einstein
and Quantum Gravity" was buried into a poster
Sherlock Holmes, "The Adventure of Silver Blazes"
Dear Dr. Cohen,
I wonder if you know Yakov Terletsky's book
and the "extended" QM of Erasmo Recami and Ruy Farias, quant-ph/9706059 and quant-ph/0206117,
Thank you for your time.
BTW my efforts to understand the dark matter/energy can be read at
[Ref. 1] Isaac Cohen, About the nature of dark matter and dark energy and a model of cosmology that may solve the cosmic coincidence problem,January 13, 2004, astro-ph/0304029 v1
"We consider the space time of real
events extended to complex values and allow world lines of particles in
some regions of this extended space time identifying them with either dark
energy or dark matter.
"In momentum space this means that
the mass^2 of the corresponding particles are negative. In a isotropic
model, the total contribution to the energy momentum tensor of such kind
of particles from these four spaces should behave like an scalar under
Lorentz transformations. This is consistent with the hypothesis that associates
them to dark energy ."
p. 2: "We estimate the equation of
state in the following way: (...)"
[Ref. 2] Isaac Cohen,
A quantum model of space-time-matter,
Note: Isaac Cohen elaborates on a Lorentz group SO(5,1) [Ref. 2, Eq. 2], but it seems to me that the highest symmetry in Nature corresponds to 'harmony of symmetry & asymmetry'. You just can't go further.
However, this is a very general
metaphysical concept, and I'm not aware of any symmetry group that could
implement it. Perhaps the notion of 'pre-established harmony' of Leibnitz
can deliver the highest symmetry in Nature, and perhaps its symmetry group
would be defined with 'transformations via elephant's
Perhaps. You never know with those
or do you?
Subject: Contemporary difficult physics (in private)
It's great that you'll teach STR & GR next year, and I'm very envious of your students. You have this astonishing 'laser beam' in your mind, which enables you to focus on some "trivial" detail that has been in front of our nose, and you show what we've missed.
Let me tell you what I cannot grasp in Einstein's GR:
the "action" of gravitational field on matter, as facilitated (?) by covariant
derivatives, and particularly the derivation of Christoffel symbols. Regarding
the latter, please see [Ref. 1], which was mentioned
I speculated on the Christoffel symbols at
Also, what I don't understand is the *physical* meaning of the difference b/w homogeneous and inhomogeneous transformations in [Ref. 2].
Please see also Michael Redhead's dilemma [Ref. 3], it looks like a big can of worms to me.
I very much hope you will restore 'the law and order'.
Please don't feel obliged to reply, and please excuse my violent curiosity.
With best wishes for 2005 and beyond,
[Ref. 2] Holger Lyre and Tim Oliver
Eynck (2001), Curve It, Gauge It, or Leave It? Practical Underdetermination
in Gravitational Theories,
p. 4: "Under coordinate transformations x --> x'
the [Christoffel symbols of the] connection transforms *inhomogeneously*
(...) whereas the Riemann tensor or curvature, as well as the Ricci tensor
and the Ricci scalar all transform *homogeneously*.
"Hence the transition from SR to GR basically amounts
to replacing partial by covariant derivatives so as to ensure that by a
clever choice of coordinates (in GR parlance the freely falling elevator)
the effects of gravity can always be transformed away at least at a particular
pp. 7-8: "On the one hand the reality of gauge-dependent
potentials implies a mystic influence from non-observable physical beables
to observable ones. (...) The second horn is that once we assert the non-reality
of gauge potentials, this implies a "Platonist" role for mathematical elements
to influence physical beables."
RE: Elemer E. Rosinger, What is wrong with von Neumann's
theorem on "no hidden variables",
You wrote (p. 8): "This issue of commutativity, however, is of crucial crucial importance." I recalled a story about non-commutativity of brain states: they can be kept in some UNspeakable but perfectly clear state,
Regarding those hidden variables, you wrote (p. 3): "Consequently, it can be suggested that the elements [psi] of the state space H do not completely describe the state of the quantum system, and in order to complete that description, one should add certain elements [X] which belong to a suitable set [Y] , and which describe the missing aspects of the quantum state."
In the context of the example at the URL above, it seems to me that the putative UNspeakable non-commutative elements [X] do not, and cannot belong to *any* set [Y] , since they evade the very definition of 'set'. They are simply ONE entity, or Holon, and are somehow "outside" the state space H . To describe their "evolution", we need some putative 'global mode of spacetime', which I believe you can verify again with your brain,
More on the UNspeakable Holon at
Hence it seems to me that it is possible to speculate about 'quantum reality out there', which is hidden to our inanimate measuring devices.
The reason why we have to include the human brain is explained at
The solution to the measurement paradox is by introducing the 'chooser' (P. Pearle) of one state amongst infinitely many possible states. This 'chooser' is 'everything else in the universe' kept in the Holon (global mode of spacetime),
I believe these ideas are relevant to (i) the quantum state of the universe, with 10^100 or more vacua to choose from [Ref. 1], and (ii) the gravitational "collapse" producing some "transient black and white hole pair" [Ref. 2].
I will appreciate your comments, and will keep them strictly private and confidential.
[Ref. 2] P. Hajicek, What simplified models
say about unitarity and gravitational collapse, Nucl.Phys. B88 (2000) 114-123;
P. Hajicek, Unitary dynamics of spherical null gravitating shells, Nucl.Phys.
B603 (2001) 555-577,
"The quantum Schwarzschild horizon is a linear combination
of a black and white hole apparent horizons rather than an event horizon.
"In this way, geometry containing a piece of a black hole
horizon can be followed by geometry containing a piece of a white hole
horizon -- just the opposite to the situation we know from the Kruskal
diagram of the classical general relativity. In this way, the quantum evolution
can stay unitary and the question posed at the beginning of the paper can
be answered as follows: A quantum system is not *always* lost if it falls
under its Schwarzschild radius."
Subject: Contemporary difficult physics, CDP
Thank you very much for your kind and thoughtful reply of Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:25 +0000.
I'm not affiliated with any academic institution, and consider myself independent researcher. Also, I can't read any of your papers at AIM Reprint Library. Briefly, I'm interested in exploring simple things that work in the human brain like a chemical reaction: if you do A , you'll get B . More about me at
> a top class martial arts expert
Great. I suppose you're familiar with Qigong and the Law of Reversed Effort, which are the basics of what I call Brain-Controlled Cold Plasma (BCCP). It works like a black box, just like the way you employ infinitesimals,
> the very concepts of CDP are mostly outside of our usual
Agree. Regarding QM, I read with great pleasure your 'gentle reminder',
Elemer Elad Rosinger, Failures of mathematical models
of QM, 9 Nov 2003 11:11:33 -0500,
I believe one of failures of mathematical models of QM is that the *projective space* in QM is a genuine non-linear manifold, as stressed by Ashtekar and Schilling in gr-qc/9706069,
Usually QM textbooks are manifestly silent about this.
Please see the
May I ask a question.
You praised John Baez, who speculated in quant-ph/0404040,
"We define the Hilbert space for a joint system to be the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces for its parts. The tensor product of Hilbert spaces is not a cartesian product (...)."
I wonder what physical clock could read *something* that is presented as 'tensor product of Hilbert spaces'.
It seems to me that a physical clock can read only the chain of states of a system as a trajectory in the phase space of classical mechanics,
John Baez assumes that we can keep track of topology change, and used the exclamation mark 17 times in the above-mentioned paper, quant-ph/0404040, but I can't see how he can make it.
Please feel free to pass this email to John Baez. I do hope you can help him.
> In short, I am most seriously concerned about the fact
My simple brain would translate this as follows: we cannot develop a complete theory of quantum gravity from just 4 per cent from the stuff in the universe,
I'm interested in the remaining 96 per cent, which live
in the putative
Wishing you all the best,