Subject:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2009-4/
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:43:06 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>
Cc: Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>

Dear Laszlo,

I think the empirical fact that we see only nonnegative energy density
and nonnegative energy flux (dominant energy condition conjecture)
should be explained in the first place, along with a proper explanation of another, and also "obvious", asymptotically flat spacetime conjecture.

But in order to 'explain' something, you'll have to 'derive' it from
'something else', correct? If you agree, see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Chakalov

You have an evolving [lambda], and all quantities are quasi-local from
the outset.

Have a nice summer.

Best - Dimi
----

Note: On 17 June 2009 -- three months and twenty days later than my email printed below -- Laszlo Szabados published his updated online review, but chose again to keep quiet on the LIGO controversy.

But "let's do our job, science ...", as he suggested.

In his Introduction, Laszlo Szabados stated the scope of his review article (emphasis added):

"... why should the gravitational energy-momentum and angular momentum, or, more generally, any observable of the gravitational ‘field’, be necessarily quasi-local."

Namely, his scope is to explain "the more ambitious claim to associate energy (or rather energy-momentum and, ultimately, angular momentum as well) to extended, but finite, spacetime domains, i.e., at the quasi-local level. Obviously, the quasi-local quantities could provide a more detailed characterization of the states of the gravitational ‘field’ than the global ones, so they (together with more general quasi-local observables) would be interesting in their own right."

Two questions follow. What is 'quasi-local'? And secondly, in exactly what sense is 'quasi-local' related to 'extended but finite spacetime domains' ?

I wish Laszlo Szabados and his colleagues put aside those "two-surface observables", and study the mechanism by which Mother Nature produces the 'extended but finite spacetime domains', in such a way that we enjoy the fundamental attributes of 3-D space (cf. below).

This is a puzzle known since the time of Lucretius, as it captures 'the atom of geometry' (explanation and drawings here) and the mystery of 'the infinitesimal' in diff calculus -- how come we are able to get different in size finite things from an uncountably infinite "number" of infinitesimal "points" ?

As to the first question, regarding the very notion of 'quasi-local', check out the arrow of spacetime below, and think of the trajectory of a fish in a shoal swinging around a coral reef, say. We have an utterly non-linear, holistic, two-way negotiation between every fish and 'the whole shoal', such that all physical quantities (the inertial mass included) of any given fish become necessarily quasi-local.

All these questions lead to the nature of 3-D space and the ongoing, as-we-speak mechanism of 'the flatness problem' (asymptotically flat spacetime conjecture), producing an extremely precise balance between the two tug-of-war effects, CDM & DDE, of the geometry of spacetime at cosmological scale (global properties of spacetime).

Unlike Laszlo Szabados, I don't believe that the gravitational energy and spacetime "curvature" can be fully defined intrinsically, i.e., by "working solely within the 4-dimensional spacetime in which we find ourselves" (John Baez). Hence the sufficient condition for gravitational dynamics, called The Aristotelian Connection. But instead of introducing some extra dimensions for such additional extrinsic determination of GR dynamics (e.g., Naresh Dadhich), I speculate that the hypothetical Aristotelian Connection (global mode of spacetime) lives  ]between[  the "points" of the underlying spacetime manifold, and seek 'gravitational potential reality' effects, CDM & DDE, emerging from 'the dark gaps' of The Aristotelian Connection during the arrow of spacetime. If you don't like the gravitational potential reality, you'll have to live with up to 96% "dark stuff", as calculated under the current assumption that such form of potential reality doesn't exist.

Likewise, the notion of 'quantum potential reality' is introduced to eliminate all tachyons and ghosts, resolve the cosmological "constant" problems, and replace the alleged Higgs boson(s) with unparticles.

Surely Laszlo Szabados and his colleagues would prefer to deal with math instead of metaphysics. Only the math isn't available.

But why not explore, faute de mieux, some "two-surface observables" ? Because the black cat ain't there.


D. Chakalov
July 30, 2009
Last update: August 17, 2009
----

The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.

Confucius



===============


Subject: Schizophrenic behavior of gravity ?
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:41:47 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

Dear Laszlo,

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:49:13 +0100 (CET), you wrote:

> Let's do our job, science ...

I am under the impression that you are treating GR as a hobby, since you clearly do not want to be involved in serious science such as the LSC project.

We *both* know that you can demolish their LIGO project and save hundreds of million dollars and euro, all taxpayers' money.

The scandal after the failure of the "enhanced" LIGO will be incredible,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#respectfully

Check out the issue with the wristwatch of LIGO's operator,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Christian

If you cannot understand it, please write me back.

Again, the scandal may erupt around Christmas this year, and you wouldn't be able to say that you knew nothing about it.

Please see my email printed below; it was sent to 167 physicists, plus some other people.

It's all business. Nothing personal.

Best regards,

Dimi


===============

P.S. Update at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

The discussion of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator is now on pp. 12-13 and 20-22 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf at the link below.

D.C.
------------

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:05:00 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Please check out an explanatory note at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf

Regarding the wristwatch of LIGO's operator (ExplanatoryNote.pdf, p. 8): at an instant t_1 , the + polarization, which "has its own gravitational-wave field" (Kip Thorne), must be totally shielded from the neighboring gravitational-wave field of the x polarization, in such a way that the latter can patiently wait for its turn to wobble the metric field at t_2 , as recorded by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator.

For if the two "polarizations" interfere in 3-D space, it is completely unclear what can happen to LIGO's arms, as being simultaneously stretched and squeezed by the + polarization, and squeezed and stretched in 45o by the x polarization.

Can you understand such schizophrenic behavior of gravity? If you can, please do not reply to this email.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


================


Subject: From Pauli to "GW astronomy"
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:11:17 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mike Turner <mturner@uchicago.edu>
Cc: Josh Frieman <frieman@fnal.gov>,
Dragan Huterer <huterer@umich.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>

Hi Mike:

I believe you introduced the term "dark energy",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant

Eight years ago, on 2 April 2001, you stated that the dark energy "may be something entirely new and unexpected". Then you added:

"While we don't know what dark energy is, we are certain that understanding it will provide crucial clues in the quest to unify the forces and particles in the universe, and that the route to this understanding involves telescopes, not accelerators."

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2001/09/text/

Perhaps something "entirely new and unexpected" is outlined at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Trodden

It refers to Sec. 10.1.4 'Vacuum energy as dark energy' and Sec. 5.1 from your arXiv:0803.0982v1 [astro-ph], and to the calculation by W. Pauli in early 1930s (the size of the universe could not even reach to the moon, W. Pauli, cf. N. Straumann's arXiv:gr-qc/0208027v1).

Check out an interpretation of QM at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

I believe all pieces from the jigsaw puzzle of "dynamic dark energy" (DDE) stick to their places -- effortlessly.

My predictions are as follows:

1. LHC will reveal the quantum presentation of DDE,

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

In your words, "the route to this understanding involves telescopes, not accelerators."

2. LIGO will ultimately fail to detect any GWs,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

3. You and your colleagues will continue to keep quiet, as if you've never ever heard of my work.

Would you please try to prove me wrong?

Regards,

Dimi


============================


Subject: Elko spinor dark energy ?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:50:40 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Hao Wei <haowei@bit.edu.cn>
Cc: cairg@itp.ac.cn, dfzeng@itp.ac.cn, zhuzh@bnu.edu.cn,
zhangsn@tsinghua.edu.cn, zhangsn@uah.edu, chen@slac.stanford.edu,
chiuman.ho@vanderbilt.edu, grumiller@itp.uni-leipzig.de,
c.boehmer@ucl.ac.uk, j.burnett@ucl.ac.uk, bianchi@cpt.univ-mrs.fr,
rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr, luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it,
francesco.cianfrani@icra.it, montani@icra.it,
jpereira@ift.unesp.br, lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca

Dear Dr. Wei,

May I ask a question regarding your latest arXiv:1002.4230v1 [gr-qc].

I wonder if the case which "corresponds to no interaction between spinor dark energy and background matter" (p. 4) can be used to address the (old) cosmological "constant" problem. I suppose you'd agree that "there is something we do not understand yet in particle physics" (Bianchi and Rovelli, arXiv:1002.3966v2, p. 6).

If you can address the initial cosmological "constant" problem, by explaining how is the total amount of energy in the quantum vacuum "hidden" to gravity, such that only "a shift in vacuum energy" gravitates, please drop me a line. I extend this request to all your colleagues.

My efforts can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#quiz

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 





 

The schizophrenic behavior of gravity (SBG), which is needed for LIGO to achieve its goal, refers to some shielding (and also metronome-like) mechanism denoted with  /  , which separates the two "polarizations" , denoted with  +  and  x  , in such fashion that the sequence

+ / x / + / x / + / x / + / x / + / x / + / x / , ...

will have a frequency of N cycles of  [+ / x /]  per second, as recorded by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator, reading  h(t)  (see below).


This wristwatch is supposed to read simultaneously the dynamics of the two "waveforms" ("each polarization has its own gravitational-wave field", says Kip Thorne), encoded with the mysterious h(t) above, which pertains to the two (presumably) independent "polarizations": see the slide below, from Kip Thorne's lecture in January 2001.

And by the way, what is the dimensionality of the GW amplitude projected on the x/y plane below ?



 

Without some exact metronome-like shielding mechanism (totally absent in the slide above) separating the two gravitational-wave fields, the two "polarizations" will inevitably interfere along their common h(t) read by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator, and it is totally unclear what might happen to LIGO's arms, as they may, for example, be simultaneously stretched and squeezed by the  +  polarization, and squeezed and stretched by the  x  polarization.1

As of today, all members of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) -- a self-governing collaboration2 seeking to detect gravitational waves, currently made up over 600 members from over 50 institutions and 11 countries -- deeply believe that such shielding mechanism exists in Nature.

I disagree, and refer to LSC as 'Jehovah's Witnesses of GW astronomy'. But instead of repeating the rigorous proofs by Angelo Loinger that in the full non-linear GR the project undertaken by LSC is an absurd (see also Jose G. Pereira et al.), I opted for the linearized approximation itself, to show the dead end of their project by reductio ad absurdum.

Surely GWs exist, but if the GW detector doesn't have access to the reference fluid of GR, it cannot in principle "sense" the displacement of spacetime itself, relative to the reference fluid. The latter cannot be unveiled in the current GR, and because we still don't have proper quantum gravity, all we can say today is that "if we displace a mass, its gravitational field and the related curvature of the interested manifold displace themselves along with the mass." (A. Loinger, physics/0506024 v2, pp. 2-3)

Moreover, GW detectors should be designed on the basis of the non-linear mechanism by which GWs carry energy (Hermann Bondi), provided one can describe smooth bi-directional transitions between very strong GWs and very weak GWs (here Josh Goldberg is keeping quiet), while LSC members use linearized approximation with some fictional "background" (B. Schutz), which produces ridiculous artifacts (e.g., the  h(t)  above). Of course, these artifacts were not detected during all five LIGO "runs", and will not be detected with the forthcoming S6 "run" in 2009 either.

Recall that Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor were very lucky to discover the binary system PSR1913+16, in which one of the stars was a pulsar with period of orbit just eight hours -- extremely small by astrophysical standards -- hence they used it as a clock, and speculated further that the change in the period corresponded to the rate by which the binary system were (supposedly) losing energy. Then Hulse and Taylor decided to explain the inferred loss of energy with "GW emission".

Namely, they applied the old Tanzanian saying: "How do we know that Father Christmas has a beard? We know it, because snow falls when he shakes his beard." But again, the rate of the "snowfall" was the only evidence in support of their wild guess, and it can be explained without invoking "GW emission" (e.g., Davor Palle and Fred Cooperstock).

However, in the case of LIGO and the like, LSC members will have to find a brand new system that can provide precise shielding and metronome-like mechanism, as explained above.

LIGO and PSR1913+16 are incomparable3. Forget it.

Yes, GWs exist, but cannot be detected with LIGO.

What is the price tag of the "advanced" LIGO? Should we allow LSC to produce more space junk with the three LISA satellites and waste billions of taxpayers' money?

I raised my voice six years ago, on Wed, 19 Feb 2003, but have not yet received any professional response from any LSC member, nor from their staunch supporters at the National Science Foundation and Astro2010 Survey Committee. They either ignore my email messages or respond with "remove my name from your email lists" (Clifford Will and Joan Centrella).

All LSC members have professional knowledge and expertise in gravitational physics, and all of them should be perfectly aware that LIGO is for the birds. Yet they keep quiet and ask for more money earned with hard labor by millions of people.

Shame on you LIGO "scientific" collaboration.



D. Chakalov
March 28, 2009
Last update: September 28, 2010
----

1 Notice that the wristwatch of LIGO's operator is supposed to read the "response" h(t), which is "only a certain linear combination" of the two "polarizations", but without some metronome-like shielding mechanism the two "polarizations" will conflate and intermingle: see Eq. 1.3 below (reference here).


 

Back in 1999, Bernard Schutz (emphasis added) speculated extensively about the dimensionless amplitude of the wave "projected on the detector (a projection of the two polarizations h+ and h×)", and predicted that in "a few years, perhaps as little as 2, perhaps as many as 8 (in the year 2007 - D.C.), we will start to make observations of gravitational radiation from astrophysical sources. (...) It will be an exciting time!"

Bernard F Schutz, Franco Ricci, Gravitational Waves, Sources, and Detectors, arXiv:1005.4735v1 [gr-qc]; "Comments: 82 pages, 9 figures, lecture notes from 1999, not posted to ArXiV at the time because they exceeded the article/figure size limits"
 

Figure 1.1. Illustration of two linear polarizations and the associated wave amplitude.


"2.1 Gravitational wave observables

"Here are the things that we want to measure when we detect gravitational waves:

• h+(t), h×(t), phase(t): the amplitude and polarization of the wave, and the phase of polarization, as functions of time. These contain most of the information about gravitational wave.
....
"Let us consider now what we can infer from a detection. If the gravitational wave has a short duration, of the order of the sampling time of the signal stream, then each detector will usually give just a single number, which is the amplitude of the wave projected on the detector (a projection of the two polarizations h+ and h×).

"If the wave lasts more than one sampling time, then this information is a function of time.
....
"6.3 Conclusion

p. 70: "In a few years, perhaps as little as 2, perhaps as many as 8, we will start to make observations of gravitational radiation from astrophysical sources. (...) It will be an exciting time!"


L.S. Finn, N. Cornish, V. Faraoni, and C. Corda are keeping dead quiet, as if they were unaware of the SBG argument above.

The alleged "polarization" of GWs was explained by C. Will as follows (6.2 Polarization of gravitational waves):

"A laser interferometric or resonant bar gravitational wave detector measures the local components of a symmetric 3 x 3 tensor which is composed of the "electric" components of the Riemann curvature tensor, [XXX], via the equation of geodesic deviation, given for a pair of freely falling particles by [XXX], where [XXX] denotes the spatial separation.

"In general there are six independent components, which can be expressed in terms of polarizations (modes with specific transformation properties under rotations and boosts). Three are transverse to the direction of propagation, with two representing quadrupolar deformations and one representing a monopole "breathing" deformation. Three modes are longitudinal, with one an axially symmetric stretching mode in the propagation direction, and one quadrupolar mode in each of the two orthogonal planes containing the propagation direction.
...
"Figure 9 shows the displacements induced on a ring of freely falling test particles by each of these modes. General relativity predicts only the first two transverse quadrupolar modes (a) and (b) independently of the source; these correspond to the waveforms  h+  and  hx  discussed earlier (note the cos[phi] and sin[phi] dependences of the displacements)."

The missing element in this picture is some metronome-like shielding mechanism, which would prevent the two "polarizations" to conflate and intermingle, along with the longitudinal modes (J. G. Pereira et al.). In addition to these inherent problems of the "transverse" direction of GW strain, the alleged "longitudinal" direction of GW propagation cannot be demonstrated in 3-D space either: check out a simple Gedankenexperiment with the phase of GWs and the dimensionality of their "amplitude" here. These two simple examples comply with the linearization approximation of GR and demonstrate the absurdity of LSC project.

Besides, as two prominent pupils of Kip Thone, E. Flanagan and S. Hughes, acknowledged in their gr-qc/0501041v3, p. 12 (emphasis added), the important variables that "have the advantage of being gauge invariant" have "the disadvantage of being non-local". Computation of "these variables at a point requires knowledge of the metric perturbation hab everywhere." In the case of LIGO (cf. Eq 3.13), "many observations that seek to detect GWs are sensitive only to the value of the Riemann tensor at a given point in space." (...) "For example, the Riemann tensor components [XXX], which are directly observable by detectors such as LIGO, are given in terms of the gauge invariant variables as [Eq 2.70]. Thus, at least certain combinations of the gauge invariant variables are locally observable."

Any observable of the gravitational field is quasi-local (L. Szabados), so the phrase "the value of the Riemann tensor at a given point in space" is sheer poetry; check out the “point particle limit” in Bob Wald's arXiv:0907.0412, p. 3 and ref [4] therein.

The poetry in the phrase "at least certain combinations" is also unacceptable. We are not dealing with some mixture of distinguishable "non-local" vs. "local" gauge invariant variables. It is not like dealing with some statistical mixture of 'unobservable-by-LIGO non-local black balls', as opposed to 'observable-by-LIGO local white balls', so that LSC members could hope that LIGO can be tuned to detect "at least certain combinations" of the white balls, without bothering about the black ones. The increasing of sensitivity toward the "white balls" is just ridiculous. And costs billions.

More from Stephen J. Crothers (25 July 2009), LIGO, LISA Destined to Detect Nothing, www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/GW.pdf
 

2 Since LSC does not have elected President and governing body, similar to the GRG Society (LSC Member Groups appoint the Collaboration Council, which in turn elects the LSC Spokesperson, who "leads the LSC, and is empowered to represent the LSC to the outside world", LSC Bylaws, Secs 4 and 7.1), all LSC Members are responsible for authorizing the LSC Spokesperson and Collaboration Council to waste taxpayers' money on their behalves.

3 The underlying assumptions in the cases of LIGO and PSR1913+16 are incomparable for the following reasons. Regarding the latter, it was the first binary pulsar, discovered in 1974. As Brian Dolan explains, "a pulsar is a rotating dipole and rotating dipoles emit electromagnetic radiation, thus losing energy. This is not actually the source of the (EM) radiation that is directly observed. The electromagnetic pulses seen from a pulsar are due to radiation from beams of charged particles emitted along the axis of the dipole and sweeping past the Earth like a lighthouse beam." (Brian P. Dolan, Lecture Notes MP476: Cosmology, Sec. 2.14.3 Pulsars, September 21, 2010, p. 41). By analyzing the changing Doppler shifts of PSR1913+16 (redshifted and blueshifted pulse periods), R. Hulse and J. Taylor inferred that PSR1913+16 should consist of two neutron stars, separated by distance roughly the radius of the Sun. Also, "the period first grew longer and then grew shorter in a cycle that took 7.75 hours" (Michael Seeds and Dana Backman, Horizons: Exploring the Universe, 11th Ed., Brooks Cole, 2009, p. 217).

Now, in order to apply the old Tanzanian saying above, LIGO "scientific" collaboration should explain how could "the period first grew longer and then grew shorter", and then eliminate all trivial explanations of the inferred loss of kinetic energy (e.g., Sachiko Tsuruta et al., Cooling of pulsars, Astrophysical Journal, 176 (1972) 739-744; Alex Y. Potekhin et al., The magnetic structure of neutron stars and their surface-to-core temperature relation, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 443 (2005) 1025-1028). Forget it.
 

 



Addendum
 

Fred Cooperstock and Maurice Dupré have presented today (April 6, 2009) the notion of  “spacetime energy-momentum” [Ref. 1]. I will ask them, by private email, to comment on the schizophrenic behavior of gravity, which is needed for LIGO to achieve its goal (see above).

Notice the localization hypothesis introduced by Fred Cooperstock below, [Ref. 2], [Ref. 3], [Ref. 4], [Ref. 5]. I can understand why all members of LIGO Scientific Colaboration (LSC) ignore my arguments, but to ignore Fred Cooperstock and his colleagues for full ten years is just ... unbelievable.

If we compare the situation with the localization of wegtransformierbar gravitational energy to the localization of quantum particles, we can claim that all we need for the second case is a macro-device -- the double split experiment, for example, is so highly reproducible that there is at least no argument about the reality of quantum waves. Thus, in the case of QM we have experiments from which we deduce the theory, while in the case of the "ripples" of metric called 'gravitational waves' the situation is turned upside-down: LSC members start with two custom-made approximations, the linearized approximation and the quadrupole approximation, to reach the "confirmation" of these approximations. Their first crucial assumption is that if GWs are weak, they can be detected as some "ripples" propagating on some undisturbed background (see the GW lake below).

This crucial assumption made by LSC members has nothing to do with General Relativity (GR). Unlike quantum waves, the very reality of GWs is unclear from the start, since the crux of the matter is whether GWs can transport energy, and how. In GR, "such transport is a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon" (Hermann Bondi). Which brings up the puzzles of localization of wegtransformierbar gravitational energy, the reversible conversion of non-tangible forms of energy into tangible/localized energy (Hermann Bondi), and the unsolved issue of conservation of energy in GR.

LSC members are fully aware that the crucial issue of 'energy conservation in GR' (recall the binary star PSR 1913+16) is not resolved, nor do they have any working hypothesis for the non-linear transport of energy by GWs. Instead, they make a second, also crucial assumption that there is no difference between (i) inferring the loss of energy due to emission of GWs, as recorded post factum (PSR 1913+16), and (ii) detecting GWs online, along the time read by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator. Then they just ask for more money. Which is why I accused LSC members of aggressive professional negligence.

How many hundreds of millions U.S. Dollars and Euro have been wasted so far? What is the price for the "advanced" LIGO? How much will cost LISA?


D. Chakalov
April 6, 2009
Last update: April 11, 2009


[Ref. 1] F.I. Cooperstock, M.J. Dupre, Covaraint energy-momentum and an uncertainty principle for general relativity, arXiv:0904.0469v1 [gr-qc]

"The consequences are immediate: since the Ricci tensor is non-zero only in the regions where the energy-momentum tensor is non-zero, gravitational waves, waves of propagating spacetime curvature, are not carriers of energy-momentum through the vacuum, in conformity with the
localization hypothesis [6]."


[Ref. 2] F.I. Cooperstock, The Role of Energy and a New Approach to Gravitational Waves in General Relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/9904046v1; Annals Phys. 282 (2000) 115-137

"The elusive gravitational waves, first proposed by Einstein to be emitted by accelerated masses in analogy with electromagnetic waves from accelerated charges in electromagnetism, had escaped all but a conjectured indirect indication of their presence from the period variation
of the binary pulsar. If there were to be a direct detection, the fundamental nature of these waves vis-a-vis energy content would have to be understood.
...
"However, it is to be emphasized that all particles and fields apart from gravity exist within spacetime whereas, in essence, gravity is spacetime. From the general relativity perspective, gravity assumes a very special role. These and other facts [1] led the author to hypothesize that in generality, energy and momentum are localized in regions of the energy-momentum tensor Tk_i . This would imply that gravitational waves are not carriers of energy and momentum in vacuum [1]. If correct, this would have far-reaching consequences.
...
"Thus, while the energy and momentum of electromagnetic waves is indisputable both theoretically and from solid experimental evidence, the situation for gravity waves is clearly not on the same footing.
...
"These considerations led the author to the localization hypothesis [1]. An immediate consequence is that gravitational waves would not be carriers of energy in vacuum. This is in contradiction to many previous calculations which have attributed an energy loss to systems which emit gravitational waves and the generally prevailing belief.
...
"We began by outlining the unusual role that energy has played in general relativity and the various ideas which have been expressed through the years regarding the issue of its localizability. The reasons which led the present author to hypothesize that energy is most logically localized in regions of non-vanishing energy-momentum tensor T_ik were presented. It was noted that if correct, the hypothesis would lead to a hitherto unprecedented aspect of a wave in the case of gravitation: waves carrying real curvature through vacuum would nevertheless be devoid of energy.

"While such a conclusion might at first glance appear untenable, it was noted that gravity plays a different role in physics from the perspective of general relativity: all particles and fields exist within spacetime whereas gravity, in essence, is spacetime [1].


[Ref. 3] F. I. Cooperstock, S. Tieu, The Energy of a Dynamical Wave-Emitting System in General Relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/0302020v1; Found. Phys. 33 (2003) 1033-1059

"Various aspects of gravity waves led the first author [2] to the hypothesis that energy in general relativity is localized in the regions of the non-vanishing energy-momentum tensor Tk_i (henceforth the “localization hypothesis”).
...
"If the localization hypothesis should prove to be correct, it would have fundamental consequences. First, it would imply that gravity waves in vacuum (assuming that they exist and there are ample reasons to believe that they do) would not be carriers of energy, in conformity with the Kerr-Schild aspect. This notion challenges the very meaning that we give to the word “wave”, as a disturbance that carries energy.
...
"2. What is the energy of the system during the particularly interesting gravity-wave emitting phase?

"The standard derivations of the Tolman integral expression for energy break down when the metric is time-dependent. Therefore the energy at that point is unknown."



[Ref. 4] F.I. Cooperstock, Does a dynamical system lose energy by emitting gravitational waves? Mod. Phys. Lett. A14 (1999) 1531-1537 (Received 29 April 1999); http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217732399001620

Abstract

We note that Eddington's radiation damping calculation of a spinning rod fails to account for the complete mass integral as given by Tolman. The missing stress contributions precisely cancel the standard rate given by the "quadrupole formula". This indicates that while the usual "kinetic" term can properly account for dynamical changes in the source, the actual mass is conserved. Hence gravity waves are not carriers of energy in vacuum. This supports the hypothesis that energy including the gravitational contribution is confined to regions of nonvanishing energy-momentum tensor T_ik.


[Ref. 5] Maurice J. Dupré, The Fully Covariant Energy Momentum Stress Tensor For Gravity and the Einstein Equation in General Relativity, arXiv:0903.5225v1 [gr-qc]

p. 22: "(I)n the vacuum there is no energy of the gravitational field, and consequently from this point of view, a gravitational wave carries no gravitational field energy through the vacuum.
...
p. 23: "In particular, both Carl Brans and Frank Tipler (in personal communication) have expressed concerns about how the view expressed here on the gravitational energy momentum stress tensor relates to the analysis of the energy dissipation from binary pulsars, an issue also addressed in [7] in relation to the Cooperstock hypothesis. Particularly relevant here are the calculations in [8] and [9] of the gravitational radiation due to a rotating rod, showing the general relativistic calculation to be consistent with the Cooperstock Hypothesis.

"The idea that gravitational radiation carries energy away may be a useful idea for keeping track of the various ”energies”, or conserved quantities, in the system, but the calculations always involve a choice of reference background metric which produces the apparent ”energy”.
---
[7] Cooperstock, F. I., Energy localization in general relativity, Foundations of Phys., vol. 22, No. 8, (1992) 1011-1024.
[8] Cooperstock, F. I., The role of energy and a new approach to gravitational waves in general relativity, Annals of Physics, 282(2000), 115-137.
[9] Cooperstock, F. I. and Tieu, S., The energy of a dynamical wave-emitting system in general relativity, Foundations of Physics, 33(7), 1033-1059.
---

"Alternately, it seems that there is no mathematical vacuum in realistic models of the universe, because of background radiation and possibly dark energy, so there is background matter to carry the gravitational energy."
---

Comments: First, the object that carries the gravitational energy doesn't have to be necessarily "background matter"; it can be 'potential reality', as explained below. And secondly -- we don't know for sure whether "in the vacuum there is no energy of the gravitational field" (p. 22 above). These comments pertain to the third option for GW detection, as well as to the interpretation of "dynamic dark energy" below.

Namely, the "background matter" is the explicated form of matter such as 'blue stuff', but the object that actually carries the gravitational energy is the true cosmological constant that varies in neither space nor time. The former is an instantaneous explicated snapshot from the "film reel" (called local mode of spacetime), in which the "dynamic dark energy" is precisely zero. Nonexistent. The latter is 'potential reality' kept in the so-called global mode of spacetime. It is totally "dark" or invisible in the local mode. It can explicate any amount of physical stuff in the local mode, but because the route toward the global mode cannot be traced back from the local one, the explicated physical stuff will inevitably look like "CDM" or alternatively like "dark energy from empty space".

Thus, if we take the quantum vacuum "energy" to be 'undecidable', it will range in the open interval (0, [infinity]). If we install a provisional (yet reasonable) cutoff from the Planck scale, the maximum untraceable or "dark" mass density of the vacuum, stored in the global mode, will be about 1096 kilograms per cubic meter, so replace [infinity] in the open interval above with this value. Subsequently, the minimum untraceable or "dark" mass density of the vacuum will not be zero but 'less than one part in 10120', so replace [zero] in the open interval above with this value.

Now you're safe: the so-called "cancellation mechanism" is due to the nature of 'potential reality', as it can explicate any amount of untraceable or "dark" mass density in the local mode of spacetime from the open interval above, depending on the cosmological stage ("the energy density is determined by what is called the effective potential, and this is dynamically determined", N. Straumann, arXiv:gr-qc/0208027v1). Which resolves the coincidence problem (S. Weinberg) as well. No "multiverse", no multidimensional superstitions like "extra dimensions of the embedding space", and no "anthropic" parapsychology are needed.

Of course, many people will consistently ignore such proposals, but this is a different subject.


"just another crank" D.C.
April 6, 2009
Last update: May 25, 2009


==========================


Subject: arXiv:0909.4408v1 [gr-qc], p. 10
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:36:38 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: José Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>, jpereira2@mac.com
Cc: yo@ift.unesp.br, grubilar@udec.cl, cordac.galilei@gmail.com

Dear José,

You and your co-authors wrote (p. 10): "One can wonder whether the inability to transport energy and momentum is a property of this specific exact solution, or is a general property of any linear gravitational waves."

I've been hoping to learn the opinion of Christian Corda on this crucial issue since February (cf. my email printed below, and Hans-Jürgen Schmidt, gr-qc/0407095, Sec. 4.2, 'Why do all the curvature invariants of a gravitational wave vanish'). Also, he has offered some "waves overlapping principle", but hasn't commented on your arXiv:0809.2911v1 [gr-qc], nor to my suggestion to convert LIGO and VIRGO tunnels to wine cellars.

Would you and your colleagues be interested to learn how Christian Corda will defend "GW astronomy"?

Regards,

Dimi

P.S. As to our email correspondence, please see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

D.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> P.S. On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:42:29 +0200, I replied to your suggestion
> to read your arXiv:0806.3397 (about "the proper duration" of the
> round-trip of a photon (Eq. 48, p. 11) along the x arm of the
> interferometer), and explained why your paper is *not relevant* to my
> objections at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG
>
> Does the "waves overlapping principle" resolve your problem at the
> link above? And how?
>
> D.

 

 

==========================


Subject: Re: In Defense of Leslie
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 03:50:10 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Cliff <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>
Cc: K G Arun <arun@physics.wustl.edu>,
Richard H Price <rprice@phys.utb.edu>,
David Garfinkle <garfinkl@oakland.edu>,
Warren Johnson <johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu>,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
office-hannover@aei.mpg.de,
m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk

"At the end of Bernie’s talk, a member of the audience asked whether Cliff had ever been known to be wrong on a serious issue. Bernie answered that to his knowledge, this had never happened. At this moment Leslie, Cliff’s wife, raised an eager hand and offered to present many examples of Cliff being in error."

B. Schutz, "Will and Testament", MATTERS OF GRAVITY, Number 29, Winter 2007
----


Here's another serious error, on a *very* serious issue.

In your latest arXiv:0904.1190v1 [gr-qc], you wrote: "We consider the bounds that could be achieved using advanced LIGO, ..."

You won't get the "advanced LIGO" though, for some very simple reasons explained at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

Would you please consider responding professionally? Because keeping quiet won't help you nor your LSC colleagues.

A HUGE scandal is just around the corner.

Do not ever say you knew nothing about it.

D. Chakalov


==========================

Subject: Re: In Defense of Leslie
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 02:35:03 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>
Cc: K G Arun <arun@physics.wustl.edu>,
Richard H Price <rprice@phys.utb.edu>,
David Garfinkle <garfinkl@oakland.edu>,
Warren Johnson <johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu>,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
office-hannover@aei.mpg.de,
m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:51:41 -0500, Message-Id:
<4192DFEC-A883-43EC-A233-A0F5F83C1913@wuphys.wustl.edu>, Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Chakalov:
>
> I once asked you politely to remove my name from your email lists.

This isn't "spam". I am not advertising cat food, Clifford.

> You responded in a very insulting way and refused to do so.

Your total ignorance of some basic facts about "GW astronomy", and persistent advertising of LIGO project, are far more insulting. If you are trying to protect your Ph.D. mentor Kip Thorne, as well as your obsession with "gravitons", check out the arguments at my web site.

> You continue to send around your ridiculous diatribes to random
> individuals
.

Please stop behaving like some insulted virgin, and get professional.

> You are totally entitled to your opinions about LIGO

LIGO is for the birds. Get the facts (not my opinions) at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

Also, I am talking about hundreds of millions U.S. Dollars and Euro wasted by LSC, and even more scheduled to be wasted with the "enhanced" and "advanced" LIGO and LISA.

All these taxpayers' money could have been used for real scientific research (e.g., stem cell research), for the benefit of people in your country and all over the world.

You have no idea of whom you have been dealing with.

D. Chakalov
 


==========================

Subject: arXiv:0908.0286v1 [gr-qc], Table 1
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:35:04 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Saeed Mirshekari <smirshekari@wustl.edu>, smirshekari@ut.ac.ir,
Amir M Abbassi <amabasi@khayam.ut.ac.ir>
Cc: Kirk McKenzie <kirk.mckenzie@jpl.nasa.gov>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
Peggy Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>

Dear colleagues,

Regarding your Table 1, 'Energy densities related to gravitational wave’s general line element': please check out my objections to LIGO project at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG
(last update: July 29, 2009)

Can you solve the problems at the link above, hence save LIGO tunnels from being converted to wine cellars ?

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
U.K.


==========================


Subject: Re: SBG
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:12:12 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your very nice article.

> Attached is a non-mathematical article. I hope it meets requirements.

I was hoping that you will take their own "linearized approximation" and expose their tacit assumptions, as I tried with SBG. You quoted Weyl's 1944 article, which is very dense, while LIGO mafia (e.g., Clifford Will) says about PSR 1913+16: "If we assume that the orbital period of the system is decreasing due to the emission of gravitational waves, then theory and experiment agree to within 0.2%."

So, they will insist on the linearized "theory". Angelo Loinger's papers, as well as yours, are targeting the full non-linear GR. The mafia doesn't care.

IMHO the only way to crash it is to expose their errors from their own "theory".

Best regards,

Dimi


=============

Subject: Re: supermassive black hole at Sagittarius A*
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:50:00 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Gillessen <ste@mpe.mpg.de>,
Reinhard Genzel <genzel@mpe.mpg.de>,
Frank Eisenhauer <eisenhau@mpe.mpg.de>,
Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu>,
Michael Cohen <mcohen@caltech.edu>

Dear Steve,

Regarding
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Gillessen.html :

Perhaps the reason why your colleagues won't reply is purely psychological. Surely you are right about "black holes" and their "apparent horizons" (cf. Jonathan Thornburg and Michael Cohen et al. below), yet you don't offer any ideas to account for GRBs, say

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/index.html

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/grbs_proof.html

Perhaps you can help your colleagues by offering your ideas on GRBs' energy source. My efforts are at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Chakalov

I trust your colleagues are aware that this whole "black hole" business is crap, but do they have a better deal? Maybe their situation is 'faute de mieux on couche avec sa belle-mère' :-)

Best regards,

Dimi
-------------
Jonathan Thornburg, Event and Apparent Horizon Finders for 3+1 Numerical Relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/0512169v2, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0512169

"The event horizon is defined nonlocally in time: it’s a global property of the entire spacetime, ... "

Michael I. Cohen et al., Revisiting Event Horizon Finders, arXiv:0809.2628v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2628

"There are two useful concepts to describe the location of black holes in a spacetime, apparent horizons (AH) and event horizons (EH). An EH is the true surface of a black hole: it is defined as the boundary of the region of the spacetime that is causally connected to future null infinity.

"Because the definition of the EH involves global properties of the spacetime, one must know the full future evolution of the spacetime before the EH can be determined exactly. This difficulty has led researchers to instead identify black holes with apparent horizons, (...)."

 

===============

Subject: Re: supermassive black hole at Sagittarius A*
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:12:36 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Gillessen <ste@mpe.mpg.de>,
Reinhard Genzel <genzel@mpe.mpg.de>,
Frank Eisenhauer <eisenhau@mpe.mpg.de>,
Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu>,
Michael Cohen <mcohen@caltech.edu>

Dear Steve,

> I have no ideas about GRB's. My research is restricted to what is and
> what is not consistent with General Relativity, and the foundations of
> GR itself.

GR has been a 'work in progress' since 1915; as Einstein stressed in 1949, "a field-theory may not contain any singularities, i.e., any positions or parts in space in which the field-laws are not valid", and then he acknowledged:

"Not for a moment, of course, did I doubt that this formulation (the field equations of GR) was merely a makeshift in order to give the general principle of relativity a preliminary closed expression. For it was essentially not anything more than a theory of the gravitational field, which was somewhat artificially isolated from a total field of as yet unknown structure."

I think that avoiding singularities and revealing the reference fluid in GR is a bundle.

> Certainly black holes, big bangs, Einstein gravitational waves, and
> associated phantasmagoria are phantasmagoria, not science. My view
> is that GR fails because a spacetime that by construction contains no
> matter (Ric = 0) can't contain matter, from which it immediately follows
> that the total energy of Einstein's gravitational field is always zero. The
> black hole is in addition a violation of geometry, assuming the validity of
> Ric = 0 for the sake of argument. So the black hole is not just a dog but
> a dog with fleas.

Okay, but 'besser ein Laus im Kraut als gar kein Fleisch' :-)

> Thanks for the links. I'll take a look.

Thank you for your time. Please send me your ideas about GRB's energy source.

BTW I mentioned your Ric = 0 paper at the GR section of

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Didn't elaborate much, but will be happy to do so, in case you're interested.

Regards,

Dimi
 
 


==========================


Subject: A future directed, time-like unit vector field
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:46:18 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de, Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de

Dear Dr. Friedrich,

You acknowledged that a future directed, time-like unit vector field, for which no natural choice exists in general, is characterized indirectly and becomes explicitly available only after solving the equations (arXiv:0903.5160v1 [gr-qc], p. 17).

I've been trying to argue that this problem can only be solved by recovering the reference fluid in GR. In the context of "GW astronomy", an outline of my proposal can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

I wonder if you and/or your colleagues may be interested.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: Notice above the tacit assumption made by LSC members, that there is no difference between  (i)  inferring the loss of energy due to emission of GWs, as recorded post factum (PSR 1913+16), and  (ii)  detecting GWs online, along the time read by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator. The presupposition  (i)  is wrong (check out F. Cooperstock), because GWs cannot propagate along that linearized time variable, which becomes explicitly available only after solving the equations (H. Friedrich). If they could, their energy will be perfectly localized along a continual trajectory of perfectly localized instants/events from that linearized (and highly deceptive) time variable. In no physical theory can we disentangle energy from time: if 'time in GR' is somehow made to look like the variable read by your wristwatch, so should be 'energy', in blatant contradiction to GR (cf. L. Szabados).

In order to detect GWs online, LIGO will have to read the "proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories", but the latter "cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself" (Carlo Rovelli).

The genuine dynamics of GWs is not known: without the reference fluid of GR, GWs will have to propagate 'within themselves and with respect to themselves' (email from 16 May 2004). All we can say is that GWs need not "calculate" some 'future directed, time-like unit vector field' in order to carry their quasi-local energy across the entire universe.


D. Chakalov
April 14, 2009

 

============================
 



Subject: Re: GWDAW-13: Schizophrenic behavior of gravity ?
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:51:53 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Andrew.Beckwith@mail.uh.edu
Cc: zyfang@cqu.edu.cn,
hglee@163.com,
cqstarv@yahoo.com.cn,
lixiaozhou818@yahoo.com.cn,
junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn,
mawg@ustc.edu.cn,
phwen@ust.hk,
wzhao7@mail.ustc.edu.cn,
drrobertbaker@gravwave.com


[snip]

> I respect what Kip Thorne did immensely.

He is personally responsible for wasting hundreds of millions US dollars -- all taxpayers' money -- for "GW astronomy".

> Of course successors to LIGO will emerge

There is a huge difference between wishful thinking and reality. Check out

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

D. Chakalov


===============

Subject: Re: Let's get the job done.
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:30:49 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: zyfang@cqu.edu.cn, hglee@163.com, cqstarv@yahoo.com.cn, cqufangyuli@hotmail.com, lixiaozhou818@ayahoo.com.cn, junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn, mawg@ustc.edu.cn, phwen@ust.hk, wzhao7@mail.ustc.edu.cn, drrobertbaker@gravwave.com


P.S. Once I receive your professional response (cf. my email from Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:21:29 +0300 below), I will comment on the first-order perturbative photon flux (PPF), in Slide 9, "The Synchro-Resonance Solution", from "Li-Baker Detector Development Powerpoint Presentation",

http://www.gravwave.com/presentations/Li-Baker Detector.ppt

If you ignore my proposal to exchange opinions on our work, it may cost you approximately 41 Million Yuan (cf. Slide 2 above).

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov


On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Again, try to find  Beckwith  at UH People Search
>
> http://www.uh.edu/search/directory/
>
> No match found.
>
> Andrew Beckwith has papers listed there, but he is *not* on UH web
> site. That is a fact.
>
> I don't care who is behind Andrew Beckwith, nor what face he is trying
> to show to you. I am only interested in HFGW detectors.
>
> Let's get the job done. Please see my email from Mon, 30 Mar 2009
> 01:21:29 +0300 (printed below).
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Dimi Chakalov
>
>
> ========
>
> Subject: Re: Stop spamming to Chinese researchers I know, DIMI.
> Message-ID: <bed37360903291521v641e2612y2695b25945d995ba@mail.gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:21:29 +0300
> From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
> To: zyfang@cqu.edu.cn, hglee@163.com, cqstarv@yahoo.com.cn,
> lixiaozhou818@ayahoo.com.cn, junluo@mail.hust.edu.cn,
> mawg@ustc.edu.cn, phwen@ust.hk, wzhao7@mail.ustc.edu.cn,
> drrobertbaker@gravwave.com
> Cc: abeckwith@uh.edu, Andrew.Beckwith@mail.uh.edu
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Andy Beckwith doesn't know how to behave professionally, so may I
> offer you the following:
>
> Please check out the arguments at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars
>
> and send me your professional opinions.
>
> Once I receive your professional response, I promise to do the same
> for your HFGW detectors.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Dimi Chakalov
>
 

===============


Subject: Re: HFGW Communications Study
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:29:34 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Giorgio Fontana <giorgio.fontana@unitn.it>
Cc: Robert M L Baker Jr <drrobertbaker@gravwave.com>,
Christian <christian.corda@ego-gw.it>,
Gloria Garcia-Cuadrado <gloria.garcia@ctae.org>

Giorgio,

Nice to hear from you.

> Because the gravitational force is an experimental fact like the electric
> force, let' say that gravitational waves do exist like electromagnetic
> waves.

Only they don't. It is a *very* crude analogy.

> Gravity is like electromagnetism in higher dimensions, that it is in this
> model.

OK. With these two hypotheses (the latter is from 1914), your model will work like the way I can explain to my wife the first law of Ohm with a hosepipe and water running in it. It too is amazingly effective. But if I wish to extend the crude analogy and explain QED to my wife, it will fail.

So, at what point will your model produce artifacts?

> Dimi, if you want to reply, keep you focus on this subject.

Please keep focus on the question above, and keep in mind that the dynamics of GWs may require (i) the reference fluid of GR (it cannot be found in GR because of the general covariance principle, as Einstein realized from 1913 to 1915), and (ii) some viable hypothesis to account for the need for D>4 ,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Petkov.html#Naresh

If you agree to comment on my work, I will happily do the same for yours (cf. my initial email printed below). These are just preliminary, and very general, comments.

Best regards,

Dimi


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dimi Chakalov" <dchakalov@gmail.com>
> To: "Robert Baker" <drrobertbaker@gravwave.com>
> Cc: "Christian" <christian.corda@ego-gw.it>; "Giorgio Fontana"
> <fontana@science.unitn.it>; "Gloria Garcia-Cuadrado"
> <gloria.garcia@ctae.org>; "Gary V Stephenson" <seculine@gmail.com>;
> <HFGWmedia@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:31 PM
> Subject: Re: HFGW Communications Study
>
>
>>> HFGW Communications study that you might find of interest.
>>
>> Thank you very much, Dr. Baker. Just two preliminary comments.
>>
>> 1. While the "fabric" of GR is indeed four-dimensional (com study
>> composite.pdf, p. 5), it is not at all clear what is the fabric of
>> spacetime of Nature. We need quantum gravity to answer this crucial
>> question.
>>
>> 2. I refute the possibility for detecting GWs with *any* frequencies
>> -- higher or lower than 100 kHz; it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Please tell me if you agree to exchange opinions on our work, as
>> offered to you and to your Chinese colleagues at
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Beckwith
>>
>> Let's get the job done.
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Dimi Chakalov
>

 

===============

Subject: Re: The double role of the metric... at the same time.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:48:13 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>
Cc: Fred Cooperstock <cooperst@uvic.ca>,
Dupre, Maurice J <mdupre@tulane.edu>,
Adam D Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>

Dear Laszlo,

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:37:02 +0100 (CET), you wrote:

> What I say in may review is *not* that GR is a non-local theory,
> I say only that the gravitational energy-momentum and angular
> momentum, i.e. the gravitational analogs of the classical conserved
> quantities and observables are non-local. Non-local in the sense
> that they should be associated to *extended* domains rather than
> to points.

These *extended* domains may require a new formulation of 'isolated
system': check out the third approach at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#extended

and my note from April 6, 2009 at

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

Should you or your colleagues have questions, please do write me back.
The practical implications are outlined at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

Regards,

Dimi
 


=================

Subject: Re: The double role of the metric.... at the same time.
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:34:57 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>
Cc: Jörg Frauendiener <joerg.frauendiener@uni-tuebingen.de>

Dear Laszlo,

>> Regarding your arXiv:0902.3199v1 [gr-qc]: perhaps 'ultimate' boundary
>> conditions for canonical variables cannot exist due to the inherent
>> problems of the canonical formulation -- "the split into three spatial
>> dimensions and one time dimension seems to be contrary to the whole
>> spirit of relativity", S. Hawking.
>
> That is about a different problem in a different context...

Many years ago, Mercedes Benz announced that they had seven different
solutions to the requirements for the new suspension module in the new
E Class, and they choose the one that they considered to be better
than the rest.

In our case, I believe we're seeking *the unique solution* of Mother Nature.

I hope you will agree that there is a crucial problem with those quasi-local *variables* of the gravitational energy-momentum and angular momentum: 'observables' are local, and we don't know how they "should be associated to *extended* domains rather than to points", as you put it four years ago (Wed, 23 Feb 2005).

First of all, the recipe advocated by Jörg doesn't work -- see the link from my initial email.

Secondly, the canonical formulation itself produces severe problems when applied to the global properties of spacetime (if needed, references are immediately available).

Besides, the conceptual solution to your problem has been offered at your dedicated web page. All you need is to cast it in math ans see if it works, instead of trying to improve the suspension of Lada Niva ...

Best,

Dimi


On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:37:02 +0100 (CET), Szabados Laszlo
<lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu> wrote:

> What I say in may review is *not* that GR is a non-local theory,
> I say only that the gravitational energy-momentum and angular
> momentum, i.e. the gravitational analogs of the classical conserved
> quantities and observables are non-local. Non-local in the sense
> that they should be associated to *extended* domains rather than
> to points.

 

=================


Subject: Typo in arXiv:0902.3923v1 [gr-qc] + more
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:06:36 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
"Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Hermann Nicolai <Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de>

Dear Dr. Giulini,

I hope all my email messages sent since Thu, 23 Jun 2005 have been safely received.

I appreciate the quote from J. Wheeler's article in Harper’s Magazine (July
1974, p. 9), which I didn't know. Thank you.

It seems to me that there is a typo on p. 2, "... automorphisms could be be understood in any depth."

You also wrote (p. 3) about "those E which are connected and closed (compact without boundary)", which I think is a big can of worms,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#disconnected

It is related to another can of worms, the 3+1 split of Einstein's equations, as introduced in Claus Kiefer’s contribution, arXiv:0812.0295v1 [gr-qc],

http://quantumgravity.aei.mpg.de/program/Kiefer.pdf

It is my opinion that we cannot define 'spacetime' unless there are well-defined values of the gravitational energy-momentum and angular momentum of all physical stuff in such 'spacetime' -- from any given "point" up to its "boundaries". But this task is not feasible with the 3+1 split of Einstein's equations, and here your quote from John Wheeler may be very elucidating:

“The stage on which the space of the Universe moves is certainly not space itself. Nobody can be a stage for himself; he has to have a larger arena in which to move. The arena in which space does its changing is not even the spacetime of Einstein, for space-time is the history of space changing with time. The arena must be a larger object: ..."

This 'larger object' can only be the *unique* object of 'the whole universe as ONE',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#So

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Notice that we don't have any other choice.

The only choice you have is to ignore my email notes, as you and Claus have been doing in the past four years.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

=================

Subject: The double role of the metric... at the same time.
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:01:14 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

Dear Laszlo,

Thank you, once more, for your very informative reply from Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:37:02 +0100 (CET), regarding my inquiries and request for references prompted by your review article "Quasi-Local Energy-Momentum and Angular Momentum in GR", Living Rev. Relativity 7, (2004) 4.

You wrote:

> In subsection 3.3.1 I argued that this phenomenon is not
> accidental, a consequence of an unfortunate choice for the field
> variables, but this is a consequence of a much deeper fact, namely
> that the metric has a double role: it is a field variable and defines
> the geometry at the same time. Or, in other words, GR is a
> completely diffeomorphism invariant theory, which
> diffeomorphisms form an incredibly huge set.

I consider the phrase 'at the same time' crucially important for
amending Einstein's GR with a hypothetical parameter, which might
account for all "dark" effects, labeled with 'dark energy' and 'dark
matter',

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Minchin.html

I've been trying to introduce two modes of spacetime, local and global. The former can be poetically explained as 'the end result' from the bi-directional talk of matter and space (J.A. Wheeler), which can never be actually reached. Regarding the metric "field", it is being thought as 'the end result' from a dynamic process of cancellation of two fluxes [Ref. 1], but I suspect that this so-called 'end result' cannot be *actually* reached. Rather, it should resemble the dynamic nature of the infinitesimal, which produces dimensionless "points" (and strictly zero cosmological constant) only if we instruct it to run toward infinity. Thus, we need something that can take care of 'running toward infinity', and I call it (poetically again) 'global mode of spacetime'.

Can you ride a bike? Imagine the bi-directional talk of matter and space as a constant run of the infinitesimal toward a geometrical "point" of tµv = 0 [Ref. 1], which can never be actually reached, because the bike always moves ahead. On the other hand, you need to 'stop the bike' in order to solve the field equations for a frozen, static hypersurface, and then you discover all sorts of pathologies in it, such as shielded (event horizon) and naked singularities, CTCs, and geodesic incompleteness (Cauchy problem).

So, how does Mother Nature run the bike? There is an invisible or "dark" process in the global mode of spacetime, which I call 'potential reality'; please see NB on p. 12 from

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/paper.doc

In the local mode of spacetime, all values of physical quantities are *already* localized (hence the term 'local mode of spacetime') by the time we look at them in our past light cone. If we stop the bike, they will be strictly zero, but the bike never stops.

> What I say in may review is *not* that GR is a non-local theory,
> I say only that the gravitational energy-momentum and angular
> momentum, i.e. the gravitational analogs of the classical conserved
> quantities and observables are non-local. Non-local in the sense
> that they should be associated to *extended* domains rather than
> to points. The field equations are still genuine partial differential
> equations.

We can think of an *extended* domain as a shoal of fish (see paper.doc above, p. 14), hence each individual fish would follow a strictly local geodesic, only the non-local influences on it would be negotiated in the global mode of spacetime, hence each and every fish will be EPR-like correlated with 'the rest of the fish': think globally, act locally.

> As far as I can see the non-locality in QM is a completely different
> business. The root of this is that the basic object, the wave
> function, by means of which the elementary states are described is
> already an "extended" mathematical objects. This comes from the
> different nature of the notion of the states and the dynamics of the
> two theories.

Sure, but we need to find their joint dynamics. Please see my efforts at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Landsman.html#note_last

I hope this whole poetry will be cast in math by November 2015.

Best wishes,

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

References

[Ref. 1] Merced Montesinos, The double role of Einstein's equations: as equations of motion and as vanishing energy-momentum tensor, gr-qc/0311001 v1.

"This means that for this type of observers, there is a balance between the 'content' of energy and momentum densities and stress associated with the matter fields [psi] (which is characterized in Tµv) and the 'content' of energy and momentum densities and stress associated with the gravitational field (which is characterized in [XXX])

        --->--->--->--->
        <---<---<---<---                                (23)

in a precise form such that both fluxes cancel, and thus leading to a
vanishing 'flux', i.e., tµv = 0. Once again, the vanishing property of
tµv for the system of gravity coupled to matter fields is just a
reflection of the fact that the background metric is dynamical.

"More precisely, tµv = 0 tells us that the 'reaction' of the dynamical
background metric is such that it just cancels the effect of 'flux'
associated with the matter fields. It is impossible (and makes no
sense) to have a locally non-vanishing 'flux' in this situation. If this
were the case, there would be no explanation for the origin of that
non-vanishing 'flux'. Moreover, that hypothetic non-vanishing 'flux'
would define privileged observers associated with it (the ether would
come back!)."
 
 

Note: I mentioned above the conjecture about an invisible or "dark" process in the global mode of spacetime, which I call 'potential reality'. To explain how it became "dark", I'll use again the dark room metaphor.

Suppose you stay in a pitch-dark room with a camera in your hands, and take snapshots which you record with your camera clock placing time stamps on your photos, at  tn , n=0,1,..., which are events in your dark room and belong to the (global) time read by your wristwatch. The latter includes all time stamps placed on your photos as well. Any time you take a snapshot, you're wiping out the darkness (global time mode) completely: you get a frozen picture of the room.

Now, consider only the events marked with the your camera clock (local time stamps), which constitute the 'elements of physical reality' of the local mode of spacetime: you're confined in a 3-D space and have a new clock that can read only and exclusively only  tn , n=0,1,..., . If you do classical physics and GR at length scales not larger than our solar system, you have no problems whatsoever: you cannot detect the effects of the 'dark room', and can happily use partial diff equations.

The fun begins when you take a closer look at the dynamics of the embedding of a quantum event into your local mode of spacetime, as explained here and here. You also find out that you live in a "block universe" that is completely frozen [Ref. 2], and recall the 1929 paper by Nevill Mott. Briefly, you cannot use some 'film reel' metaphor, because in your local mode of spacetime the size of the "dark strips" separating your   tn , n=0,1,..., is zero. You can only talk about some timeless probability for transition between the "points" of your local mode of spacetime. The idea is very old, after Chuang-Tzu: Before Zen, a tree is a tree and a mountain is a mountain. During Zen, a tree is not a tree and a mountain is not a mountain. After Zen, a tree is again a tree and a mountain is again a mountain. Only Zen is very well hidden [Ref. 3], and the Zen state of the tree and the mountain is completely "dark", being a quantum-gravitational atemporal potential reality. Viewed from the local mode of spacetime, it is is both "outside" the cosmological horizon and "inside" the instant 'now', hence it serves as the "absolute" reference frame which 3-D Flatlanders, such as LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC), need to detect GWs.

To explain the nature of 'potential reality' of the global mode of spacetime and its "dark" effects, the cosmic equator included, we need new ideas. I tried to suggest the place where we can "insert" these new ideas: the double role of the metric in Einstein's GR. My email to Laszlo Szabados was based on the presumption that he is acquainted with the main ideas, hence was very brief and perhaps eclectic. I hope it can now be understood. If not, please do write me back, and I'll try to do better.
 

D. Chakalov
August 10, 2005
 
 

[Ref. 2] Julian Barbour, The End of Time, Phoenix, London, 2000.

"I think that if the collapse of the wave function could be demonstrated to be a real physical phenomenon, that would be a true demonstration of something one might call transience" (p. 359). "That would kill my idea" (p. 358).
 

[Ref. 3] Roman Buniy et al., Is Hilbert space discrete? hep-th/0508039 v1.

"In a universe with a minimal length (for example, due to quantum gravity), no experiment can exclude the possibility that Hilbert space is discrete. (...) In conclusion, it appears that the traditional assumption of continuous Hilbert space is rather strong: minimal length precludes any experiment showing that the discreteness parameter e  is exactly zero."
 

=======

Subject: Conserved quantities of massive point particles and of extended bodies
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:30:37 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: David B Malament <dmalamen@uci.edu>
CC: Katherine Brading <kbrading@nd.edu>,
     Elena Castellani <castella@philos.unifi.it>,
     Leonardo Castellani <castellani@to.infn.it>,
     Jeremy Butterfield <jb56@cus.cam.ac.uk>,
     John D Norton <jdnorton@pitt.edu>,
     John Earman <jearman@pitt.edu>,

     Erik Curiel <encuriel@gab.stanford.edu>,
     Robert Rynasiewicz <ryno@lorentz.phl.jhu.edu>,
     Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

Dear Professor Malament,

I think there is a big can of worms in the so-called 'asymptotic behavior' [Ref. 1].

Please see my efforts to explain the issue to my 12-year old daughter at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Price.html#note

I wonder if you or some of your colleagues would agree with my interpretation of 'conserved quantities' in the putative 'local mode of spacetime'.

More at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#note

Kindest regards,

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


Reference

[Ref. 1] David B. Malament, Classical Relativity Theory, Version 2.4,
gr-qc/0506065 v2. To appear in: Handlbook of the Philosophy of Physics,
eds. J. Butterfield and J. Earman, Elsevier.

Footnote 40, p. 33: "But sometimes a Killing field in a curved spacetime resembles a Killing field in Minkowski spacetime in certain respects, and then the terminology may carry over naturally. For example, in the case of asymptotically flat spacetimes, one can classify Killing fields by their asymptotic behavior."
...

"For further discussion of symmetry and conservation principles in general relativity, see Brading and Castellani (this volume, chapter 13)."

 

Note 2: See Refs. [11, Ch. 3.12], [12], [27], and [28] in paper.doc. Then there is another problem in Einstein's GR: the so-called geodesic incompleteness. All we have to do is to solve these two problems and leave room for 96 per cent "dark" stuff in GR from the outset, bearing in mind the "dark" potential reality in QM as well.

Mother Nature doesn't suffer from Cauchy problems, closed time curves (CTCs), or "singularities", neither shielded by some "horizon" nor naked, because the physical content of each and every "point" is being re-created in the dark gaps, along the "vertical" line of the global mode of spacetime. We need to 'stop the bike' to do our calculations, sure. That's what David Malament [Ref. 1] does remarkably well.
 


D. Chakalov
August 19, 2005

============


Subject: Re: Request for references
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:57:49 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:37:02 +0100 (CET), Szabados Laszlo wrote:
[snip]

> Thus, to summarize: even if we start with genuine tensorial variables,
> then certain important physical quantities turn out to be non-tensorial.

I tried to explain the origin of this peculiar feature of GR at

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

Best regards,

Dimi
-------

Note: How come it happens that, as Laszlo Szabados said, "even if we start with genuine tensorial variables, then certain important physical quantities turn out to be non-tensorial"?

Because "Dirac observable" cannot exist in GR: the set of Diff(M)-related configurations, which is supposed to represent the complete gauge invariant information, cannot exist in principle, just as the complete (or global) presentation of a quantum system by a set of observable (or local) states of that quantum system -- for Hilbert space dimension greater than two -- cannot exist in principle, as we know after Ernst Specker.

In the context of the ideas from Plato, the Kochen-Specker Theorem says that "the observed characteristics of a quantum system" (cf. Charles G. Torre) cannot fully represent their Platonic idea (=potential reality) from which they emanate as 'QM observables'. To quote Erwin Schrödinger:

"In general, a variable has no definite value before I measure it; then measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value that it has."

The same kind of situation holds for present-day GR: until we determine ("measure") the "definite values" of the physical stuff from Einstein field equations to obtain their case-specific spacetime, we don't have any 'spacetime' nor 'physical stuff' (e.g., some scalar field \phi). We are not allowed to introduce some 'reference fluid' or 'pre-geometric plenum', which would be "external" to such case-specific spacetime, and would facilitate the transition from a given case-specific spacetime to the "next" one: the dynamics of 'spacetime' and its physical stuff are totally frozen (cf. Karel Kuchar below), and we end up in the same kind of situation explained by Erwin Schrödinger.

The solution to the dynamics of spacetime, after Plato, would be as follows: 'the observed characteristics of a gravitational system' are defined with their invariance under "active" diffeomorphisms -- the field equations are "invariant under all differentiable diffeomorphisms (the group Diff(M)) of the underlying manifold M, which have no spatio-temporal significance until the dynamical fields are specified" (cf. Mihaela Iftime; emphasis added). Thus, until the dynamical fields are specified -- after which we may "observe" a snapshot of the gravitational system cast on particular 'spacetime' (the shadows on Plato's cave), -- the gravitational system per se exists as 'potential reality'. To paraphrase Charles G. Torre, the observed characteristics of a gravitational system do not "reside in" or "be a part of" that system, in the sense that they cannot fully describe it. Namely, the 'gravitational system' has some holistic "contextual" properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of its Diff(M)-invariant states, as Plato would have probably said.

NB: These holistic contextual properties (another example here) will show up as "non-tensorial quantities" (see the 'second option' here), so even if we start with genuine tensorial variables, certain important physical quantities, at some stage, will inevitably turn out to be "non-tensorial", as Laszlo Szabados noticed above.

In QM, we elucidate the profound meaning of KS Theorem by comparing 'the observed characteristics of a quantum system' to the observed characteristics of a macro-system in its phase space: "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" (Asher Peres; emphasis added).

In GR, we elucidate the profound meaning of active diffeomorphisms by comparing 'the observed characteristics of a gravitational system' to 'the observed characteristics of a classical system without gravity' in the case of a fixed background of flat Minkowski space, used to parameterize the dynamics of such classical system without gravity, and uniquely define its state at each "point" from that fixed flat background spacetime.

So, what's the difference? There are no abstract "bare spacetime points" in GR, because the point-like "events" are not locked on a fixed flat background spacetime. The brand new "points" are defined with, and depend on, their non-tensorial and quasi-local "energy" as well. Instead of 'one point from the phase space of classical mechanics', we have in GR infinitely many "potential point-like states" resembling 'gravitational context' (quasi-local or rather quasi-localizable states), hence the observed characteristics of a gravitational system do not "reside in" or "be a part of" the potential reality, in the sense that these 'observables' cannot fully describe the source from which they emanate, by any set (cf. below) of 'observables': the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

 


Consider Georg Cantor's definition of ‘set’ from 1895 (quoted after D. Giulini, arXiv:0802.4341v1, p. 11):

By a ‘set’ we understand any gathering-together M of determined well-distinguished objects m of our intuition or of our thinking (which are called the ‘elements’ of M) into a whole.

However, the potential reality, which provides the set-forming 'whole', is itself rooted on 'the ideal monad without windows' from which totally new things ('the unknown unknown'; cf. David Batchelor) may emerge in a totally creative, non-unitary fashion (creatio ex nihilo). Thus, if we wish to construct a "set" which could fully describe the potential reality and its source, we should introduce a unique "element" with absolutely no content (resembling 'hidden zero'), to match 'the ideal monad without windows', but such unique "element" cannot belong to any set, because its nature contradicts the very definition of 'set' from Georg Cantor: our intuition or thinking cannot possibly "define" this unique element. In other words, the "set" of all sets refers to the whole universe as ONE, and cannot be a set.



The phase space of present-day GR is obviously inadequate for such task. Nor is the Hilbert space capable of accommodating the potential reality in the quantum realm. We simply have two different forms of reality in QM and GR -- potential reality, and physical reality explicated from potential reality. If we ignore the former and push GR into 'objective reality out there', we will have to find some GR phase space that would match the unique point-like determination of the state of a physical system in the phase space of classical mechanics, then "discover" some "Dirac observable" in GR, and finally prove Charles G. Torre wrong, by showing that GR is indeed some "parametrized field theory".

Consider a metaphorical example of 'real building displayed on a map'. In present-day GR, a genuine Dirac observable would require 'classical determinism' (cf. 'real building displayed on a map'), to define the set of all possible presentations of the real building by all possible maps in which the real building will remain unchanged/invariant. There are infinitely many possible maps under which the real building can be faithfully presented, but these maps are nothing but re-labeling (passive diffeomorphisms) of the "coordinates" of the real building 'out there'. These infinitely many possible maps are produced by re-labeling of the "coordinates" of the real building that would be fixed on some background and absolute spacetime.

Hence any such possible map/presentation of the building would be a perfectly legitimate (compare with "legitimate definition of (global) time", Butterfield & Isham) and indistinguishable presentation of such absolute spacetime of the real building 'out there'. But because 'absolute spacetime' of 'potential reality' (called here global mode of spacetime) is expelled from present-day GR, the alleged Dirac observable will inevitably be "contaminated" with non-tensorial quantities (see the 'second option' here), and will never gain the status of a genuine Dirac observable.

Alternatively, if we update the present-day GR with 'potential reality', a hypothetical "Dirac observable" would have to be defined one-at-a-time, on a brand new dynamical phase space. But then it won't be a Dirac observable either.

As Karel Kuchar stressed in May 1991: "In general relativity, dynamics is entirely generated by constraints. The dynamical data do not explicitly include a time variable." This is as it should be, because the Perennials of GR should not show up in GR, for reasons explained here; more from Aristotle here.

Einstein was not aware of 'potential reality' and was struggling with the problem of objective reality vs. general covariance from 1913 to 1915.

But there is no room for 'objective reality' in GR, because it will impose an aether in GR (cf. M. Montesinos). Isn't this simple? I believe even my teenage daughter was able to grasp the problem of present-day GR.

Yet some people show thriving optimism for some "approximation scheme for Dirac observables" that can be extracted from "infinitely many gauge
invariant degrees of freedom" [Ref. 1], by some putative mechanism that embodies gravity as an inherently self interactive force, although such approximation scheme for Dirac observables cannot be constructed even by using flat Minkowski background (reference here).

No way. Fuhgeddaboudit.


D. Chakalov
April 5, 2008
Last update: April 14, 2008


[Ref. 1] Bianca Dittrich, Partial and Complete Observables for Canonical General Relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/0507106v1

pp. 1-2: If one wants to quantize a theory with gauge symmetries one has to look for physical observables, also called Dirac observables, i.e. phase space functions which are invariant under gauge transformations. For general relativity this is a very difficult problem since here also translations in time are gauge transformations. This means that one has to solve at least partially the dynamics of general relativity in order to obtain gauge invariant quantities. Because this dynamics is described by a complicated system of highly non–linear partial differential equations it is not surprising that there are almost no gauge invariant phase space functions known. [footnote 1]
--
Footnote 1: For the case of gravity in four space–time dimensions and for asymptotically flat boundary conditions there are 10 gauge invariant phase space functions known. These are the ADM charges [4] given by the generators of the Poincare transformations at spatial infinty. Additionally an observable is known, which takes only a few discrete values and is trivial on almost all points in phase space [5]. For gravity coupled to matter, in some cases gauge invariant functions describing matter are known but in general no phase space functions which describe the
gravitational degrees of freedom (with the exception of the ADM charges). Yet there are infinitely many gauge invariant degrees of freedom.
--
p. 2: "Therefore the hope is that one can at least develop an approximation scheme for Dirac observables."


B. Dittrich, Partial and Complete Observables for Hamiltonian Constrained Systems, gr-qc/0411013 v1

"To define a complete observable we will need infinitly many clocks which describe the embedding of the spatial hypersurface into the space-time manifold. A complete observable is then a phase space function evaluated on an embedding which is fixed by prescribing certain values for the infinitly many clock variables."
 

T. Thiemann, Reduced Phase Space Quantization and Dirac Observables, arXiv:gr-qc/0411031v1

"There are even obstruction theorems available in the literature [1] which state the non existence of local Dirac observables (depending on a finite number of spatial derivatives) for GR."


C. G. Torre, Gravitational Observables and Local Symmetries, arXiv:gr-qc/9306030v1

"If one could integrate the Einstein equations and find an internal time, then in principle a complete set of observables could be found [5]."

C. G. Torre, The Problems of Time and Observables: Some Recent Mathematical Results, arXiv:gr-qc/9404029v1

"To summarize, we have ruled out the simplest putative resolutions of the problems of time and observables. We cannot use parametrized field theory to solve the problem of time because, strictly speaking, general relativity is not a parametrized field theory."

C. G. Torre, Is general relativity an ‘already parametrized’ theory? Phys. Rev. D 46 (1993) 3231-3234


Charles G Torre, Physics 6210/Spring 2008/Lecture 6

"And this is why it is not generally appropriate to think of the observed characteristics of a quantum system to somehow "reside in" or "be a part of the reality of" that system. That's just not how nature works."

Charles G Torre, Physics 6210/Spring 2008/Lecture 32

"From this discussion it is clear that -- according to the description provided by quantum mechanics -- one cannot assert that the spin observables were a part of the reality of each particle independent of the measurements. That's just how nature works (according to quantum mechanics)."
 

=============


 

 


 


Quantum Mechanics 101

QM_101.pdf, 21 pages


 

------
About '101' in the title

Regarding the Kochen-Specker Theorem, Zeeya Merali (FQXi) wrote on Jul. 24, 2008 @ 19:40 GMT (the link on _cheating at "twenty questions"_ added by me - D.C.):

"The crux of the proof rests on the fact that if you measure the square of the spin of so-called “spin 1” particles along three perpendicular axes, you always uncover the same three values—1,0,1—in various orders. Just over 40 years ago, Kochen and his colleague Ernst Specker showed that with this restriction in place, it's impossible for the particle to have consistently defined spins along every direction you might choose to measure, before the game begins. Even if you just look at 33 possible directions, the particle can't set spin values along each of the 33 direction such that you get you 1, 0, 1, no matter which three perpendicular directions you choose to poke. You can set consistent spins for 30 directions, but the final three must paradoxically be both 1 and 0.

"That's fine for quantum mechanics, where the particle sets its spin on-the-fly. This corresponds to cheating at "twenty questions", where you can keep changing the object in mind, as the questions are being asked."

And John Conway and Simon Kochen wrote (The Strong Free Will Theorem, arXiv:0807.3286v1 [quant-ph], p. 2):

"This “101 property” is paradoxical because it already implies that the quantity that is supposedly being measured cannot in fact exist before its “measurement.”" Watch John Conway's lecture on April 27, 2009, and pay special attention to what he says during 11:30-14:03 and 45:30-45:57.
 


Hence the title of this essay, 'Quantum Mechanics 101'. It is not intended to induce associations with those introductory-level courses offered in some U.S. universities (e.g., 'Flowers and Gardening 101').

NB: In a nutshell, the failure of '101 property' implies that the properties "possessed" by quantum particles (e.g., spin orientation projected in 3-D space) cannot exist as 'objective reality' neither before nor after their alleged “measurement” (see Schrödinger's 1935 article below). Surely quantum particles have context-dependant actualized-able "projections" at the length scale of tables and chairs, which can be fitted into a Hilbert space. These "projections" are "governed" by a totally incomprehensible, shut-up-and-calculate postulate known as the Born Rule. But we also have a totally different phenomenon revealed with Ernst Specker's tripod and KS Theorem, which exposes the intrinsic UNdecidable quantum state interwoven with the context-dependant actualized-able "projections".

This is the dual nature of 'quantum state': it is partly explicable in terms of context-dependant actualized-able "projections", and partly explicable as an UNdecidable, in terms of binary truth-valued statements ("paradoxically be both 1 and 0"), quantum state (never in plural). Regarding the latter: even the weakest possible "objectification" conjecture, such as the one offered by Peter Mittelstaedt below (P. Mittelstaedt, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process, Cambridge University Press, 2004 (ISBN 0521602815), Ch. 4, p. 67) is not applicable.

All we can say about the UNdecidable quantum state is what this unique quantum state is not: it has nothing to do with 'probabilities'. Period.

Check out the letter by Erwin Schrödinger dated 18 November 1950 below. He was implying precisely the UNdecidable quantum state. Think of it as an implication of Gödel's incompleteness theorems to quantum theory: we should expect to encounter an assertion that cannot be proven (=is not a theorem) within quantum theory, as well as the negation of this assertion that cannot be proven either, simply because the UNdecidable quantum state belongs to a 'meta theory'. If any reasonable formulation of mathematics contains undecidable propositions within it (details from Bob Geroch), how could quantum theory avoid such undecidable propositions?

All this is totally missing in the forthcoming Compendium of Quantum Physics (April 16, 2009), although one of the editors, Daniel Greenberger, certainly knows this web site and has replied to my email.

There is nothing essentially new in this essay; it could have been written in November 1950. In order to “measure” an object in the quantum world, the only option we have is to squeeze it to a "point" from the spacetime in STR, but by imposing such "filter" onto the quantum world we inevitably see a wrong picture. Should a quantum particle been localized to a "point" in its natural habitat, its momentum would have to be infinite.

Therefore, we don't have sufficient reason to claim that "god plays dice" in the quantum world, given that fact that we are imposing a "filter" from STR -- the 'time of facts' -- which is totally alien to QM, and will inevitably introduce severe artifacts to the "projection" of the quantum world on the scale of tables and chairs. Just recall the deceptive picture of localized paths in Wilson cloud chambers (Nevill Mott; see Alessandro Teta, arXiv:0905.1467v1 [math-ph], pp. 9-10).

All this is well-known; I only tried to add more evidence in support of what Schrödinger wrote on 18 November 1950. In order to understand QM, we should keep 'the quantum state'  intact  before, during, and after its “measurement” -- the "collapse" from the "eigenvalue-eigenstate link" is an artifact from imposing the wrong (albeit inevitable) "filter" of Minkowski spacetime.

The question of "when" (watch the clip below) belongs to the theory of relativity; it is wrong to be directed to the UNdecidable quantum state (not shown in the video). The animated object in the video below do not "move" into any relativistic space, nor can their "dynamics" be recorded with any physical clock.

 


 

 

There is no 'flow of events' coming from the quantum world and ending up -- irreversibly -- at the scale of tables and chairs. Instead, I suggest reversible quantum-classical transitions, and a new kind of retarded causality (biocausality), to accommodate the quasi-local nature of both quantum and gravitational realms. The time irreversibility and the flow of time are not "already built into quantum mechanics through the quantum measurement process" (George F R Ellis), and there is no such thing as "quantum mechanical arrow of time" (Jonathan Dowling) either.

NB: In the light of the “101 property”, the Heisenberg Relations do not refer to anything "uncertain" in the quantum realm, but to the inherent flexibility ("formally undecidable", cf. C. Weedbrook) of quantum objects to negotiate their next state relationally, in line with a new form of retarded causality, called biocausality. According to W. Heisenberg (Physik und Philosophie, S. Hirzel Verlag, Stuttgart, 2000; translated by M. Kober):

"The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory begins with a paradox. Every physical experiment, no matter if it refers to phenomena of daily live or to atomic physics, has to be described by the concepts of classical physics. The concepts of classical physics represent the language in which we describe the configuration of our experiments and determine the results. We cannot replace them by other concepts."

Yes we can. The puzzle of the double-slit experiment -- "the only mystery" of quantum theory, according to Richard Feynman -- is resolved from the outset: Feynman's "uncertainty" principle claiming that "any determination of the alternative taken by a process capable of following more than one alternative destroys the interference between alternatives" refers to a single indivisible pathway connecting the "initial" and "final" states of 'the quantum state'. The latter is interpreted as 'quantum presentation of Platonic ideas' (see below), which does not destroy the "interference" because it contains all classical alternatives en bloc. To be specific, the quantum presentation of Platonic ideas reveals itself by two reversible pathways: from 'quantum being' to 'context-dependent quantum becoming', and back to 'quantum being'. The actualized-able 'context-dependent quantum becoming' unfolds from its source, the 'quantum being', and can indeed be modeled with 'rays in a Hilbert space' (compare the latter with Ashtekar and Schilling). But the source itself can't, because it is rooted on 'the ideal monad without windows' (Döring and Isham).

If we model the universe as a brain, all the pieces from the jigsaw puzzle of quantum gravity snap to their places -- effortlessly.

NB: The only way to solve the measurement (macro-objectification) problem in QM stems from Henry Margenau: you have a perfect continuum of already explicated projections from 'potential reality' (quantum presentation of Platonic ideas),  at all length scales . All these already-explicated states (cf. the colored states below) show up with 'carpe diem' unit probability in the local mode of spacetime, where their common source, called 'potential reality' (global mode of spacetime), is already vanished completely.

Stated differently, the only way to avoid the non-unitary "collapse" is to endow the potential reality (the ONE meta-qubit state) with a new (to some people) ontological status, as known since Plato it has nothing to do with 'probabilities'. There is no other way to solve the problems of QM.

Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

Just don't miss the explanation of  'alreadybelow (notice the atemporal "hand-shaking" mechanism), as well as the discussions of "quantum computing" and Thompson's lamp; summary here.

As to GR, the world of 'potential reality' (=gravitational presentation of Platonic ideas) shows up as some kind of luxonic world; cf. Max Tegmark, gr-qc/9702052, footnote 4: "The only remaining possibility is the rather contrived case where data is specified on a null hypersurface. To measure such data, an observer would need to "live on the light cone", i.e., travel with the speed of light, which means that it would subjectively not perceive any time at all (its proper time would stand still)."

In GR, such luxonic world is perhaps equivalent to a point object (Rµv = 0, cf. Stephen J. Crothers) "inside" which there is no real mass nor real energy whatsoever (just like the quantum vacuum) -- mass and energy are in the form of 'potential reality'. Perhaps Cartan's "extrinsic curvature" and the torsion degrees of freedom (Luca Fabbri) may reveal this broader form of 'potential reality'. It isn't some Euclidean tangent space or "fiducial space" at each point of the Riemann manifold, but 'the universe as ONE' acting as 'the ultimate cutoff'.

In this context, the flexibility of the wegtransformierbar gravitational "field" is camouflaged in GR as Cauchy problem for Einstein filed equations being not "well-posed", while the input from 'potential reality' is camouflaged as "gauge-dependent" -- the pseudo-tensors (MTW) are just well-calculated projections from 'the gravitational field' interpreted as 'gravitational presentation of Platonic ideas' (do you know the origin of inertia?).

From this perspective, Einstein's dictum 'God casts the die, not the dice' can be restored as the guiding principle in quantum and gravitational physics, while the picture below ("spacetime foam") is considered 'not even wrong'.
 



 



------
 

Let me try to offer my opinion on Conway-Kochen (more here) and Kochen-Specker theorems, with a little help from Claudia Schiffer: suppose you obtain "observed characteristics of a quantum system" (see Charles G. Torre's Lectures 6 and 32 above), in a case in which the quantum system is (presumably) fully described with a Hilbert space (cf. Diederik Aerts, p. 2) of three or more dimensions (cf. N. Brunner). Suppose the observable characteristics are presented with three possible colors:

blue, red, and green.

The notion of 'color' is like the notions of 'energy' or 'spacetime': we should answer the question of 'color of what?', or else we would be talking like parapsychologists. So, we shall consider some 'colorizable stuff' (=a leg of tripod, after Ernst Specker), in three observable colors:

blue stuff, red stuff, and green stuff.

Now, suppose you've made an observation on the 3-colored quantum system, and the latter showed up its  blue stuff , say. You're very pleased with the outcome from your observation, and decide to make the following statement: 'the quantum system showed its intrinsic blue stuff.'

According to the usual, two-valued logic of propositions, your statement can be either true or false. And if you subscribe to the alleged "scientific", Marxist-Leninist philosophy, you will be dead certain that you have captured all possible degrees of freedom of the quantum beast, so you can safely push it into a Hilbert space with dimension 3.

Well, it isn't that simple, sources say. Neither the blue nor the blue stuff are 'intrinsic properties of the quantum system'.

What we observe in the local mode of spacetime are some fleeting "projections" (shadows on Plato's cave) from 'the quantum system out there' which exists as 'potential reality' (cf. Henry Margenau's Onta; more from Christian de Ronde and Vassilios Karakostas) in the global mode of spacetime.

The difference between the two modes of spacetime can be made as clear as a whistle by providing the truth-values to the proposition 'the quantum system showed its (intrinsic?) blue stuff.'

1. In the local mode of spacetime, the Aristotelian logic, the Born Rule, and the unitarity principle hold, so we can claim that the quantum system can indeed be  blue , but only to the extent to which it can indeed show up as  blue , in the particular experimental context set by 'all the rest in the universe'. To explain this proposition, which is the essence of my talk on September 21, 2008, notice that there are two "orthogonal" evolutions of the universe (see the drawing below): the vertical red arrow stands for the arrow of spacetime, driven by DDE (recall the lake metaphor here), while the two horizontal black arrows represent the local mode of spacetime, as time-symmetric snapshot which, from the perspective of an ideal observer in the global mode, would "look" like an now-at-a-distance slice of a transcendental tachyon. The ONE state of the whole universe, and subsequently The Aristotelian Connection, are briefly explained here and here.


A very important idea, which I tried to express with the drawing above, is that the evolution of the universe in the hypothetical 'local mode of spacetime' consists of fully legitimate and already-correlated "block universes" (think of them as snapshots from a movie reel) stacked on top of each other along the "vertical" arrow of spacetime. An observer cannot notice any violation of the Aristotelian logic, the Born Rule, and the unitarity principle by examining the "horizontal" block universe (never in plural), because the latter is one single, and perfectly correlated (relational ontology), state of all constituents of the universe, in line with the Machian-like rule 'thing globally, act locally'. Thus, no "dynamical dark energy" (DDE) can be "traced back" in this frozen instantaneous slice called 'local mode of spacetime' -- DDE remains totally hidden in the global mode of spacetime. The latter is non-existent in the local mode, thanks to which the local mode stands as a perfect continuum. Perhaps this is the reason why our calculations in QM (the projection postulate) and GR (linearized approximation) work well FAPP. The implications regarding cosmology are outlined here. Notice that in ADM hypothesis the "vertical" & "horizontal" evolution inevitably conflates (which may produce terrible confusion), while in our model the spacetime is "quantized" along its two modes from the outset.

Going back to the observed  blue stuff , notice that none of the colors is 'an intrinsic property of the quantum system'. Moreover, the colored-able (colorizable) stuff itself is not 'an intrinsic property of the quantum system' either.

Here comes 'Quantum Mechanics 101': After you observed a  blue stuff , you may call that stuff  A  and claim that 'stuff  A  is indeed  blue  in the particular experimental context', but to quote Erwin Schrödinger:

"... measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value (of the intrinsic property - D.C.) that it (the quantum system - D.C.) has."

Namely, the very stuff that you just called  A  might as well be colored, in another experimental context, in any of the other two available colors. (Notice that you can't have such quantum flexibility in Hilbert space with dimension lower than three, and a "vast, unexplored territory" for qutrits renders the so-called quantum computing unfeasible.)

You may also claim that, at the instant in which you made the claim above, there are two more available colorizable stuff, called  B  and  C , only you can't say anything about their actual colors at the instant in which stuff  A  turned out to be blue: it would be an indecidable and counterfactual proposition. And of course you can't employ the latter to run your "quantum computer" when "no one is looking at it", like T.S. Eliot's cat Macavity.

Also, you shouldn't claim that, "after the preparation, the system is in a precise and known state, and it can be treated as isolated from the rest of the universe, at least until the measurement process begins" (cf. Bassi & Ghirardi, footnote 8): due to the global mode of spacetime, we can't have any genuine "isolated" sub-system, but only a context-evoked propensity of the quantum system to display its possible "colorizable stuff" -- one-at-a-time only, and only to the extent to which the Aristotelian logic holds for the local mode of spacetime.

The prerequisites for this opinion have been laid out by John Conway and Simon Kochen (the Strong Free Will Theorem, arXiv:0807.3286v1 [quant-ph]; emphasis and links added): "... if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity. More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle’s response (to be pedantic – the universe’s response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe."

Let's be pedantic, as much as possible: "near" is a crucial issue. It could encapsulate the feedback from 'everything else in the universe', by means of a confirmation (advanced) wave. Also, the crucial fact that particle’s response is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe refers to the genuine flexibility of quantum and gravitational realms:
the concept of Final Cause ("the end (telos), that for which a thing is done", Aristotle, Physics 194b33) complements the relativistic causality, but can only be revealed in the arrow of spacetime.

NB: Notice the new form of retarded causality (called biocausality): particle’s response is determined by both the entire previous history of the universe and its potential states determined relationally -- relational ontology -- by 'everything else in the universe'. This is how Aristotelian Final Cause complements the relativistic causality, in both quantum and gravitational realms. In the inanimate world of tables and chairs, the effect of 'potential reality' is vanishing small and can be safely ignored. Wolfgang Pauli wrote about this new form of causality in 1953.

2. In the global mode of spacetime, the intrinsic properties of the quantum system can be elucidated with their non-Boolean property structure (Kent Peacock, Aristotle's Sea Battle and the Kochen-Specker Theorem, p. 4), namely, a set of three questions and their answer:

Is the quantum system itself blue stuff ?
Is the quantum system itself red stuff ?
Is the quantum system itself green stuff ?

The sole answer is YAIN (both yes and no -- recall Gödel's incompleteness theorems), because the quantum system itself is UNspeakable by means of its 'observable characteristics' in the local mode of spacetime. It is simply a Noumenon rooted on the 'monad without windows' and the Aristotelian First Cause. All efforts to reveal 'the quantum system' would be akin to demonstrating the "darkness" (global mode) of a room with a flashlight (local mode). Or to talking about some totally "uncolored" Kochen-Specker sphere, under the conditions that every statement about it must be "colored", like finger nails.

To grasp the notion of 'totally uncolored Kochen-Specker sphere', all you need is a brain. Consider, for example, the Platonic idea of 'corner per se' (more examples here and here). In English, one of its 'observable characteristics' is the word "corner", but in a different context it can be explicated also with

hoek (Dutch)
coin (French)
Ecke (German)
esquina (Spanish)
hörn (Swedish)
etc.

The Platonic idea of 'corner per se' will not be changed if I decide to explicate it in Hindi or Chinese, and, most importantly, it is "open" to be associated with brand new things that could emerge (cf. John Wheeler) during the cosmological evolution of the universe.

As Alexandre Grothendieck put it, "These “probability clouds”, replacing the reassuring material particles of before, remind me strangely of the elusive “open neighborhoods” that populate the topoi, like evanescent phantoms, to surround the imaginary “points”."

Here, the elusive “open neighborhoods” come from the quantum version of Platonic ideas, with their truth value YAIN. (No, you can't achieve this with separable Hilbert spaces and the "proto-measures" in the topos-formulation of quantum theory, as advocated by C. Isham and A. Döring, 0809.4847v1 [quant-ph], Sec. V and Eq. 48.)

To understand the truth value YAIN , read the Shadow Interpretation (SI) of Warren Leffler (arXiv:0906.4992v1 [quant-ph]), and recall the Schrödinger cat state(s) in Wigner presentation, exhibiting an additional, highly nonclassical feature: a fine structured interference pattern with negative regions, called here UNdecidable quantum state or 'quantum version of Platonic ideas'.

 

 

For Hilbert space of three or more dimensions, we don't even have cat states (or "qubits") anymore (following Wolfgang Pauli, this should be klassisch nicht beschreibbaren Art von Dreideutigkeit), and cannot apply the unitary requirement: the UNdecidale states that can be "both 1 and 0" are not definable in any probabilistic fashion whatsoever (cf. Schrödinger's letter from 18 November 1950 below).

To cut the long story short, if your brain can hold Platonic ideas, Mother Nature should do it as well. In the context of QM, the example with "corner" above suggests that 'the quantum state', which carries its latent non-commuting measure-ables (see Claudia Schiffer), remains intact before, during, and after its observation: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

Regarding GR, replace 'observable characteristics' with 'Diff(M)-invariant characteristics', and check out the text above, bearing in mind the basic postulates of present-day GR here. Notice that in the local mode of spacetime the "singularities" are expelled from the outset, since they would be equivalent to non-contextual values of quantum observables hanging 'out there' (classical determinism). Hence the problems with the localization of energy and vanishing of the four-divergence of matter energy-momentum tensor, after Equivalence Principle (e.g., Murli Verma, arXiv:0906.4933v1 [gr-qc], Eq. 11), cannot occur in principle.

The underling rule of the dynamics of GR is as follows: the 'real universe' (local mode) is emerging from an uncountably infinite set of potential "copies" (like the "color" of Ernst Specker's tripod) kept in the global mode of spacetime. Then the active diffeomorphism freedom enables us to move around this uncountably infinite set, only one element of which becomes real -- one-at-a-time, along the arrow of spacetime. Obviously, in order to "move around" and produce the arrow of spacetime, you need to 'hold onto something' -- the global mode of spacetime.

In other words, the spatio-temporal structure of our universe is not "underdetermined" (M. Iftime, 0809.3596v1 [gr-qc], p. 14) but flexible; the necessary flexibility to produce 'relational ontology' is camouflaged as Cauchy problem for the Einstein filed equations being not "well-posed", and the input from 'potential reality' is camouflaged as "gauge-dependent".

To understand the notion of flexibility in both quantum and gravitational context, recall that the human arm is not pre-determined to any specific movement (unlike the arm of a robot, say), thanks to which the human brain can perform any movement with it. In our case, the "brain" is 'the whole universe in its ONE state', which "chooses" one explication of its potential states in the local mode of spacetime.

I suppose Charles G. Torre holds different views on QM and GR, and will not tell his students about this web page. One thing for sure -- I haven't yet received his reply (if any) to my email from 25 July 2006.

And by the way, nothing said here is new (e.g., recall the Heraclitian time of W.G. Unruh -- an "explicit (but unmeasureable) time"). The landmark article by Ernst Specker is from 1960. Ten years earlier, in a letter to Einstein dated 18 November 1950, Schrödinger wrote (emphasis added):

“It seems to me that the concept of probability is terribly mishandled these days. Probability surely has as its substance a statement as to whether something is or is not the case — an uncertain statement, to be sure. But nevertheless it has meaning only if one is indeed convinced that the something in question quite definitely is or is not the case. A probabilistic assertion presupposes the full reality of its subject.”

If you agree with Schrödinger, and understand the theorems mentioned above, then you can't squeeze 'the quantum system' into any Hilbert space: its full reality includes both probabilistic assertions modeled with Aristotelian logic (local mode of spacetime), and the potential reality "outside" the Hilbert space, with its negative "probabilities" (R. W. Spekkens, arXiv:0710.5549v2 [quant-ph]).

In simple words, in we replace 'corner per se' (see above) with 'cat per se', we have

|live cat> + |dead cat>  << [cat per se]

From this perspective, "quantum theory would be an effective theory which arises from modding out over the gauge transformations" (Steven Weinstein, arXiv:0812.0349v2 [quant-ph]; see also footnote 5 and notice the interpretation of KS Theorem on p. 11 therein, and compare it with 'potential reality' interpreted as "gauge-dependent" stuff here).

To the best of my knowledge, the non-Boolean logic of propositions is acknowledged in all published (on paper) interpretations of QM (cf. Josef M. Jauch's Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 97-101), but none of them can employ both "quantum logic" (Isham-Döring toposification of quantum theory included) and the Aristotelian logic. Notice that in the interpretation of QM proposed here, these two kinds of logic are considered complementary, since they reflect two 'modes of spacetime'.

This new (to theoretical physicists at least) ontology can be elucidated with reversible being <--> becoming transition:

[quantum being] <--> [becoming context-dependant observables]

If we wish to talk about 'modal interpretations of QM', or about the superposition of |cat> & |dog> (E. Joos, quant-ph/9908008 v1, Sec. 3.1), or about the polarization of the quantum vacuum (cf. Robert L. Jaffe, "the deeper question", hep-th/0503158, p. 7), we refer to the quantum becoming only. The full quantum reality includes the quantum being, which is of course "outside" the Hilbert space: see the new "number" phi.

For additional arguments, check out the
Gedankenexperiment aimed at deriving the classical limit of QM from STR, bearing in mind that there are no time operators in QM -- the only "time parameter" we can use is from STR, but it corresponds to 'classical reality out there', which in turn contradicts all we know about QM since 1935 Schrödinger paper quoted above. Ergo, we need two kinds of time.

In short, the PR2 interpretation of QM suggests that the quantum being and quantum becoming constitute the potential reality in the quantum realm, and are rooted on the ultimate reality of 'the monad without windows' and the Aristotelian First Cause. In the standard interpretation of QM, there is no "chooser" (QM is a theory of choices without a "chooser", cf. P. Pearle, arXiv:quant-ph/9901077v1). The "chooser" is interwoven in the fabric of spacetime from The Beginning -- the whole universe as ONE (cf. The Aristotelian Connection here) -- and the spacetime is being "quantized" from the outset, with two "modes" of spacetime, called 'global' and 'local'. In the latter mode, the spacetime is a perfect continuum, and there is no problem to recover the world of tables and chairs -- no "semiclassical approximation" is needed. The "problem of time", as it appears in canonical quantum gravity, is solved with the Hilbert space problem (cf. C. Kiefer, arXiv:0812.0295v1 [gr-qc]) en bloc, because the pitfalls of the Hamiltonian formulation of GR are avoided from the outset. In my "just another crank" opinion, there is no other way to proceed.

In philosophical terms, we follow the Bootstrap Principle of Geoffrey Chew (Science 161 (1968) 762), "Nature is as it is because it is the only possible Nature consistent with itself", and advocate the relational ontology and non-linear dynamics of 'part' and 'whole', namely, the nature of any one thing is determined by the universe as a whole, and vice versa. In metaphysical terms, we model the universe as a brain, and put aside the theological question of whether some sort of "mental reflection" (resembling the human mind, cf. John 1:1) may, or may not, emanate from 'the universe as a brain' (theology deals with 'The Universe', while we make just a model of it, called 'universe').

As Edward Harrison rightly noticed, "So far, science has failed to make sense of the bootstrap theory." (Edward R. Harrison, Cosmology: The Science of the Universe, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 052166148X, p. 5 and pp. 159-161.)

NB: We need two kinds of time to explain the holistic phenomenon producing quantum (as well as gravitational) waves, without any "quantum jumps". Hence the title of this brief essay, 'Quantum Mechanics 101'. As to GR, the necessary condition to produce a 'spacetime' is the physical stuff in it ("Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field", A. Einstein), but the sufficient condition for fixing 'spacetime' is The Aristotelian Connection from 'the whole universe as ONE'.

Now, imagine this. George F R Ellis, Norbert Straumann, Charles G. Torre, Karel Kuchar, Chris Isham, John Baez, Claus Kiefer, Jorge Pullin, John Stachel, Lee Smolin, etc., were searching for HIV vaccine, say. One day they learn that some guy might be proposing a solution to their task, but the theory is posted on a web site only. Would they keep quiet and ignore it, for years?

That's the difference between people who respect their field of research, and those who just play with their hobby.

 

D. Chakalov
April 8, 2008
Last update: Christmas 2008


===============



November 26, 2008: Another startling example of those people who do not respect their field of research but just play with it like a hobby is Sean Carroll (never replied to my email sent in the past five years).

Five years ago, he honestly acknowledged that, "In trying to understand the universe in which we apparently live, we are faced with a problem, a puzzle, and a scandal."

"What if Time Really Exists?" -- asked Sean Carroll in his latest essay arXiv:0811.3772v1 [gr-qc], and then elaborated: "What if time exists, and is eternal, and the state of the universe evolves with time obeying something like (notice the poetry - D.C.) Schrödinger's equation?"

Further, he wrote (p. 3): "What we are not worrying about, for the moment, is what that wave function means -- its interpretation in terms of things we observe around us in the world."

Erwin Schrödinger worried about "that wave function" from the first days of Quantum Mechanics, and during a visit to Bohr's institute in September 1926, he stated the following: "If all this damned quantum jumping (verdammte Quantenspringerei) were really to stay, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory". The reason is simple: you can't keep track on the quantum system if those verdammte Quantenspringerei were indeed 'a fact of Nature'. No way.

Regarding quantum evolution in terms of energy eigenstates, notice the crucially important imaginary unit in Eq. 4, p. 6 -- "all of the time evolution is encoded in the phases ...". (Although these "phases" are considered "time dependent", it is completely unclear what kind of time they refer to, and the conventional approach is to declare this "time dependent phase" unobservable, just as the wave amplitude is unobservable -- recall the "negative amplitude" in Wigner presentation.) S. Carroll acknowledged that "we don't actually know what the energy eigenstates are, in terms of easily observable quantities." But you can' t observe any energy eigenstate -- you need some brand new QM in which the imaginary unit in the phase would be preserved at the scale of tables and chairs, or somehow gradually (?) recovered during the classical-to-quantum transition. In the real world governed by the arrow of spacetime (the Heraclitean time), this transition is perfectly smooth, bi-directional, and reversible -- Nature doesn't employ the verdammte Quantenspringerei.

Notice also footnote 4 on p. 7, regarding "the Heraclitean property of non-recurrent change throughout all of eternity" (p. 8), and check out the text here and here.

If S. Carroll wishes to 'invent the wheel' known since Plato -- that's fine with me. But if he isn't telling his students at Caltech anything about what he has learned from this web site -- that's not fair. Hell NO!

Kids have the right to know everything we know. I will be happy to explain the global mode of time, starting from an exercise explained in Wiki here. The 'test bed', as usual, was the brain of my teenage daughter, and -- yes, she got it.

By the way, if you trust the so-called "block universe", as explained by George F.R. Ellis and Robert Geroch, the closest match would be the famous story about a multifingered Angel (reference here):

"Jibrael replied that the Angel had been appointed by Allah to count the drops of rain, so that it may be known as to how many drops have fallen down to the earth. I turned towards the Angel and asked him, "Do you know the total amount of the rain-drops which have fallen down on the earth from the day Allah created this world till now"? To which he replied. "O prophet of Allah I swear by my Lord who has chosen You (as a blessing) for mankind, verily I know the total amount of rain-drops fallen on the earth till now. Even to the extent that how many drops have fallen in the wilds, in the prosperous lands, in the gardens and also in the cemetery".

Notice that GR textbooks are far more religious: the total number of rain drops fallen on a Cauchy surface is dead-fixed up to future null infinity (I+ or Scri), or rather "up to the Cauchy horizon" (George F R Ellis). No matter where you go, you will always ‘cross the same river’, because the Heraclitean time from the arrow of spacetime is absent there.

There is no third option: either the "block universe" of GR textbooks, or the arrow of spacetime.

However, no living brain can operate in a "block universe", because it will have to function as a Turing machine installed in some IGUS, and the perpetual "encoding of information", by any conceivable "code", will require decreasing of the entropy of the "hard drive", until the poor Turing machine develops severe structural damages and breaks down with a stroke. There are many more examples which demonstrate, by reductio ad absurdum, how desperately hopeless (and misleading) are the current GR textbooks, but who cares?

Certainly not Prof. Sean Carroll, so let's leave him at Caltech, musing on "a problem, a puzzle, and a scandal."

 

D. Chakalov
November 28, 2008


===============


"According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time."

A. Einstein, Äther und Relativitätstheorie, May 5, 1920

(Lisa M. Dolling et al., The Tests of Time: Readings in the Development of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2003, p. 346)
 

Note: Einstein's ether is interpreted here as the reference fluid in GR, which exists in the "dark gaps" ]between[ the points of the underlying manifold. Once we treat spacetime as 'one entity', after Hermann Minkowski, the local mode of time is indissolubly linked to the local mode of space: the 3-D space. The "points" from this 3-D space are made of already-localized propensities (such as blue stuff -- see above), while the additional degree of freedom -- the global mode of spacetime -- refers to a genuine "ether" which cannot be "tracked through time", as noticed by Einstein.

What, then, could be the global mode of time of the ether? It pertains to the realm of 'potential reality' (see above), for which the generic restrictions on motion in 3-D space -- 'inside vs outside' and 'left vs right' -- do not hold. Stated differently, a 'global observer' would have the kind of 'global view' on objects in 3-D space, similar (but not identical!) to the abilities of a 3-D observer to monitor the dynamics of Flatlanders, as explained in Wikipedia. And since in the local mode of time, which corresponds to the local mode of 3-D space, the simultaneous dynamics along all possible directions in 3-D space is inconceivable, an inanimate clock like your wristwatch will inevitably "read" the global mode of time as "frozen" (cf. the Buridan donkey paradox depicted with the famous Esher drawing below).

Since physical bodies can move in 3-D space only and exclusively only along the local (also teleological and anti-relativistic) mode of time, the ultimate "direction" along which 3-D space "expands", producing the elementary timelike displacement of the arrow of spacetime, will be omnipresent, hence your poor wristwatch will inevitably halt and "read" such global mode of time as "frozen". Don't trust your wristwatch; it can't read the genuine nonlinear time in GR either.

Perhaps the global mode of spacetime will introduce brand new symmetry groups to GR (cf. M. Iftime), such as (but not limited to) 'space inversion' (notice the possibility for a radical reformulation of George F R Ellis' finite infinity idea).

From the perspective of the local mode of time -- the only kind of time readable by a physical (inanimate) clock -- the global mode of time will look omnipresent and "stand still", like the proper time of a photon "during" its flight (cf. the question of Nicolas Gisin below). One way to obtain the kinematics of such spacetime is to replace the fictitious "4th spatial dimension" (Ned Wright) with the "unite timelike vector" of Matthew Frank, and place this global degree of freedom in the "dark gaps" ]between[ the points of local 3-D space. The dynamics, due to the arrow of spacetime, will completely seal off the "dark gaps", rendering the local mode of spacetime a perfect continuum, and will produce a pocket of quantum-gravitational propensities -- potential reality -- placed in the potential future of this spacetime arrow. Sorry for repeating this all over again. These ideas are not at all original; recall Charles Howard Hinton's essay of 1880, “What is the fourth dimension?” (reference here).

The subjective presentation of such global mode of time, produced by the human brain, is well known. In the context of the train metaphor, every instant 'now' from the local mode of time keeps an infinite (actual infinity) number of instants 'now' from the global mode of time, but when we "stop the bike" we can see only a kinematical snapshot from the arrow of spacetime, in which the global mode of spacetime has been completely obliterated; hence its effects are "dark". More from Gustav Strömberg.
 

D. Chakalov
September 6, 2008
Last update: November 30, 2008

 


===============

Subject: Categorifying Fundamental Physics, $131,865
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:13:33 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>


Categorifying Fundamental Physics, $131,865: "Our program has three components. First, we are developing a version of quantum mechanics in which Hilbert spaces are replaced by purely combinatorial structures."
http://www.fqxi.org/large-grants/awardee/details/2008/baez


Then you recall a letter by Schrödinger dated 18 November 1950,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

... and start from scratch, which in turn may ruin the whole project.

So, if you wish to enjoy the money from FQXi, do NOT click the link above, and never tell anyone that you know this web site since 14 Jan 2002.

D.C.
------

Note: In January of 2002, John Baez sent me his last email. On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:37:33 -0800 (PST), Subject: Re: Feedback? Message-ID: <200201150037.g0F0bXg06772@math-lw-n01.ucr.edu>, baez@math.ucr.edu wrote:

[snip]
 
> I've repeatedly requested that you not send me email.
> You can save both of us some trouble by taking me off your list.

In January of 2006, he repeated an "argument" against the ether [Ref. 1], which goes back to 1934 [Ref. 2]. But if the quantum vacuum is 'potential reality', it will not pick out a preferred notion of 'rest' -- the only observable effects are "energy differences" [Ref. 3] -- yet it could be a perfect ether (“Lichtäther”) in the hypothetical global mode of spacetime. No need to speculate about some stress-energy tensor of the vacuum [Ref. 1]; think deeply about QM instead.

The same applies to the confusion with "measuring the curvature of spacetime" [Ref. 3]: it could be a "blue stuff" (more on DDE below). Notice also that the "coincidence" problem is solved from the outset (see also A. Ashtekar), without the need for any anthropic parapsychology (Steven Weinberg). For if you interpret the vacuum energy density as some 'objective reality with positive energy density', its mass density will be about 1096 kilograms per cubic meter [Ref. 3]. As Richard Feynman said in 1987, "it suggests that we're missing something in our formulation of the theory of gravity."

Back in 1925, when Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered electron spin, they imagined that the electron would be configured as a sphere in permanent rotation, but then they immediately realized that, given the mass of the electron, a spin momentum of [X] would require the tangential velocity at its "equator" to be many times the speed of light. Regarding the notion of 'spin', Wolfgang Pauli explained it as "eigentümlichen, klassisch nicht beschreibbaren Art von Zweideutigkeit" (quoted from N. Straumann, physics/0010003, p. 7). To understand the quantum vacuum, replace the word "Zweideutigkeit" with Wheeler's "cloud", and kindly -- very kindly -- ask John Baez for his professional comments.

Perhaps the geodesic incompleteness, the "black holes" (D. Christodoulou), and other pathologies (Cattoen & Visser) are nothing but artifacts from the current incomplete version of GR: "What general relativity does not do is to provide any natural way of imposing global constraints on the spacetime — certainly the Einstein equations provide no such nonlocal constraint" (Matt Visser).

Besides, if you agree with Naresh Dadhic that "dynamics of gravity resides in spacetime curvature which must fully and entirely determine it", you should either look for some "extra dimensions" in GR (try also "branes"), or work with the potential reality in QM, as suggested at the link above. More from John Coleman.

However, John Baez choose 'neither of the above', and collected $131,865 from FQXi. Hope he will at least try to address the most acute puzzles of GR.


D. Chakalov
September 25, 2008
Last update: October 13, 2008
 


[Ref. 1] John C. Baez and Emory F. Bunn, The Meaning of Einstein's Equation (January 4, 2006), Sec. 'The Cosmological Constant',
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node8.html

"Still more shocking, it seems that the expansion of the universe may be accelerating rather than slowing down! One possibility is that the energy density and pressure are nonzero even for the vacuum. For the vacuum to not pick out a preferred notion of 'rest', its stress-energy tensor must be proportional to the metric."


[Ref. 2] P.J.E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra, The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy, astro-ph/0207347v2, p. 16:

"If the physics of the vacuum looks the same to any inertial observer its contribution to the stress-energy tensor is the same as Einstein’s cosmological constant (Eq. [19]). Lemaître (1934) notes this: “in order that absolute motion, i.e., motion relative to the vacuum, may not be detected, we must associate a pressure [X] to the energy density [X] of vacuum”."
See also the "preferred frame" problem in footnote 19, p. 15.


[Ref. 3] John Baez (October 8, 2006 ), What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

"... quantum field theory only cares about energy differences. If you can only measure energy differences, you can't determine the energy density of the vacuum - it's just a matter of convention.
...
"... without measuring the curvature of spacetime, one can only measure energy differences. (...) If we take advantage of this fact we are free to redefine energy density by subtracting off the zero-point energy, leaving an energy density of ZERO (see an elephant on a tightrope below - D.C.). In fact this is what is ordinarily done in quantum field theory."

 


===============

Subject: arXiv:0802.4155v2 [quant-ph]
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:40:58 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Cerf <ncerf@ulb.ac.be>
Cc: Christoph Adami <adami@krl.caltech.edu>

Dear Dr. Cerf,

RE the three arguments in Sec. 2, 'The origin of security', see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Seems to me that the so-called "unconditional security, i.e. the possibility of guaranteeing security without imposing any restriction on the power of the eavesdropper", is a joke.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov


===============


Subject: Counterfactual definiteness ?
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:03:48 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Guy Blaylock <blaylock@physics.umass.edu>
Cc: Barry Holstein <holstein@physics.umass.edu>,
William J Mullin <mullin@physics.umass.edu>,
Robert Krotkov <krotkov@physics.umass.edu>

Dear Dr. Blaylock,

Regarding footnote 25 in your recent paper, please see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

I will appreciate your comments, as well as those by your colleagues.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


Note: James Franson mentioned that, as a graduate student at Caltech, "one of the students asked Feynman if he would explain Bell’s inequality. Feynman’s reply was “There is nothing to it – I will explain it all later”. But he never did."

Many physicists have tried to explain Bell’s inequality, and one very good effort is the article by Guy Blaylock [Ref. 1], submitted to The American Journal of Physics.

Regarding counterfactual definiteness, check out Bill Unruh [Ref. 2]; otherwise you may develop real headache from reading Anton Zeilinger [Ref. 3] and the like.

The first off headache is produced by the counterfactual notion of (i) 'contextual realism' -- the belief that, after the stage of 'preparation', the attributes of a quantum system should have "gathered" well-defined classical values "out there", which the measurements will just reveal statistically -- and (ii) the counterfactual definiteness [Ref. 1]. Students are led to believe that in both cases the Born Rule is being applied to things possessing full reality (cf. Schrödinger's letter from 18 November 1950 above), hence the outcomes from observing such things "out there" can be endowed with definite truth values -- either true or false.

To explain the deceitful notion of 'contextual realism', from the perspective of the PR2 interpretation of QM suggested above, replace the Schrödinger cat with a squeezable ketchup tube which you keep upside down in your fridge door, such that it has 50% chance to fall off upon opening the door (spin/tube up denoted with  +  , spin/tube down with  - ). Then imagine that 'the tube per se' -- the quantum presentation of Platonic ideas -- can be filled with paste from green tomatoes, such that its color can be green, but with the same quality of 50% chance to fall off upon opening the door. Thus, you've completed the stage of 'preparation' of 'the tube per se' as two latent observables (Henry Margenau) -- either 'red ketchup' or 'green tomato paste', with 50% chance for the two "eigenvalues", tube down or tube up, depending on the colors (see below) inherited from the "two" (in fact, ONE) tube(s). To expose the deceitful counterfactual definiteness ( e.g., Karl Svozil), consider two fridges with the same 'tube per se' -- open fridge 1 and look what you got there (say, red tube  +  ), and then you can infer what might have been "prepared" in fridge 2 "out there" (green tube  -  ).

However, due to the quantum presentation of Platonic ideasany form of 'realist thinking' is not applicable to QM from the outset.

It is this definite truth value inferred from 'contextual realism', which induces the delusory flavor of some 'probabilistic realism'. It has been implemented with yes/no structure of Hilbert space dimensions. But if this Hilbert space is taken to have dimensions greater than two, it cannot provide answer to any 'realist' question whatsoever, as Erwin Schrödinger anticipated in 1935 and Ernst Specker demonstrated in 1960.

Obviously, something essential is missing, perhaps "invisible" with the Born Rule, yet many people choose to ignore this puzzle and endorse the slogan "god plays dice". But then none of them could understand Quantum Mechanics, as they could only 'shut up and calculate', hoping that "if we get really deep insight into why the world has quantum mechanics, we might go beyond" (A. Zeilinger). We might go beyond if we understand all possible artifacts from the measuring devices working in the realm of STR (the point-like "window" to which an inanimate measuring device -- not the human brain -- is limited to take a glimpse at the quantum world), instead of repeating the mantra "
the background Newtonian time appears explicitly in the time-dependent Schroedinger equation" (C. Isham).

May I offer my 'experimental test of non-local realism in 2-D Hilbert space'. I will flip a quantum coin, call  A , which has been 'prepared' to display two alternative classical outcomes,  +  and  -  . Quantum Mechanics says that (i) I will obtain a random sequence of  + and  - , and (ii) if I've had an infinite time for this exercise, I would have found that the two outcomes have equal probabilities, which nicely sum up to unity. Fine.

Now, suppose I have my quantum coin  A  "shared" (entangled) with Claudia Schiffer. She is also flipping it in her home (causally disconnected from mine) and, due to some conservation law (cf. Karl Svozil), the signs obtained by flipping the "two" (in fact, ONE) entangled coins will have to be opposite.

Here some people might say that if Claudia observes  +  with "her part" from the entangled coin   A  , I will definitely observe  -  with "my part" from the entangled coin   A  , hence speculate about some "non-local realism" [Ref. 3].

Wrong. One can accept some form of 'realism'  iff  Claudia could somehow force "her part" from the entangled coin to produce a distinctive "ketchup" pattern,  +++---+++ , which will in turn force "my part" from the same entangled coin to produce instantaneously the opposite "green tomato" pattern,  ---+++---  , which will be counterfactual elements of physical reality to Claudia, while her pattern will be counterfactual elements of physical reality to me. It is of course impossible to look at the two patterns simultaneously (see John Polkinghorne), hence any statement that implies, or explicitly depends on, such simultaneous observation is 'not even wrong'.

The first and only email I got from Anton Zeilinger was in April 2000, then he decided to ignore my comments and continued to explore his murky philosophy. How many of his students got headaches from it, I wonder.

I hope to hear from Guy Blaylock and his colleagues. I can't imagine how Richard Feynman would have explained the counterfactual pitfalls in Bell's inequality and in the Gedankenexperiment from 1935 [Ref. 1]. But I sincerely hope the interpretation of QM outlined above is headache-free. It also allows quantum systems to have properties that are not "extrinsic" [Ref. 4], such as the formally undecidable quantum presentation of Platonic ideas (cf. the example of 'corner per se' above, and use your brain to grasp it).

NB:
Notice that with the so-called PR2 interpretation of QM there is no need to define QM observables with respect to some 'classical world of tables and chairs', hence we can use it in quantum cosmology (Marco Genovese, arXiv:0904.2300v1), firstly, and secondly -- the measurement problem is solved from the outset, by providing smooth bi-directional transitions between the quantum (
Chen Ning Yang) and classical realms: the "back bone" to hold onto is the formally undecidable, in the sense of KS Theorem, quantum presentation of Platonic ideas or 'potential reality'.

All this may sound like sheer philosophy, but notice that the absolute value of energy stored in the quantum vacuum [Ref. 5] is also 'potential reality', which may be neutral to both "charges" of mass, and if the human brain uses the same 'potential reality' and 'nondynamical time parameter' (Unruh & Wald), a (topological?) bridge between the brain and the quantum presentation of Platonic ideas may be possible to establish, with vast technological implications. There are far too many hypotheses involved with this "bridge", and at this point I am only trying to gather indirect evidence in support of it, by proving the alternative hypothesis wrong. Stay tuned.


D. Chakalov
February 25, 2009
Last update: May 17, 2009


References

[Ref. 1] Guy Blaylock, A pedagogical study of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell's inequality, arXiv:0902.3827v1 [quant-ph]

"25 An example of counterfactual reasoning is a statement of the form “If we had made a certain alternative measurement (rather than the one we did make) we would have obtained such-and-such result”. Counter factual definiteness implies that a statement such as the former has a definite truth value (is either true or false)."


[Ref. 2] W. Unruh, Nonlocality, counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. A59, 126-130 (1999); arXiv:quant-ph/9710032v2, p. 3.


[Ref. 3] Anton Zeilinger et al., An experimental test of non-local realism, Nature 446, 871-875 (2007); arXiv:0704.2529v2 [quant-ph]

"Locality prohibits any influences between events in space-like separated regions, while realism claims that all measurement outcomes depend on pre-existing properties of objects that are independent of the measurement. (...) The logical conclusion one can draw from the violation of local realism is that at least one of its assumptions fails. Specifically, either locality or realism or both (here comes the real big mess - D.C.) cannot provide a foundational basis for quantum theory. (...) It is sufficient for our purposes to discuss two-dimensional (the implications from KS Theorem are automatically excluded - D.C.) quantum systems."


[Ref. 4] P. Hajicek, J. Tolar, Intrinsic properties of quantum systems, arXiv:0806.4437v4 [quant-ph]

"All examples that have been listed show that the intrinsic and extrinsic properties are physically inseparably entangled with each other. (...) Still, both kinds of properties are logically clearly distinguished, and we conjecture that the physical in-and-extrinsic tangle does not lead to any logical contradictions.
...
"There are intrinsic properties of Sq that are not classical properties of Sc, e.g., the set of all quantum observables measurable on Sq. Hence, classical properties must be some specific intrinsic properties and the question is, which.
...
p. 17, footnote 12: "In the decoherence theory, another component, the environment, is added at the beginning and traced out at the end. The result is again an improper mixture and the problem remains exactly the same.
...
"To summarize: Our interpretation suggests a new approach to quantum theory of classical properties and of measurement because it allows quantum systems to have also properties that are not extrinsic.
 

[Ref. 5] Eduard Masso, The Weight of Vacuum Fluctuations, arXiv:0902.4318v1 [gr-qc]

"Provided we only measure energy differences, we can subtract this type of contributions and we do not need to worry when performing calculations (technically we call it normal ordering). However, this procedure is no longer possible in the presence of gravitation for in this case the absolute value of energy matters.

"One expects then a net cosmological constant from the zero-point field fluctuations [2]. It has been known for many years that these contributions exceed the observed value (1) by many orders of magnitude. To solve this problem is one of the present challenges for Physics [3].
The problem presupposes that vacuum fluctuations have the same gravitational properties (positive energy density -- D.C.) as all other forms of matter."

 

 

===============


Subject: Formally UNdecidable (arXiv:0809.0151v1)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 01:38:39 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Christian Weedbrook <christian.weedbrook@gmail.com>, mgu@physics.uq.edu.au, alvaro.perales@uah.es, mnielsen@perimeterinstitute.ca
Cc: A.P.A.Kent@damtp.cam.ac.uk, rlaflamme@perimeterinstitute.ca,
dgottesman@perimeterinstitute.ca

Dear Dr. Weedbrook,

I greatly admire your article. Please notice that, from the perspective of KS Theorem, 'the quantum state' is 'formally undecidable' as well,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

This may have devastating consequences for "quantum computing", since it isn't possible to control 'the quantum state' locally, at the scale of tables and chairs. I hope you are not connected to this "quantum computing" community, and may have the freedom to face the bold facts
of QM, as known since 1935.

If you or any of the recipients of this email disagree, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


===============


Subject: Re: Bohmian Mechanics vs KS Theorem
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:42:02 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Roderich Tumulka <tumulka@math.rutgers.edu>
Cc: duerr@mathematik.uni-muenchen.de,
oldstein@math.rutgers.edu,
zanghi@ge.infn.it


On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Roderich Tumulka <tumulka@math.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Because different experiments can be associated with the same
> observable, and the outcome depends on the experiment, not just
> the observable.
>
> Best, Rod

Rod, this is sheer jabberwocky. Please get professional. I know you can do it.

In the deterministic Bohmian Mechanics, if "the outcome depends on the experiment, not just the observable" (as you put it) and "the entire history is fixed by the equations (1) and (2)" (arXiv:0903.2601v1 [quant-ph], p. 2), what is the value of the "observable" in the case of Specker's colored tripod?

Check out Ernst Specker, Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer Aussagen, Dialectica 14 (1960) 239-246,

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119908663/PDFSTART

To be specific: How is the *absence* of two-valued probability measure (standard QM + KS Theorem) encoded/presented in your Bohmian Mechanics?

If it isn't, what is "Bohmian Mechanics", actually?

I've been trying to understand Bohm's ideas since 1986, and it seems to me that with Bohmian Mechanics one can only replace the old puzzles of QM with new ones, a bit like the quiz below.

Hope you and/or your colleagues will elaborate on the questions above.

Best - Dimi
----
Q: What is green, lives underground, has one eye, and eats stones?
A: The One-Eyed Green Underground Stone Eating Monster!



> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:30:38 +0200, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
>> Dear Rod,
>>
>> May I ask you and your colleagues to help me understand your ideas
>> about Bohmian Mechanics. You stressed that it is deterministic, in the
>> sense of Eq. 3 in arXiv:0903.2601v1 [quant-ph], yet claim that "the
>> term “hidden variables theory” is often used to convey the idea that
>> every “quantum measurement” of an “observable” reveals a
>> pre-existing value of that observable, which is not the case in
>> Bohmian mechanics."
>>
>> I wonder how does the Bohmian mechanics *not* fix pre-existing
>> values of its observables, as compared to KS Theorem,
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert
>>
>> I will highly appreciate the opinion of your colleagues, too.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dimi
>>

 


===============

Subject: "There is something beyond my control", Chris Fuchs, arXiv:quant-ph/0505187v4, p. 2
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:45:29 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Chris Fuchs <cfuchs@perimeterinstitute.ca>
Cc: Nicolas Cerf <ncerf@ulb.ac.be>,
Christoph Adami <adami@krl.caltech.edu>,
Carlton Caves <caves@info.phys.unm.edu>,
Jonathan Dowling <jdowling@lsu.edu>

Dear Dr. Fuchs,

Regarding your startling statement quoted in the subject line, may I offer you an essay on QM at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Perhaps it will be a good idea if you help your colleague J. Dowling,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Jonathan_Kavita

I'm afraid he will try to borrow some ideas from Nicolas Cerf and Christoph Adami, and push them well beyond their applicable limits.

The main reason for this email is to correct your statement printed below. I don't believe my road is distinct from yours, and I never claimed that "distinct new kinds of physics arise in our brain processes". Please check out my actual claims at the first URL above.

Should you and any of your colleagues find errors in my essay, please do write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Christopher A. Fuchs , Quantum States: What the Hell Are They? p. 3
http://perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/cfuchs/PhaseTransition.pdf

02 July 2001, to Chakalov, "Objective Properties"

"Thank you for all the interest you've shown in the papers I have been involved with. I commend you in your efforts to get to the bottom of what's going on in our world. But I cannot believe it very likely that distinct new kinds of physics arise in our brain processes. Instead the road I have chosen to develop is making sense of quantum mechanics (as a theory predominantly of inference) from within quantum mechanics. I understand that your road is distinct: but life is short, and one has to make a cut or one will certainly never get anywhere. My own direction may turn out to be completely wrong, but I have decided to pursue it with dogged determination and not to get derailed. I wish you luck in your own pursuits."


===============

Subject: Quantum Mechanics 101
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:59:13 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: J Tolar <jiri.tolar@fjfi.cvut.cz>
Cc: P Hajicek <hajicek@itp.unibe.ch>,
Jürg Gasser <gasser@itp.unibe.ch>,
Uwe-Jens Wiese <wiese@itp.unibe.ch>

Dear Dr. Tolar,

In your latest update of "Intrinsic properties of quantum systems", arXiv:0806.4437v2 [quant-ph], you and Petr wrote: "Our main achievement is the formulation of real existence of quantum systems
that does not lead to well-known logical problems."

If your claim corresponds to facts, I think the 'proof of the pudding' is to solve the measurement problem,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Notice the quote from Schrödinger, dated November 18, 1950 (I believe all this is well known to Petr, but he has been stubbornly ignoring it).

Should you and/or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
 

===============


Subject: The reversible, quantum <--> classical transitions
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:25:24 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Renato Moreira Angelo <renato@fisica.ufpr.br>
Cc: Eleanor G Rieffel <rieffel@fxpal.com>

Dear Dr. Angelo,

It is a pleasure to read your latest article [Ref. 1]. Regarding the subject line and the issue of "decoherence" (the last paragraph of Sec. 3.2, p. 10), may I draw your attention to my essay at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

[Ref. 1] R. M. Angelo, Low-resolution measurements induced classicality, arXiv:0809.4616v1 [quant-ph],
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4616

"The limit h --> 0 and the Ehrenfest theorem [1] have recurrently been proved not to be sufficient to guarantee the classical limit both mathematically and conceptually [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. More modern approaches such as the environment induced decoherence (EID) program also have been claimed to present some conceptual difficulties (see [8, 9] and references therein for more detailed discussions), as for instance: i-) The incapability of diffusive EID in restraining the wave function spreading and hence recovering the classical determinism and ii-) the apparently paradoxical presence of entanglement -- an exclusively quantum resource -- in semiclassical regimes.
...
p. 10: "Of course, for those who interpret the wave function as describing physical reality, the particle delocalization problem would keep existing (before the measurement is performed) even when we are not allowed to experimentally observe it. In this case, decoherence would be mandatorily invoked to destroy quantum coherences and hence settle the problem. However, one must realize that decoherence is proved to be associated with an exponential (in some cases Gaussian) death of quantum coherences, not with the exactly (and instantaneous, as with the "collapse" postulate - D.C.) disappearance of them. Then, from a formal point of view, delocalization is always there and the interpretational difficulties remain.
...
"We then conclude that classical physics, which here is claimed to be an approximative description of nature, well succeeds in explain macroscopic motion for several reasons, among which we have to include the low-resolution power of our spectacles."
---

Q: How would you keep the complex phase of quantum waves [Ref. 2] intact, to make reversible quantum <--> classical transitions?

Notice that, to match the classical realm, you need to obtain an arbitrarily small (approaching the Plank time) "duration" of an event, while with the "decoherence" you get a finite duration (10-19 s) for such infinitesimal timelike displacement, hence the resulting classical spacetime manifold will be severely discrete. And if you embrace the convenient view that the world at the length scale of tables and chairs were "semi-classical" (e.g., IGUS Jim Hartle), and then try to merge QM with GR, the world of tables and chairs will be even more elusive and difficult to recover. Hence the question above remains open.

I don't know the answer, and can only suggest some very general ideas about a hypothetical "back bone" of the whole quantum-gravitational realm, in the form of 'local mode of spacetime', at all length scales. This is the only logical possibility which hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, been explored yet.

Maybe Renato Moreira Angelo, John Baez or Claus Kiefer can answer the question above, from their perspectives.
 

D. Chakalov
September 29, 2008



[Ref. 2] Chen Ning Yang, Square root of minus one, complex phases and Erwin Schrödinger, in: Schrödinger: Centenary Celebration of a Polymath, ed. by C. W. Kilmister, Cambridge University Press, 1989, Ch. 5.
 



===============


Subject: The Hilbert space dimension and Ernst Specker's tripod
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:56:17 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Brunner <nicolas.brunner@physics.unige.ch>

Dear Dr. Brunner,

Regarding the second edition of your arXiv:0802.0760, may I ask you to help me understand the dimension of Hilbert space in the case of Ernst Specker's tripod (nonexistence of two-valued probability measures).

BTW the URL at ref. [8] seems to be invalid.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--

Note: By definition, a Hilbert space admits and requires an orthonormal basis, so we can "attach" to it some well-defined dimensionality iff the case under consideration admits two-valued probability measure (e.g., the statement "the URL at ref. [8] seems to be invalid" is "orthogonal" -- either true or false), which is of course inapplicable for Ernst Specker's tripod (cf. Ernst Specker, Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer Aussagen, Dialectica 14 (1960) 239-246). It is like asking what would be the dimensionality of Hilbert space of some totally "uncolored" Kochen-Specker sphere, and subsequently how many dimensions are needed to fit, say, 32 per cent of "uncolored" sphere (cf. H. Granström). Obviously, we can't pose such questions with Hilbert space, nor within the geometric formulation of QM.

As John von Neumann acknowledged (13 November 1935): "I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe in Hilbert space anymore". Yet many people still believe in Hilbert space, and also claim that "the background Newtonian time appears explicitly in the time-dependent Schroedinger equation", as if they could picture the quantum state evolving happily in some non-relativistic configuration space, until it gets hit by the "collapse".

Hope Nicolas Brunner will help. Then I'll try to elaborate on the tantalizing question posed by his colleague Nicolas Gisin (quant-ph/0512168v1):

"Does relativity hold a place for non-signaling nonlocal correlations?"

Does relativity hold a place for the human brain? Of course it does. Only the flow of time, pertaining to the holistic ensemble of non-signaling quasi-local correlata, is called here 'global mode of time'. From the perspective of the (local mode of) time in the theory of relativity, the global mode will look "stand still", like the proper time of a photon "during" its flight. Hence in the local mode of time, the global mode is unobservable (compare it with John Cramer's atemporal "handshaking"): physically, we can observe only the event of joint emission/absorption, but not the "intermediate" flight of the photon (cf. Kevin Brown).
 

D.C.
May 12, 2008
Last update: May 13, 2008


Your Global Time is ZERO
 


===============

Subject: Quantum Mechanics 101
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:23:07 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: nicolas.gisin@physics.unige.ch, daniel.salart@physics.unige.ch


arXiv:0808.3316v1 [quant-ph]: "From these observations we conclude that the nonlocal correlations observed here and in previous experiments[1] are indeed truly nonlocal."


Dear colleagues,

I'm afraid you and your colleagues are ignoring the basic basics of QM,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Should you have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
 

===============

Subject: Where, when, and exactly how the linear nature of QM might break down?
Message-ID:
<bed37360806050434q5a13a73fidea7b483c674ab7f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:34:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: GianCarlo Ghirardi <ghirardi@ts.infn.it>
Cc: Angelo Bassi <Angelo.Bassi@mathematik.uni-muenchen.de>,
Detlef Dürr <duerr@mathematik.uni-muenchen.de>,
Sheldon Goldstein <oldstein@math.rutgers.edu>,
Roderich Tumulka <tumulka@math.rutgers.edu>,
N David Mermin <ndm4@cornell.edu>

Dear GianCarlo,

RE your latest essay, arXiv:0806.0647v1 [quant-ph], perhaps you may wish to check out KS Theorem "for pedestrians" at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

I take the opportunity to invite you and your colleagues at my talk in September,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#talk

Regards,

Dimi
-----
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
 

Note: If we think of the measurement in QM as 'physical process' -- and we simply don't have any choice -- then we have to "accept the conclusion of von Neumann that, at a certain level, one has to give up the linear structure of the theory, one has to take into account that in nature nonlinear processes must occur" (GianCarlo Ghirardi, arXiv:0806.0647v1 [quant-ph], pp. 1-2).

Welcome aboard! The only way -- and we simply don't have any choice -- to reconcile the nonlinear processes with the linear ones is to place the former in the global mode of time, and the latter in the local mode of time. Then you'll be ready to face the task of deriving the classical limit of QM from STR, and recover the smooth and reversible transition between the classical and quantum realms.

It isn't very likely that GianCarlo Ghirardi would be able to attend the meeting in Munich on September 21st this year, but I hope Angelo Bassi and Detlef Dürr will accept my invitation.
 

D. Chakalov
June 10, 2008

 

===============

Subject: The single whole, arXiv:0707.4539v5 [math-ph]
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:31:45 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Vikram Zaveri <zaverivik@hotmail.com>
Cc: José Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>

Dear Dr. Zaveri,

I greatly admire your work [Ref. 1], and hope you can elaborate on 'the single whole' in the context of Quantum Theory,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

==========
[Ref. 1] Vikram H. Zaveri, Periodic invariant, general relativity predictions and origin of universe, arXiv:0707.4539v5 [math-ph]

"Hence this single whole does not have a second and mathematical concepts of zero, one, two, infinity does not apply to this single whole. (...) What applies to the single whole does not apply to manifested energies of this universe.
...

"This unmanifest energy could be thought of as the cause behind:

• the vacuum energy of inflation field [47, 48];
• the dark energy field, responsible for the accelerating
universe [38, 39, 74, 75];
• quintessence and phantom energy of the quantum
field theories [40];
• scalar Higgs field, responsible for Higgs boson in
standard model [41, 42];
• strings and branes in the string theories [43, 44];
• microwave background radiation field [45, 46];
• vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles;

"The single whole which does not have a boundary does not form a closed system from the point of view of the second law of thermodynamics.
...

"No one ever considered a possibility that ether could be a fundamental form of energy and the only form that is completely free from any vibration, which means no motion."
---


Note: The crucial notion of 'isolated gravitational system' (e.g., Xiao Zhang, math.DG/0604154v2,
Fang-Pei Chen, arXiv:0805.2451v1 [physics.gen-ph], and Robert Geroch) makes sense only with respect to 'the single whole' which has the ontological status of Aristotelian First Cause, hence "isolates" the local mode of spacetime by "wrapping" it with 'the single whole' that cannot be actually reached in both directions of the length scale. Why is this difficult to understand, I wonder.

As to the current interpretations of 'the single whole' or 'ether', see Friedwardt Winterberg, The clouds of physics and Einstein's last query: Can quantum mechanics be derived from general relativity? arXiv:0805.3184v1 [physics.gen-ph]: you may safely place any amount of "negative mass" in the global mode of spacetime, since there it is not physical but 'potential reality' (cf. above).

Recall also the dubious interpretation of the energy-momentum pseudotensor in GR (“the right answer to the wrong question”, MTW, §20.4, p. 467), and consider the binary star PSR 1913+16: if its kinetic energy were 'objective reality out there', you would, at least in principle, be able to propose some brand new energy conservation law for GR [Ref. 2], which is, as far as I understand GR, truly impossible -- not just because nobody has found it since November 1915, but because such "conservation law" would require some recipe for mapping the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories (C. Rovelli) to the time read by your wristwatch, and GR would become a bona fide parameterized field theory (C. G. Torre).

Alternatively, consider the following conjecture: what if the binary star PSR 1913+16 was not losing kinetic energy by dumping it into "the apparently empty gravitational field" [Ref. 2]? Perhaps its kinetic energy was "dissipated" back into the global mode of spacetime, being back-converted into 'potential reality'; just like the context-dependent blue stuff above, or "a matter of opinion" [Ref. 2] cast from the global mode. The process may be reversible: think of the binary star PSR 1913+16 as "charging the battery" of the global mode of spacetime, and of GRBs as "discharging the battery".

Then you may discover the conservation law for all the "dark stuff" in GR (the "dark energy" of GRBs included), and even derive QM from GR, but many people from LIGO Scientific Collaboration will really hate you. And you may never hear from the theoretical physics community -- they all will ignore you, or else will have to drop their obsessions with "GW astronomy", convert the LIGO tunnels to wine cellars, and start from scratch.

Recall that the principle of equivalence selects an "object" that cannot be a tensor, since it is capable of being switched off and set to zero "at a point" (the Wegtransformierbarkeit of gravitational energy) so the nature of this "object-at-a-point" can only be the 'potential reality' producing what Tullio Levi-Civita dubbed “congruences of privileged lines” [Ref. 3], resembling the "privileged lines" chosen by all fish in a shoal: every fish follows its quasi-local geodesic that has been pre-correlated with the rest of the fish -- think globally, act locally. There is no other choice but to introduce the "global mode", after Plato.

Anyway. The issues raised above are far too serious to be discussed in a web page, so I will have to stop here. The five paragraphs above were very dense, and somehow eclectic. Sorry. More on September 21, 2008.
 

D.C.
May 19, 2008
Last update: May 26, 2008

[Ref. 2] Alexander Afriat and Ermenegildo Caccese, arXiv:0804.3146v2 [physics.hist-ph]

p. 2: "Belief in the production of gravitational radiation is bound up with the binary star PSR 1913+16, which is considered in §3.14 and supposed to lose kinetic energy as it spirals inwards; if energy is conserved, the energy lost in one form must be converted, into a perturbation of the surrounding spacetime one presumes.

"But the conservation law is flawed (§3.9), involving, in its integral form, a distant comparison of directions which cannot be both generally covariant and unambiguously integrable. Even the ‘spiral’ behaviour itself, the loss of kinetic energy, and perhaps the oscillation on which detection (§3.15) is based can be transformed away; as can the energy of the gravitational field, which is customarily assigned using the pseudotensor t_xx : while an observer in free fall sees nothing at all, an acceleration would produce energy out of nowhere, out of a mere transformation to another ‘point of view’ or rather state of motion.

p. 12: "Is the physical meaning of [energy-momentum pseudotensor] t_ab compromised by its troubling susceptibility to disappear, and reappear under acceleration?
...

p. 7: "The gravitational matter-mass-energy would be "a matter of opinion" (John Earman and John Norton “What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1987) 515-525, p. 519).

pp. 17-18: "We can now turn from the reality of gravitational waves to their very generation, about which the relationalist can also wonder, given the shortcomings of the conservation law: if a belief in the production of radiation rests on the conservation of energy, how can that belief remain indifferent to such shortcomings?

"If the conservation law is suspicious enough to make us wonder whether the lost energy is really radiated into the apparently empty gravitational field, why take the polarization of that radiation -- which corresponds to the underdetermination of inertia by matter -- seriously? Couldn’t it be no more than a purely decorative gauge, without reality or physical meaning? The binary star’s behaviour and emission of gravitational waves can admittedly be calculated with great accuracy, but the calculations are not
generally covariant and only work in certain coordinate systems.

p. 23: "So a clean separation into space (across which the integral is taken) and time (in the course of which the integral remains unchanged) seems to be presupposed when one speaks of conservation.

p. 27: "Vanishing is an important criterion: a complex whose components are wegtransformierbar cannot be physically real -- one whose components all vanish cannot ‘coincide’ with one whose components don’t.

p. 32: "Belief in gravitational radiation rests chiefly on the binary star PSR 1913+16, which loses kinetic energy as it spirals inwards (with respect to popular coordinates at any rate). If the kinetic energy is not to disappear without trace, it has to be converted, presumably into radiation. Since its disappearance is only ruled out by the conservation law, however, the very generation of gravitational waves must be subject to the perplexities surrounding conservation.

"Even the ‘spiral’ behaviour, associated so intimately with the loss of kinetic energy, is wegtransformierbar. A coordinate system leaving the two pulsars at the constant positions (t, 1, 0, 0) and (t, 0, 0, 0) is easily found.

"If the pulsars don’t move, if they have no ‘kinesis,’ why should they lose a kinetic energy they never had in the first place?"
 

[Ref. 3] S. Capozziello, M. Francaviglia, S. Mercadante, From Dark Energy and Dark Matter to Dark Metric, arXiv:0805.3642v1 [gr-qc]

"What we present here is a completely new approach to the mathematical objects in terms of which a theory of Gravitation may be written. At the end we shall conclude that although the gravitational field is a linear connection defined on spacetime, the fundamental field of Gravity is still a metric ... but not the “obvious” one given from the very beginning (which we shall call “apparent”). Rather we shall show the importance of another metric, that we shall call dark metric.
...
"In 1919, working on the theory of “parallelism” in manifolds, Tullio Levi-Civita understands that parallelism and curvature are not metric properties of space, but rather properties of “affine” type, having to do with “congruences of privileged lines” [4].
...
"(T)he dynamics of the connection [X] forces [X] itself to be the Levi-Civita connection of a metric, but not of the “original” metric g, which we prefer to call the apparent metric for a reason we clarify in a moment. Instead, the dynamics of [X] identifyies a new metric h, conformally related to the apparent one, which we call the dark metric.

"Now, the apparent metric is the one by means of which we perform measurements. In other words, the metric g is the one we have to use every day to construct and read instruments (rods & clocks). This is why we like to call it the “apparent” metric. But we claim that the right metric we have to use as the fundamental object to describe Gravity is the dark
metric.

"In other words, in our laboratories we have to use the apparent metric, but in our theories the dark one. (...) Let us notice explicitly that this in particular implies that if a certain metric h is expected as a solution of a problem, from a theoretical point of view, it is wrong looking for h in experiments. The conformally related metric g has to be searched instead!"

 

===============


Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:27:10 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Maximilian Schlosshauer <m.schlosshauer@unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Neglecting the interference terms in the global density matrix: t_n
Cc: Kristian Camilleri <kcam@unimelb.edu.au>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@imperial.ac.uk>

Hi Max,

Regarding the statements in your latest manuscript [Ref. 1], let me offer you and your colleagues 'the proof of the pudding'.

Consider Blue Gene/L, a 130,000 processor supercomputer capable of performing 478.2 trillion floating operations per second,

http://www.top500.org/system/8968

Think of the timing of operations in these 130,000 processors as the pistons of your car: there is an instant at which an operation must stop, in order to initiate the next operation.

Denote this stop-instant with t_n , and calculate the chance for error due to "neglecting the interference terms in the global density matrix" [Ref. 1], and then calculate "the probability for a history of positions, p( 1, t1, 2, t2 · · · ) and then see if it is strongly peaked about the classical evolution equations" ...

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Halliwell.html#4

... used to construct Blue Gene/L.

Notice that t_n is a *crucial* instant: it got to be dead classical *from the outset*, because it serves as the "chooser" of your "at least one preferred basis" [Ref. 1],

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Maximilian.html#2

If you can prove that Blue Gene/L does indeed work as some "quantum-to-classical" system, and can also resolve the Catch 22 logical contradiction with the chooser of "at least one preferred basis" in quantum cosmology, please write me back. I have a second 'proof of the pudding' for you, based on the wet soft gray "quantum-to-classical" stuff right above your neck, which operates with 100 billion neurons and 60 trillion synapses.

Also, there is a simple, and widely known, story about QM, which I believe should be included in every 'Quantum Mechanics 101',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Some people at the Imperial College (e.g., C. Isham) don't like it, so if you or any of your colleagues can find an error at the link above, please write me back, too.

Meanwhile, I will treat "decoherence" with Murphy's Law No. 15: Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers.

Regards,

Dimi

----
[Ref. 1] Maximilian Schlosshauer, Kristian Camilleri, The quantum-to-classical transition, arXiv:0804.1609v1 [quant-ph]; Submitted to Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics on 10 April 2008.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1609v1

p. 19: "As a consequence of decoherence, there will be at least one preferred basis in which the interference terms between different one-to-one quantum-correlated system-apparatus states in the reduced system-apparatus density matrix will be sufficiently small in order to be neglected in practice. We thus arrive at a system-apparatus density matrix that is formally identical to (7).
...
p. 31: "Decoherence allows us to analyze, in precise formal and quantitative terms and wholly from within the quantum-mechanical formalism, when and how the quantum-to-classical transition happens. (...) To our knowledge, there are no experimental observations of quantum-to-classical processes that could not be accounted for, at least in principle, by decoherence.[footnote 10]

Footnote 10, p. 31: "We emphasize that this statement is independent of any assessment of whether and how decoherence may help solve the measurement problem, especially in the sense of the "macro-objectification" problem (Jammer, 1974; Bassi and Ghirardi, 2000; Adler, 2003; Schlosshauer, 2004; Zurek, 2007)."
----


Note: Jorge Pullin posted today a new article [Ref. 2], which suggests some "
fundamental mechanism of decoherence", and I hope some day he will try the first proof of "decoherence" above.

Recall that the "instant" of "decoherence" cannot be made arbitrarily short -- its estimated value is about 10-19 s, so in addition to the first proof of "decoherence" above, the proponents (Jorge Pullin, IGUS Jim Hartle, Wojciech Zurek, etc.) will have to explain the paths in Wilson cloud chambers (Nevill Mott) and discover the elementary timelike displacement in the continuum of events employed in GR. For if the hypothesis of "decoherence" is not falsifiable, all their fancy equations will be like discussing the number of angels that can be placed on a tip of a needle.

Regarding the second 'proof of the pudding' of the so-called decoherence, I will quote Matthew Donald (emphasis added):

"If every synaptic transmission is an uncertain event with probability significantly distinct from 0 or 1 (note: the correct biological term is not "uncertain" but flexible - D.C.), then there will be at least 1014 such events per second in the brain.
...
"This seems almost inevitably to lead to the idea that the timings of neural events need to be defined to sufficient precision that changes in the time-orderings of each pair of spatially distinct events can be distinguished. But since this involves an ordering of, say, 1011 events in a second, or at least an ordering of the timelike separations among those events..."

To cut the long story short, if your brain were some "decohered" system, you wouldn't be reading these lines.

Moreover, Matthew Donald missed the binding phenomenon: all these events are not just flexible ("uncertain"), but correlated by the binding phenomenon: read 'Neurophysiology 101 for Quantum Physicists' here.

But are the events in the human brain timelike or EPR-like correlated? If they were timelike correlated, we would have immediately discovered some correlating center (a.k.a. "homunculus") and its anatomical structure in 19th century, if not earlier. More about the human brain here.

I will stop here, because it's just the right time for a large, decohered, just-another-crank gin tonic!
 


D. Chakalov
April 12, 2008
Last update: September 25, 2008



[Ref. 2] Jorge Pullin et al., Conditional probabilities with Dirac observables and the problem of time in quantum gravity, arXiv:0809.4235v1 [gr-qc]

"... if one chooses a one-parameter family of observables such that their value coincides with the value of a dynamical variable when the parameter takes the value of another dynamical variable, which one uses to characterize the evolution, such observables can be used in the Page-Wootters construction. They have the advantage that there is a sense in which they “evolve”. That is, unlike the proposal of Rovelli, we will not consider the “parameter” to be the physical time, but we will use it to make sense of the conditional probabilities that arise in the Page-Wootters formulation when one introduces a real quantum clock.
...
"The resulting theory also predicts a fundamental mechanism of decoherence similarly as the one originally discussed in [6]."

 


==================

Subject: Re: arXiv:0805.3178v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 15:47:42 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: John Gamble <jgamble08@wooster.edu>

P.S. I am puzzled by the footnote 2 on p. 92: does this "e-folding time" pertain to "zeroing the off-diagonal elements" ONLY? I mean, is the duration of the paths in Wilson cloud chamber (as read by my wristwatch) composed of some decorered instants of 10^-19 s (ibid., footnote 3)? Sir Nevill Mott knew nothing about "decoherence", so I hope you can help me understand your ideas.

D.C.

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Gamble,
>
> I wonder if you could help me understand the generation of observable
> paths in Wilson cloud chambers (cf. Nevill Mott) with "decoherence".
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Dimi Chakalov


---------------

Subject: Re: arXiv:0805.3178v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 04:13:58 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: John Gamble <jgamble08@wooster.edu>

Dear John,

Thank you for your efforts.

> Decoherence deals with the reduction of a quantum measurement to
> a classical measurement, not the reduction of a probability distribution
> to a single value (in Mott's case a single track). In that sense,
> decoherence explains the emergence of definite paths, but does not
> explain the selection of one from the ensemble of possible paths.

Are you saying that "decoherence" can explain the emergence of
definite path(s) ONLY "during" 10^-19 s, as in the case in footnote 3?

> With regard to the footnote, remember that the state operator is is a
> representation of all possible superposition and product states of a
> given system. Due to the probability normalization condition imposed
> on a system, the state operator must always have unit trace. In Mott's
> case, each track corresponds to a diagonal element of the state
> operator of the particle, while the superpositions of multiple tracks
> correspond to off-diagonal elements, which decoherence destroys.

Do you have "decoherence" in the case examined by Mott?

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Dimi
----

Note: To quote from Simon Saunders' web site (emphasis added):

"When one introduces hidden-variables or state reduction, certain kinds of physical quantities (the “preferred” ones) get to be value-definite - among them the observed quantities (quantities like position, which are well-localized in space). Eschewing hidden-variables or state-reduction, still we have to pick out preferred quantities. How? And precisely which ones?

This is the preferred basis problem. The tightrope that must be walked (if we are to make sense of quantum mechanics without hidden-variables or state reduction) is to show first, how certain sorts of quantities get to be preferred (the preferred basis problem), and second, how particular values get to be assigned to such quantities (...).
...
"But decoherence theory does not solve the preferred-basis problem on its own. One question that remains is why, even given that such-and-such a basis decoheres, should that be the basis that we see?"

What entity chooses "the basis" (if any) or, in Mott's case, the "decohered history space" (if any)?

D.C.
May 25, 2008

 

==================

Subject: Will scalable quantum computers ever be built? No. No way. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:47:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Eleanor G Rieffel <rieffel@fxpal.com>
Cc: Michael <nielsen@physics.uq.edu.au>, Scott <aaronson@csail.mit.edu>,
Seth <slloyd@mit.edu>, Adrian <a.p.a.kent@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Peter <p.knight@imperial.ac.uk>, John <preskill@theory.caltech.edu>,
Artur <artur.ekert@qubit.org>

Dear Dr. Rieffel,

Regarding Sec. 11.3 (What if quantum mechanics is not quite correct?) from your arXiv:0804.2264v1 [quant-ph], as well as your report
FXPAL-PR-06-396, perhaps you may wish to see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#Bayes

I hope to receive your professional feedback.

Michael, Scott, Seth, Adrian, and Peter ignored my email (search my web site for details), while John and Artur didn't even bother to respond. I consider such behavior utterly unprofessional.

[snip]

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----
 

Note: People from "quantum computing" community often complain that reading this web site is difficult, and utterly refuse to examine the arguments from Schrödinger here, and derive the classical limit of QM from STR, as explained with a simple Gedankenexperiment here.

To explain their delusion, let's take just one crucial notion, which they use to promote their efforts: "simultaneously".

To quote from Jonathan P. Dowling and Gerard J. Milburn, Quantum Technology: The Second Quantum Revolution, arXiv:quant-ph/0206091v1:

 Quantum Superposition; if an event can be realized in two or more indistinguishable ways, the state of the system is a superposition of each way simultaneously.

 Entanglement: the superposition principle applied to certain nonlocal correlations, if a correlation can be realized in two or more indistinguishable ways, the state of the system is a superposition of all such correlations simultaneously.


Karl Svozil raised the issue whether one could "either measure or counterfactually infer all required entities simultaneously", and stressed (quant-ph/0206076 v6, p. 4):

This ambiguity gets worse as the number of particles increases.
 

This "ambiguity" is from KS Theorem; see Fig. 1b online here. Last words from Karl Svozil, replacing "ambiguity" with "non-uniqueness":

We therefore conclude that it is impossible to construct quantum states of four or more particles with the uniqueness property for four or more directions. Likewise, because of non-uniqueness, the observables involved in a Kochen-Specker-type argument cannot be measured simultaneously.


I wonder if someone from "qubit" community can prove that the ambiguity (non-uniqueness), demonstrated by Karl Svozil, is indeed irrelevant to their efforts.

Look what happens with some bright students. Indrani Chattopadhyay, from the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Calcutta, has just completed his Ph.D. Thesis (arXiv:0805.2056v1 [quant-ph]), but didn't mention anything about KS Theorem. It won't be fair to blame him, because the professional academic researches, who are supposed to teach their students, consistently ignore 'Quantum Mechanics 101' above.

Just two examples: Prof. Martin Plenio and Prof. Scott Cohen. The latter produced an essay entitled "Visualizing Teleportation", with the ambition to make "teleportation understandable to undergraduate physics majors (and possibly others)", arXiv:0704.0051v2 [physics.ed-ph], yet conspicuously ignored KS Theorem and its implications. Even more alarming is his ad posted at his academic web page: "As quantum information is a relatively new field, it offers numerous opportunities for innovation, as well as many fascinating problems for advanced undergraduates to sink their teeth into. Interested students are encouraged to contact me about possible research involvement."

And the kids will "sink their teeth" into a dead end.

Can you outsmart Nature by 'sweeping the garbage under the rug' with those "qubits"? Or with some "quantum Bayesian picture" [Ref. 1]? Choose anything you want, then please write down your arguments for "qutrits" [Ref. 2], post them on ArXiv.org server, and I will get professional -- with utmost pleasure.
 


D. Chakalov
April 17, 2008
Last update: September 2, 2008
----


[Ref. 1] Christopher G. Timpson, Quantum Bayesianism: A Study, arXiv:0804.2047v1 [quant-ph]

pp. 8-9: "[The process of collapse] is simply an updating of one’s beliefs about what the results of future measurements on the system will be; an updating that occurs whenever one has data to update upon.
...
"If Wigner strolls into the lab to see what the result is, then he will update his beliefs and assign a product state; but there is no question of his friend hanging in limbo until Wigner does so. There is no relevant change in anything physical when he does so; the only changes are internal to the agent ascribing the state. Given this lack of conflict between state assignments, no measurement problem arises."


[Ref. 2] Andreas Keil, Proof of the Orthogonal Measurement Conjecture for Qubit States, arXiv:0809.0232v1 [quant-ph]

"Already for qutrits we are facing serious difficulties. Two qutrits can in general not be transformed to real matrices with only one unitary transformation. Restricting ourselves to real qutrit or qunit matrices we can derive equations of similar type as equations (8). Performing a similar expansions of the vectors in a basis as in (9) does not give us, as in this paper, functions of one real variable but gives rise to intersections of
transcendental curves in projective space, leading us into a vast, unexplored territory."

 

==================

Subject: Absolute map of objective reality?
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:36:07 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>
Cc: Silvia Penati <silvia.penati@mib.infn.it>

Dear Angelo,

I read with great interest your latest article [Ref. 1], and would like to comment on it.

Consider the main building of the University of Milan, Via Giovanni Celoria 16, where Dr. Silvia Penati currently teaches GR.
 




The building has some provisional, map-dependent coordinates, and because it has a "real physical meaning", its properties (Eigenschaften) are invariant under any transformation of general coordinates [Ref. 1]: there are infinitely many possible maps in which *the same building* will be faithfully displayed as 'objective reality out there'.

However, if the latter form of reality were the only possible in GR, the building at Via Giovanni Celoria 16, as well as all objects displayed on these infinitely many maps, would fix an *absolute map of objective reality*. Then all geometrical points from this absolute map would acquire a *unique* physical content as 'objective reality out there', such that all these points would be identifiable by their unique physical content.

I wonder if this is your vision of GR, and would also be happy to learn about your understanding of the implications from Einstein's Hole Argument.

My efforts can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#non_tensorial

Best regards,

Dimi

----
[Ref. 1] Angelo Loinger, On Gravitational Motions, arXiv:0804.3991v1
[physics.gen-ph]
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3991

p. 11: "Finally, I wish to recall a significant remark by Hilbert [9] on the physical meaning of any statement (Aussage) in general relativity. He emphasized that in GR a given statement has a real physical meaning only if it has an invariant character under any whatever transformation of general coordinates. An analogous criterion holds obviously for the properties (Eigenschaften)."
...
"A geometric comparison: in the differential geometry of curves and surfaces a given statement, or a given property, have a real geometric meaning *only if* they are independent of the choice of the coordinates.
...
D. Hilbert: "... so müssen wir auch in der Physik eine Aussage, die nicht gegenüber jeder beliebigen Transformation des Koordinatensystems
invariant bleibt, als *physikalisch sinnlos* bezeichnen."
---
 

Note: This story boils down to the nature of the "remnant" from the two fluxes in Merced Montesinos' article above. If the geometrical points from such 'absolute map of objective reality' were identifiable by their unique physical content of 'objective reality out there', there would be a real physical "remnant" from the two fluxes, and ultimately "the ether would come back!" (M. Montesinos). There would be infinitely many, and equally "genuine", maps/presentations of such ether pertaining to some 'absolute map of objective reality'. Bad idea. If this was the case chosen by Nature, the time parameter in each such map could be regarded as a legitimate definition of time, contrary to what we know about 'time in GR'.

Alternatively, if the geometrical points from the spacetime/map are presented as 'the quantum system' (potential reality), their fleeting 'observable characteristics' will fill out the spacetime/map with point-like, context-dependent (relational ontology!) projections in the local mode of spacetime, just like the observable characteristics of the three-color quantum system above. Then the ether in Einstein's GR will be residing in the global mode of spacetime only. Stated differently, the ether/reference fluid of GR should not show up in GR, but only in the full theory of quantum gravity.

It is highly unlikely that Prof. Angelo Loinger would respond, but this is a different subject. Very briefly: there are currently three opinions on the alleged GW astronomy: the official, and hugely advertised, opinion of a large group of GR "experts" (I call them Jehovah's Witnesses of GW astronomy), then comes the opinion of Prof. A. Loinger [Ref. 1], and finally the opinion of the author of these lines. The first opinion is 'GWs exist, therefore they can and ultimately will be detected', the second one is 'GWs do not exist, therefore they cannot be detected in principle', and the third opinion is that GWs exist, but they can never be detected with LIGO, LISA, and the like, because the GW detector should be able to "sense" the quasi-localized GW energy, which in turn means that such GW detector should operate also at the global mode of spacetime, much like a human brain. Hence the catchword of the third option (endorsed only by the author of these lines): le Roi est mort, vive le Roi!

To sum up, let me again quote David Hilert (Grundsätzliche Fragen der modernen Physik, Lecture I, Hamburg, 26 July 1923): "A sentence about nature, expressed in coordinates, is only then a proposition about the objects in nature, if the sentence has a content which is independent of the coordinates." ("Ein in Koordinaten ausgedrüuckter Satz über die Natur ist nur dann eine Aussage über die Gegenstände in der Natur wenn er von den Koordinaten unabhängig einen Inhalt hat.")

We fully agree. But if we confine ourselves only to the kind of reality from classical physics, 'objective reality out there', we would be brought back to the problems encountered by Einstein from 1913 to 1915. Let's recall his firm opinion that singularities must be excluded from GR (The Meaning of Relativity, 5th ed.): "It does not seem reasonable to me to introduce into a continuum theory points (or lines etc.) for which the field equations do not hold."

"That looks as if general relativity carries within its conceptual belly the seeds of its own destruction", said Peter G. Bergmann (The 1979 Berlin Einstein Symposium, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 100, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1979), after he tried just to elucidate the problem of finding a complete set of diffeomorphism-invariant quantities (those that would have vanishing Poisson brackets with the canonical constraints) in 1961 (Observables in general relativity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 33 (1961) 510-514).

I mean, all problems of GR are interconnected, so perhaps the time has come to move forward, with some help from Aristotle and Plato.

In 1952, Einstein added a fifth appendix, "Relativity and the Problem of Space", to his famous book Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (15 ed., Methuen, London, 1952, p. 155), in which he wrote:

On the basis of the general theory of relativity ... space as opposed to "what fills space" ... has no separate existence. There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e., a space without [a gravitational] field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.

Given Einstein's opinion on his GR and the opinions of Peter G. Bergmann (above) and Arthur Komar, may I suggest a correction to the text from Einstein above: there is indeed such thing as "empty space" (called here 'global mode of spacetime'), in which the 3-D space "moves into", hence producing an arrow of spacetime and holistic ("dark") effects in the local mode of spacetime. These effects of "empty space" constitute up to 96 per cent from the observable stuff in the universe.

To be precise, the scholastic axiom by Michael Faraday, "matter cannot act where it is not", is not applicable for the quantum and gravitational realms: in the first case, matter (physical reality) should not be always present (cf. the discussion of KS Theorem above), while in the second case matter (physical reality) cannot be always present, or else we face the paradox of having 96 per cent of the universe in some "dark" form, and can never resolve the problem of (teleological) cosmological time (Rugh & Zinkernagel, arXiv:0805.1947v1 [gr-qc], p. 40).

The only possible solution seems to allow matter (physical reality) to be acted upon by something ontologically different -- potential reality. It stores the 'sameness' of objects (cf. Kurt Lewin's Genidentität principle).

In other words, there is no "empty space" nor "ether" in the local mode of spacetime. We have no choice but to start ab ovo.

By the way, Faraday did not express himself in mathematical language either, yet many physicists acknowledged his ideas. Well, people change.


D.C.
May 7, 2008
Last update: May 22, 2008
 


==================


Subject: arXiv:0810.3518v1 [gr-qc]
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Tatyana Shestakova <shestakova@phys.rsu.ru>
Cc: Natalia Kiriushcheva <nkiriush@uwo.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:09:06 +0100

Dear Dr. Shestakova,

To reveal a quantum universe "filled with a medium playing the role of
a reference frame", may I suggest you to try

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Paddy

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
---

Note: Tatyana Shestakova's "extended phase space" approach has been recently presented in arXiv:0810.4031v1 [gr-qc]. Notice the discussion of "properties of a medium to be necessary to fix a reference frame" therein. I hope Tatyana Shestakova has Internet access, and will read the proposal at this web site: the "medium" playing the role of 'the reference fluid' (cf. Einstein's "mollusc" and Hilbert's realistic fluid in kvk.pdf, p. 32) was explained at the first link above, while the case of 'asymptotically flat spacetime' was examined here.

After studying Karel Kuchar [Ref. 1], perhaps the reader will also consider the putative hidden background structure (global mode of spacetime), "filling the space time with a fluid which plays the role of real reference frame" [Ref. 2], to be the most important unresolved issue in GR.

Why? Because there is nothing in GR itself, from which one could derive the spacelike and timelike "directions" (introduced by hand from the outset), just as there is nothing in QM itself, which would allow you to derive the "projection" conjecture. In the case of GR, all we can say is that the physical world couldn't be what it is if spacetime were not 4-D. Which explains nothing.

In both GR and QM, the most fundamental action is introduced by hand. People like ADM, who start with some already-selected Cauchy "surface", or postulate some spacetime manifold (cf. Robert Geroch) that would be equipped, at some later stage, with Lorentzian signature [Ref. 3], are already implying -- tacitly, of course -- the action of the reference fluid in GR.

 

 

It goes without saying that the action of the reference fluid in GR is inevitably "dark", in the sense that it fixes the global properties of spacetime, such as its time-orientability, asymptotic boundaries, and quasi-local energy. Every infinitesimal domain of spacetime encapsulates all the blueprints from its global properties.

The task is obvious: eliminate the "collapse" and reveal the reference fluid.

In my just-another-crank opinion, this is the only possible way to go forward. In order to address the problems of GR (Thomas Sotiriou et al., arXiv:0707.2748v2 [gr-qc], Sec. 3), we need to examine its underlying assumptions and postulates.

But what do the academic scholars say?

Robert Geroch and Karel Kuchar haven't responded to my email sent in the past five years. Two and a half years ago, on 30 March 2006, Stanley Deser declared that he understands the dynamics of GR, but I still haven't heard from him. If the brain of Stanley Deser is functioning, ADM viewpoint on the dynamics of GR will be proven wrong, because only some fully deterministic Turing machine (but not the human brain) might operate on the "time surface" (cf. below) in the "block world" of textbook's GR.
 

 

Six years ago, on 23 October 2002, another prominent scholar, Chris Isham, declared that I "do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area."

No efforts has been made on behalf of Britain's leading expert in quantum gravity to defend his statement with facts. Moreover, just one approach toward quantum gravity, which is different from the one explored at this web site, and also shows some prospects for eventual success, will immediately ruin my theory.

There is no need to read this web site to prove me wrong. Just show me anything that you believe might work. Chris Isham has been keeping quiet for six years now. I trust other physicists can do better.

Just a hint: have you noticed that the cosmological "presentation" of expanding spacetime is based on a terribly misleading non-relativistic picture, in which some meta-observer had taken an absolute snapshot 'now' (see below) of the dimensions of the spacetime "balloon" at some instant from the cosmological time?
 

 

Can you correct the picture above, by offering a relativistic presentation of the 3-D snapshot and its instant 'now' from the cosmological time arrow, as driven by DDE of empty space? Perhaps your reasoning will be along the following lines: consider two observations of the "diameter" of the expanding universe, made by one observer at two instants A and B, separated by an interval [A, B] of, say, 8 min. Think of it as expanding "diameter" of the 3-D space of the universe. To grasp the intricacies of such Gedankenexperiment, compare it to a simple textbook exercise from STR [Ref. 4], bearing in mind that in GR you don't have any background metric, nor the privileged, non-relativistic viewpoint of 'an observer placed outside the expanding balloon', as in the picture above.

Where would the source of the relativistic dark energy of empty space be located in your brand new picture? It should be very different (to say the least) from the picture presented by Robert Geroch and George F.R. Ellis, because the source of DDE can be "located" and understood only with respect to 'the only truly isolated system' -- the whole universe as ONE.

Can you eliminate the tantalizing " ? " section from the "beginning" of the cosmological time arrow (see also the vacuum cleaner paradox)? According to some philosophers, such as Andrei Linde,

Notice that the estimate of "the total duration of inflation" presupposes some absolute clock pertaining to the whole universe en bloc, which could "count" the elementary increments of 'the size of the balloon' per some finite unit of absolute time (say, 'absolute second'), so that A. Linde and his distinguished colleagues can measure the number of such elementary increments per 'absolute second' throughout the whole cosmological time, hence claim that, in the initial 10-30 seconds, there were many-many-many-many more elementary increments of the volume of 3-D space per 'absolute second' -- as compared to the first 10-30 seconds from the time interval needed to read these lines -- then after these 'initial 10-30 seconds' the "accelerated" expansion of space settled down for a while, but it is currently again in some accelerated stage, only not so vicious as it were in the initial 10-30 seconds. Surely A. Linde can decorate this story with some advanced math, to make it publishable.

Also, have you noticed that there is 'problem of time' in classical GR and in canonical quantum gravity, but there isn't any problem of 3-D space?

How would you correct such anti-relativistic presentation of 3-D space in today's GR? Contrary to what you've learned from Hermann Minkowski, you apply double standards to time and space: you kill the nature of time with some "block universe", but leave the 3-D space intact, like an 'absolute structure' (James Anderson). Namely, there is no absolute difference between past, present and future, hence this key feature of 'absolute time' is eliminated, but the key attributes of 'absolute space' -- inside vs. outside, Large vs. Small -- are kept absolute, providing an absolute "medium" for 3-D space in present-day GR. Contrary to the opinion of Karel Kuchar (see below), it acts as a global fixed structure that is not dynamical.

Notice that the task for correcting today's GR ("the grave injustice to space-time covariance that underlies general relativity", A. Ashtekar) is highly non-trivial, because such global properties of spacetime cannot be downgraded to the usual Diff(M) observables (cf. Mihaela Iftime above); more here.

The solutions proposed at this web site (for example, the scale relativity principle) originate from a very old and simple idea: not everything should exist as physical reality. As John Wheeler put it, "Time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once" (he didn't provide any math though). In this sense, we need potential reality (I don't offer the math either). To quote Karel Kuchar (emphasis and links added), "the profound message of general relativity is that spacetime does not have any fixed structure which is not dynamical but governs dynamics from outside as an unmoved mover." (The mathematical description of this well-known 'unmoved mover' wasn't offered by Karel Kuchar either.)

NB: But what is the meaning of the phrase "governs dynamics from outside" (global mode of spacetime)? A simple argument from Wikipedia [Ref. 5] suggests that an inanimate physical clock will record such "global time" as frozen (recall Wheeler-DeWitt equation and Karel Kuchar's multifingered time), simply because it cannot read such infinite-dimensional global time. Hence the so-called problem of time in canonical quantum gravity is nothing but an artefact from a very limited notion of time produced by an inanimate physical clock. The human brain can "read" such global mode of time (cf. L. Szabados and J. Baez "at the same time" here), and will produce the mental image (qualia) of 'self-reference'. Then we put aside all issues related to psychology and theology, and model the universe as a brain equipped with 'potential reality' produced by the arrow of spacetime. Just think of all EPR-like correlations across the entire universe as being negotiated in the realm of 'potential reality' -- "at the same time" of the global mode of time (compare with [Ref. 5]).
 

All pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of quantum gravity snap to their places -- effortlessly.

Regrettably, Karel Kuchar didn't make any comments on my ideas offered to solve the problems identified by him in 1991: "The problem of functional evolution, the multiple choice problem, and the Hilbert space problem are the three major classes of problems which quantum geometrodynamics encounters because classical geometrodynamics does not seem to possess a natural (Sic! - D.C.) time variable, while standard quantum theory relies quite heavily on a preferred time."

In my just-another-crank opinion, the only "time variable" natural to both GR and QM is the one read by 'the universe as a brain'. Hence the need for The Aristotelian Connection, which acts as 'the unmoved mover' and 'reference fluid in GR' (see above), is obvious. Ignore it at your peril.

In practical terms, this lesson from Aristotle, translated into the languages of GR and QM, means that you've been wasting hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars and Euro -- taxpayer's money -- for GW parapsychology.

Unless, of course, Chris Isham was right six years ago. I don't know. He's still keeping quiet.

 

D. Chakalov
October 23, 2008
Last update: November 11, 2008


[Ref. 1] Sean Gryb, Quantum Machian Time in Newtonian Mechanics and Beyond, arXiv:0810.4152v1 [gr-qc]

p. 21: "First, is there a way to introduce a background structure into GR? This is not a new question and has been raised most notably by Kuchar after noting the similarities between the ADM action and the action of PPM [15, 14]. He conjectured that GR might have a hidden background structure and that solving the problem of time would involve finding a way to write the theory in terms of this background structure and quantize it."


[Ref. 2] Simone Mercuri and Giovanni Montani, On the Frame Fixing in Quantum Gravity, arXiv:gr-qc/0401127v1

"Now the following question arises: how is it possible to speak of a unit time-like normal field for a quantum space-time?

"Indeed such a notion can be recognized, in quantum regime, at most in the sense of expectation values (recall KS Theorem above - D.C.); therefore assuming the existence of nμ before quantizing the system dynamics makes the WDW approach physically ill defined.
...

"A more physical manner to ensure the existence of a time-like vector consists of filling the space time with a fluid which plays the role of real reference frame."


[Ref. 3] Joseph Andrew Spencer, James T. Wheeler, The emergence of time, arXiv:0811.0112v1 [gr-qc]

Sec. 9.3, 'Musings on the Euclidean nature of nature'

"It is difficult to describe, in everyday language, the physics of spacetime and phase space in Euclidean terms, because so much of our thought and language include elements of time. For example, a careful description of events in a Euclidean world must avoid the use of active verbs!
...
"However, this leads us to the conclusion that the original world we are measuring has signature zero or is Euclidean. In the Euclidean case, we must ask what it means to make a measurement at all. Doesn’t measurement presuppose a time sequence?

"We hasten to point out that the problem is no worse here than in any deterministic theory. In general relativity, for example, we have an initial value formulation, but can also find global solutions. In the initial value formulation, we can specify the configuration of the world at a given time, then integrate forward to predict how things will evolve. However, in the case of a global solution such as a cosmological model, we are presented a complete description of past, present and future all at once. In this view, the outcomes of measurements are already fixed. The best we can
do is to think of consciousness as sequentially illuminating certain fixed events, then others, with all the events already right there in the solution.
...

"The difficulty we experience at trying to state or digest these ideas may be seen as an indication of just how much our understanding of the world hinges on living in a metric phase space. Once we have that arena, our physical description falls into place. In order to correctly describe the world from a Euclidean, or even a fully biconformal, perspective, we need to map backwards from known processes in metric phase space to a descriptoin of the same processes in the underlying Euclidean space."
 


[Ref. 4] Vesselin Petkov, Can the Growing Block Model of the Universe Save the Objectivity of Becoming?

"Take as an example length contraction. Two observers A and B measure the length of a rod that is at rest in A's reference frame. Due to relativity of simultaneity and the fact that the rod, as an extended three-dimensional body, is defined in terms of simultaneity (as all parts of the rod which exist simultaneously at a given moment), it inescapably follows that having different sets of simultaneous events A and B measure two different three-dimensional rods. It is evident (if existence is absolute) that three-dimensionalism is immediately ruled out -- the worldtube of the rod must be a real four-dimensional object in a block universe in order that two three-dimensional rods (that are different three-dimensional cross-sections of the rod's worldtube) exist for A and B."


[Ref. 5] Fourth dimension: Visual scope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension#Visual_scope

"Being three-dimensional, we are only able to see the world with our eyes in two dimensions. A four-dimensional being would be able to see the world in three dimensions. For example, it would be able to see all six sides of an opaque box simultaneously, and in fact, what is inside the box at the same time. It would be able to see all points in 3-dimensional space simultaneously, including the inner structure of solid objects and things obscured from our three-dimensional viewpoint."

Note about "the 4th dimension w": Make a fibre bundle formulation of GR (cf. Robert Geroch), such that it could provide simultaneous connections from such 4-D "global mode", to account for the atemporal "hand-shaking" needed to fix the event horizon and inertial forces. Make sure, however, that (in the local mode of spacetime) the dimensions of physical bodies along such "4th dimension w" are non-existent or zero (the "dark gaps"). Then try to introduce a brand new connection to the base manifold: instead of attaching a vector space at each point (cf. Matt Frank), try a brand new spinor space, such that two opposite, tug-of-war effects of gravity, CDM and DDE, will be cast on the base manifold.

Of course all this sounds like a Jabberwocky. We need new math.

D.C.
November 1, 2008
Last update: November 3, 2008

 

===================

Subject: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:03:44 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: George F R Ellis <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>


Regarding "The Far-Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective",
http://www.directtextbook.com/prices/1890151904


Dear George,

The last time I heard from you was eight years ago (you kindly responded to my request and e-mailed me a manuscript on the same subject). At that time, I was living in Vienna, and since you were planning to visit ESI (The Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics, Vienna), I respectfully asked you to contact me by phone or email, hoping to meet you in person. Never heard from you.

In case you plan to update your book, may I suggest to check out the NB section at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Shestakova

Please don't treat me as a dead man, and respond to this email. I hope to hear from you by your 70th birthday on August 11, 2009.

Regards,

Dimi
----

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
-------

Note: George F R Ellis submitted yesterday (1 Dec 2008) an outlook of his idea about "an evolving block universe", but didn't even mention the driving force of 'the flow of time' [Ref. 1], which is known as 'dynamic dark energy' (DDE).

The fact that the readers have indeed the ability to read his latest philosophical essay [Ref. 1] does not constitute even an evidence in support of his "evolving block universe", because the undisputed observational fact -- "a unique classical space-time structure does indeed emerge at macro scales from the underlying physics" -- hasn't been explained. Which is one of the reasons why I sent him the link to my philosophical essay 'Quantum Mechanics 101' above. The challenges are widely know since 1935, when George F R Ellis was ... -4 year old, right?

Well, if you read George F R Ellis [Ref. 1], that's a tricky question, because in the framework of "evolving block universe" it is not clear whether his "negative age 4" was indeed fixed in 1935, or at the instant of his birth on August 11, 1939. To address this question, he will have to laid out his opinion on Cosmological Synchronicity and the temporal organization of 'potential reality', which would require reading the essay above, and responding to my last email.

Here are the main questions which remained untouched in [Ref. 1]:

Q1: Does Nature employ some irreversible act to fix "unique classical space-time structure" which emerges at macro scales? Read about the reversible classical-to-quantum transition above.

Q2: Was the birth of little George fixed in 1935, four years prior to his actual birth on August 11, 1939? Or was it just an undecidable propensity with an answer YAIN? If the latter, was the feedback from potential future (cf. the arrow of spacetime) influencing the worldlines of George's parents in 1935? For if we wish to talk about 'the flow of time', the past should not be sufficient to fix the present (cf. Conway-Kochen Theorem above), and we have to consider the possibility that the Aristotelian 'final cause' may complement the relativistic causality, as stated above.

Q3: Does Nature employ the verdammte Quantenspringerei ? Eight years ago, while I was living in Vienna (cf. above), I suggested a tentative answer to this truly fundamental question, and respectfully asked George F R Ellis to contact me by phone or email, hoping to meet him during his stay in Vienna. Never heard from him.

The fact of the matter is in the past, namely, George F R Ellis managed to meet the deadline (2008-12-01) for submitting his essay to FQXi Contest "THE NATURE OF TIME". I didn't. Nobody told me about it. Hence I missed the chance to become rich and famous -- up to 21 prizes will be awarded, with amounts ranging from $1000 to $10,000 per prize.

I wish Prof. George F R Ellis best of luck.

It remains to be seen what event, still in the future, "was" influencing me to write these lines today, 2 December 2008. Or maybe I am creating such event right now. You just never know. The future could be open up to 'the unknown unknown', and brand new things may emerge, breaking the dull unitarity principle.

Like George responding to my last email? Naaah!
 


D. Chakalov
December 2, 2008
 


George F R Ellis, On the Flow of Time (Submitted on 1 Dec 2008), arXiv:0812.0240v1 [gr-qc]

"The fundamental observational fact is,

- In the real universe domain we actually inhabit, a unique classical space-time structure does indeed emerge at macro scales from the underlying physics

"Hence whatever integrability conditions are needed for this to happen, they do indeed occur in our universe domain, and we are able to describe what happens via an evolving block universe picture.
...

"You would not exist and have the ability to read this article if the view proposed here (and expounded in more detail in Ref. [6]) was not a correct description of the way things are."
--
[6] G F R Ellis (2006): “Physics in the Real Universe: Time and Spacetime”. Gen. Rel. Grav. 38: 1797-1824 [Arxiv:gr-qc/0605049].

Cape Town
2008-12-01


===================

Subject: Feedback to FQXi Essay Contest
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:28:48 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: George F R Ellis <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>,
Julian Barbour <julian@platonia.com>,
Sean Carroll <seancarroll@gmail.com>,
Carlo Rovelli <rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Fotini Markopoulou <fmarkopoulou@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Gavin Crooks <gecrooks@lbl.gov>
Cc: Anthony Aguirre <aguirre@scipp.ucsc.edu>,
Kavita Rajanna <mail@fqxi.org>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Dear colleagues,

I didn't learn about the FQXi Essay Contest until December 2nd. My feedback to

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/10

is recorded also at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#fqxi

1. George Ellis
2. Julian Barbour
3. Chi Ming Hung
4. Sean Carroll
5. Carlo Rovelli
6. Claus Kiefer
7. Fotini Markopoulou
8. Adam Helfer
9. Gavin Crooks
10. Dean Rickles

As Chris Isham declared six years ago (Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:24:15 +0100):

"You do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area."

Wishing you a very merry Christmas,

Dimi
----
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU

===================
 


Here are my postings to twelve physicists at FQXi FORUM: Essay Contest

1. David Wiltshire
2. Ettore Minguzzi
3. George Ellis
4. Julian Barbour
5. Chi Ming Hung
6. Sean Carroll
7. Carlo Rovelli
8. Claus Kiefer
9. Fotini Markopoulou
10. Adam Helfer
11. Gavin Crooks
12. Dean Rickles

Notice that the quasi-local component from The Aristotelian Connection (the 'sufficient condition' from the global mode of spacetime) is interwoven into the local mode of time dynamically, as being linearized and "read by a wristwatch" (cf. my posting to David Wiltshire below), so in my proposal the "block universe" (BU) and "evolving block universe" (EBU) are united by the two mode of spacetime. I believe BU and EBU contain some, and of course different, pieces of truth, and therefore should be united. The end result will be something quite different from the textbook GR, because, as David Wiltshire noticed below, the idea of introducing quasi-local variables "is not something that is being done on top of general relativity."
 



1.
To David Wiltshire:


Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 23, 2008 @ 19:32 GMT

David:

You wrote at George Ellis' thread (Dec. 23, 2008 @ 10:22 GMT):

"Dimi - should you read my work and have any further questions - then since George has closed his discussion, I guess you should continue over at my not-so-active thread."

Thanks a lot for your suggestion. I downloaded your essay and tried to read it, but was struck by a very unclear -- to me -- introduction, and couldn't proceed.

I am asking you to help me understand the following.

In your essay, you wrote: "A simple way to understand this (quasilocal quantities - D.C.) is to recall that in the absence of gravity energy, momentum and angular momentum of objects obey conservation laws. A conservation law simply means that some quantity is not changing with time."

Let's find out what kind of 'time' is involved in GR. George Ellis did not answer any of my arguments posted at his thread. Hope you can do better.

Please correct me if I'm wrong: The time read by a wristwatch is assumed to be a linear variable, and it is this linear variable that enters the conservation laws in the absence of gravity (Minkowski spacetime).

Q1: What -- if any -- should be the change or alteration to this linear variable, as introduced by quasi-local variables?

Further, you wrote: "General relativity is entirely local in the sense of propagation of the gravitational interaction, which is causal."

Q2: What -- if any -- should be the change or alteration to the propagation of the gravitational interaction, as introduced by quasi-local variables?

For if you mix apples (local theories) with oranges (quasi-local variables in these same theories), the confusion may be enormous, which is perhaps the reason why I couldn't finish reading your essay. Hope you can help.

My tentative answers to the questions posed above were provided in a link to my web site, in my first posting to George Ellis from Dec. 2, 2008 @ 07:02 GMT. Regrettably, your mentor neither replied to my critical comments on his proposal, nor said anything on mine.

Dimi

--------

David Wiltshire wrote on Dec. 24, 2008 @ 10:51 GMT

Dimi

>Please correct me if I'm wrong: The time read by a wristwatch is assumed to be a linear variable, and it is this linear variable that enters the conservation laws in the absence of gravity (Minkowski spacetime).

Individual variables themselves are neither linear nor nonlinear. So time is not "linear" (apart from being a parameter on the real line which is not what I mean here). Linearity is a property of combinations of variables in equations. In Minkowski space it is the Lorentz transformations which relate inertial frames that are linear. Conservation laws are described by divergence-free currents, which via Gauss's law give conserved charges when doing the relevant integrals on hypersurfaces. The time-direction is hypersurface orthogonal in formulating such conservation laws.

BTW In relativity one also has to be always careful to distinguish between arbitrary coordinate variables, and proper lengths and proper times which are invariants. Your watch measures your proper time. If you are talking about your proper time, say it; "variable" is too vague as it can also refer to non-measurable things.

>Q1: What -- if any -- should be the change or alteration to this linear variable, as introduced by quasi-local variables?

Since any "quasilocal" quantity is an integrated regional thing, not a local quantity like a proper time measured by a clock, in any formulation one will never replace any proper time by a quasilocal variable. It is gravitational energy that is quasilocal not time; proper time is a locally measured quantity on the worldline of a particle, gravitational energy is not. Gravitational energy comes into the relative calibration of clocks at widely separated events.

Why is energy conservation difficult in GR? Well, in the absence of exact symmetries one cannot do the same procedure of a Gauss law style integration to extract a conserved 4-momentum and conserved covariant angular-momentum from the divergence-free energy-momentum tensor as you can in Minkowksi space. In general relativity one can in general define conservation laws for completely antisymmetry tensor densities. However, one cannot do this for the rank 2 symmetric energy-momentum tensor. If you try to integrate it, in the manner of Gauss's law there is an extra bit involving the connection which is in a sense "the work done by gravity".

In the presence of exact symmetries of the background spacetime, described by a Killing vector, it is possible to contract the Killing vector with the energy-momentum tensor to get rid of the extra bit and get conservation laws. Just symmetries of the background are required, and to get a conserved energy you need a timelike symmetry of the background. What I am talking about here is the "energy of the spacetime" but the same is true for geodesic motion; if you have a timelike Killing vector you can contract it with a particle 4-velocity to get a conserved energy of the particle in motion. Without a timelike Killing vector you cannot do that.

Timelike symmetries describe bound solutions extremely well, but since the universe is expanding there is no absolute time symmetry, and so the time symmetry is approximate. Since the timelike Killing vector is normalised to unity at "spatial infinity", defining the equivalent of the zero of the Newtonian gravitational potential; in the actual universe this non-existent spatial infinity has to be replaced by something like "finite infinity", as first discussed by George Ellis in the 1984.

Since spacetime is intrinsically dynamical in GR, the "work done by gravity" enters into energy-momentum conservation in an inextricable way in general, when there are no time symmetries.

>Q2: What -- if any -- should be the change or alteration to the propagation of the gravitational interaction, as introduced by quasi-local variables?

Nothing changes because the idea of "introducing quasilocal variables" is not something that is being done on top of general relativity. We are simply discussing known properties of Einstein's theory. It is a property of his theory that propagation of the gravitational interaction is causal. It is also a property of his theory that "the work done by gravity" cannot be separated out in general, making energy conservation an intrinsically different problem from the same problem in flat spacetime. This is a consequence of the equivalence principle; you can always get rid of gravity near a point, and gravity is a property of spacetime structure. Gravitational energy involves the calibration of clocks at different points (via the connection), and can only be regionally refined; so it is at best quasi-local.

-------


Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 24, 2008 @ 15:16 GMT

David:

Thank you for your professional reply. I believe we have at least one thing in common: we both want to develop and modify George Ellis' notion of 'finite infinity', but from entirely different perspectives (I will be happy to explain mine, if you're interested).

You wrote above: "Your watch measures your proper time. If you are talking about your proper time, say it."

Yes, I am talking about the proper time in STR, as read by my wristwatch. Glad you agreed that it is a local quantity.

But in GR we have a formidable conundrum: the metric has a "double role" (Laszlo Szabados, private communication), namely, it is a field variable and defines the geometry *at the same time.*

It seems to me -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that the metric in GR is treated as a field which not only affects, but also -- at the same time -- is affected by the other fields.

If you agree, would you please elaborate on the dynamics of GR, as encoded in the phrase "at the same time"?

In STR, the proper time read by my wristwatch is a local quantity, so it seems impossible to borrow this kind of time for the dynamics of GR. The latter does include the extra "work done by gravity" (which is is absent in STR).

As you put it, energy conservation is "an intrinsically different problem from the same problem in flat spacetime."

What kind of "time" might be implied in GR, if every instant from it (a "point" in Euclidean 1-D space) is a nexus of an *already* completed -- at this same instant -- negotiation between the two sides of Einstein field equation?

I'll come back to you, after Christmas, about your efforts to tweak George Ellis' finite infinity (FI), as presented in New Journal of Physics 9 (2007) 377, and will ask you to test your vision of FI by recasting the positive mass theorems. If you succeed in replacing the conformal infinity with FI, please try to eliminate the geodesic incompleteness and the Cauchy problems for Einstein field equations, as the ultimate 'test of the pudding' for your vision of FI and the dynamics of GR.

Wishing you a nice white Christmas,

Dimi

---------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 25, 2008 @ 03:41 GMT

Addendum

David wrote (Dec. 24, 2008 @ 10:51 GMT):

"Since any "quasilocal" quantity is an integrated regional thing, not a local quantity like a proper time measured by a clock, in any formulation one will never replace any proper time by a quasilocal variable. It is gravitational energy that is quasilocal not time; proper time is a locally measured quantity on the worldline of a particle, gravitational energy is not."

I am indeed trying to suggest that the proper time, as measured by a clock, can be replaced by a new quasi-local variable: please see my postings from Dec. 4, 2008 @ 01:30 GMT and Dec. 10, 2008 @ 14:31 GMT at Dean Rickles' thread.

The aim is to bridge GR and QM with a new form of retarded causality, and to open a "window" in GR for the energy density of the so-called empty space. My opinion on GR matches that of Einstein: "... not anything more than a theory of the gravitational field, which was somewhat artificially isolated from a total field of as yet unknown structure."


-----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 25, 2008 @ 11:29 GMT

David:

Thank you for your time and efforts.

Since you agree that the geometry both affects and is affected by the other fields, please notice that I am trying to suggest, with the so-called Buridan donkey paradox, two kinds of time: "global" time for the negotiations of all particles, and "local" time for the end-result of this negotiation. Then the proper time on a particle clock, as a measurable quantity *at a point on a timelike worldline*, is being created (i) dynamically, and (ii) relationally (Machian type relational ontology), and corresponds to its "local" time. The "global" time is something that belongs to 'the whole universe en bloc'. To define the latter, I am trying to modify George Ellis' Finite Infinity with some well-known ideas from Aristotle.

All this comes from the solution of the measurement problem, which was suggested at the link from my first posting to George Ellis' thread (Dec. 2, 2008 @ 07:02 GMT).

In my opinion, ADM hypothesis is seriously flawed (I've elaborated extensively on my web site, with many references).

I don't like *any* coarse-graining whatsoever, since I can't see how one could approach the Hilbert space problem in quantum gravity. Will be happy to elaborate, by quoting from Claus Kiefer's research and of course Karel Kuchar's articles.

You wrote: "I would not attempt anything like a positive mass theorem based on finite infinity, until I had a better grasp of these sorts of issues."

To me the main puzzle is that we see only one "charge", called 'positive mass'. The positive mass theorems need a precise cut-off at spatial infinity, which is the crux of my efforts to modify FI with some help from Aristotle (cf. my two postings mentioned on Dec. 25, 2008 @ 03:41 GMT).

You say: "I think it is likely that there is no vacuum energy." I suggest the answer YAIN (both yes and no, in German). It's a whole new ball game, as I tried to explain here.

Sorry about my stupid remark about "white Christmas".

Best regards,

Dimi


-----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 25, 2008 @ 18:29 GMT

I agree with the first paragraph from Larry's comment above (Dec. 25, 2008 @ 14:14 GMT). In addition to Hawking's statement that "the split into three spatial dimensions and one time dimension seems to be contrary to the whole spirit of relativity", there is a very interesting, in my opinion, paper by Kiriushcheva and Kuzmin, arXiv:0809.0097v1 [gr-qc], pp. 7-9, which brings specific arguments against such "slicing" of spacetime.

My personal (and certainly biased, if not wrong) attitude toward 'spacetime' is that it is *one* object which might be "disentangled" into '3-D space and its time' for illustrative purposes only, while its genuine dynamics -- if any -- is not traceable to anything in this *one* object: we have only constraints, and also the dubious "freedom" to choose the lapse and the shift by hand, since the latter are gauge functions (M. Alcubierre, gr-qc/0412019v1, Sec. 5).

In a way, ADM hypothesis is like showing the moving parts of a piano, but we can't "see" the player. But this is as it should be, since if we were able to "see" the player with the present-day GR (say, the source of the so-called dynamic dark energy), the latter must be some bona fide 'observable in GR', and we would be able to trace back The Beginning or the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, whichever comes first :-)

Dimi


-----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 26, 2008 @ 17:15 GMT

In connection with the last paragraph from Larry's posting (Dec. 26, 2008 @ 14:01 GMT), it seems to me that the problem of time in canonical quantum gravity should be solved along with the Hilbert space problem en bloc, since the latter is 'the test of the pudding' for the former. More in my latest posting at Claus Kiefer's thread from Dec. 26, 2008 @ 17:01 GMT.

David: Please excuse my violent curiosity. If you prefer, I will quit.

Best - Dimi


------------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 27, 2008 @ 03:32 GMT

Larry:

You wrote (Dec. 16, 2008 @ 16:36 GMT):

"The issue of time is a bit slippery. I am not out to deny the existence of time, but it is something which appears to be geometrical and as such "relational." It relates kinematic entities to dynamical ones. As I see it the important question is not whether time exists, but as a relational quantity "what does it tell us?""

I believe the so-called Buridan donkey paradox mentioned above (Dec. 25, 2008 @ 11:29 GMT and Dec. 25, 2008 @ 03:41 GMT) offers a tentative answer to your very important question: time as a geometrical entity "tells us" that the world is fundamentally relational (relational ontology), in line with the Bootstrap Principle of Geoffrey Chew (Science 161 (1968) 762).

And here at David Wiltshire's thread, you wrote (Dec. 26, 2008 @ 14:01 GMT): "There are two notions of time at work here. General relativity only defines a physical time according to the invariant interval or proper time of a particle. Coordinate time as an element of spacetime is a gauge dependent (a gauge theory for an external symmetry) quantity, which ultimately has nothing to do with any evolution. Hence the nature of block time."

It seems to me that the "block time" and "block universe" (BU) are artifacts from the current incomplete GR. I've been trying to suggest, in my two postings mentioned above, the notion of 'quasi-local time' with two components, "global" and "local". The latter corresponds to 'physical time in GR', each event from which is *already negotiated* in the "global" component of time. Just try to think of this 'already negotiated' as the "duration" of the flight of a photon, from its emission to its absorption: it is zero. It's like clapping your hands by which you produce one event of joint emission/absorption.

Hence the "dark gaps" of negotiation in the "global" component of time are completely and totally extinguished in the 'physical time in GR' (the "local" component of time), rendering the latter a *perfect continuum* that is being created dynamically and relationally. Hence we may have the "quantization" of spacetime installed from the outset.

I regret that learned about this FQXi Contest too late, on December 2nd, and haven't submitted my essay here. I can only hope that my ideas might be of some interest to David and to you.

Dimi

----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 27, 2008 @ 14:56 GMT

David:

Thank you for your precise and thoughtful reply from Dec. 27, 2008 @ 08:35 GMT. In the last paragraph, regarding positive mass theorems, you wrote: "It would require a very tight definition of finite infinity first, however."

You hit the nail on the head. If we employ the Aristotelian First Cause and Unmover Mover, we may have a precise "boundary" in the so-called "global" component of time, while in the "local" time this same "boundary" would look like an ever-sliding horizon extendable to infinity. The underlying motivation here is that we shall sort out the ambiguities with our notion of '3-D space', and then approach the nature of time, pertaining to this 3-D space.

You said: "Something cannot be both local and quasilocal." I believe it depends on how you understand Quantum Theory (please check out my essay on QM). Which brings me to your comment that I talk about "negotiation" in the global component of time, without defining what "negotiation" is. EPR correlations are just one example of "negotiation", but the really difficult task, to me at least, is to *derive* the Equivalence Principle -- the focus of your essay -- from some broader perspective based on Machian-type relational ontology (cf. the Buridan donkey paradox). At the end of the day, we should be able to understand the origin of the positive mass, and the mechanism by which inertial reaction forces are being generated "instantaneously" (in the "global" component of time, perhaps).

As of today, the Equivalence Principle gives us the dubious "freedom" to eliminate the energy-components of the gravitational field *at a point* (Hermann Weyl, Space-Time-Matter, Dover Publications, New York, 1951, 1922, p. 270). I cannot accept this, and neither did Einstein (quote from Dec. 25, 2008 @ 03:41 GMT above).

You are right that I should produce a "focused paper on just one topic". I will do that by the end of 2009, and will comment on your Essay extensively.

Thank you, once more, for inviting me to your thread.

Dimi


------------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 29, 2008 @ 22:56 GMT

David wrote (Dec. 29, 2008 @ 02:00 GMT):

"Of course the question of initial conditions is vitally important on cosmological scales. Dimi, when you talk about "the Aristotelian First Cause and Unmover" then no doubt you are talking conceptually in such terms, though to me me such phrases do not mean anything until you can write down a physical model which somehow quantitatively matches reality."

The challenge I face with the Aristotelian First Cause and Unmoved Mover is first and foremost mathematical: it is not clear to me what particular blueprint from these notions should be sought in quantum gravity, yet I think it should be presented with pure math only, or else the First Cause and Unmoved Mover will be *physically* reachable.

I will be very difficult to provide compelling evidence that the whole physical world may be grounded on some Aristotelian "cutoff" that is nothing but 'pure math'. Not to mention the UNspeakable 'cat per se' (cf. my essay on QM mentioned above), which is also unclear in mathematical terms. But if some day I make progress, will get in touch with you.

Best - Dimi


------------


Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 14:58 GMT

David:

I left three comments at George Ellis' thread on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 14:32 GMT. Please notice Comment #1, regarding the missing definition of the non-tensorial gravitational energy in a "fraction DT of time", as George put it.

I will appreciate your professional feedback.

Happy New Year.

Dimi
 

 



2.
To Ettore Minguzzi:


Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 26, 2008 @ 02:31 GMT

Dear Dr. Minguzzi,

Reading your Essay is a joy. You have this utterly professional skill to elaborate on the most intricate issues in GR -- the obvious, and deeply puzzling, fact that we observe mass with one "charge" only.

May I ask a question. You wrote: "Instead, only massless particles make sense, and thus the concept of non-singularity must be expressed from the ‘point of view’ of massless particles."

I wonder how you would explain the absence of Closed Timelike Curves (CTCs) from the ‘point of view’ of massless particles. CTCs are exactly what we should expect from GR (cf. W.B. Bonnor, Closed timelike curves in general relativity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D12 (2003) 1705-1708; gr-qc/0211051 v1). It seems to me that CTCs (and timelike naked singularities, cf. R. Goswami et al., gr-qc/0410041v1) are just like the ultraviolet catastrophe from 1905, which too has never happened.

Thank you for your (global) time.

Dimi Chakalov
 



3
. To George Ellis:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 2, 2008 @ 07:02 GMT

Dear Prof. Ellis,

It seems to me that, in order to talk about 'the flow of time', the past should not be sufficient to determine the present (cf. Conway-Kochen 'Strong Free Will Theorem', arXiv:0807.3286v1 [quant-ph]), and we have to consider the possibility that the Aristotelian 'final cause' may complement the relativistic causality, as elaborated here.

A penny for your thoughts!

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 20:36 GMT

Dear George,

In response to my first posting from Dec. 2, 2008 @ 07:02 GMT above, on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 16:47 GMT, you wrote:

"... the outcome of quantum events is unknown until they happen. That is a key feature on which I build my proposal; so there is no conflict."

I'm glad to notice that you can surf the Web, so please check out the link to my essay 'Quantum Mechanics 101', in my first posting above. The crucial issue is *not* that the outcome of quantum events is "unknown until they happen".

We aren't talking epistemology here. The puzzle is know since 1935. To quote from Erwin Schrödinger's "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik":

"... measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value that it (the quantum system - D.C.) has."

As to whether there is conflict in your reasoning, I think it is too early to say anything conclusive. You haven't yet elaborated on the so-called Dynamic Dark Energy -- the driving force of 'the flow of time'.

I wish you best of luck in placing this perfectly smooth "dark stuff" on some Cauchy surface.

Dimi

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 23:31 GMT

Dear George,

Regarding the so-called dark energy, you wrote (Dec. 10, 2008 @ 21:41 GMT):

"I do indeed have views on that issue, but see no reason to post them here."

Please do not impoverish your readers, and shed some light on all that "dark" stuff, Cold Dark Matter included.

Thank you very much in advance.

As ever yours,

Dimi

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 12, 2008 @ 19:56 GMT

George Ellis wrote on Dec. 12, 2008 @ 17:31 GMT:

"The current topic is The Nature of Time."

Exactly. Such as its origin and driving force, as in the case of the cosmological time arrow.

Which brings us to the "dynamic dark energy" and -- inevitably -- to the "non-tangible" (Sir Hermann Bondi) gravitational energy, without which we cannot say anything on its "dark" counterpart, in both DDE and CDM.

But if you've found a way to disentangle time from energy, then I would agree with you.

------
 

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 14:43 GMT

George,

I stated above (Dec. 15, 2008 @ 18:44 GMT) that the objectives of your essay are not clear, and expressed my hope that you can do better than Carlo Rovelli.

Let me try to explain, by quoting from your postings and inserting my comments.

1. George Ellis (Dec. 11, 2008 @ 12:05 GMT):

"On this view, infinities are mathematical entities that never occur in physical reality; this may be taken as applying to the nature of space in a profound way."

2. George Ellis (Dec. 9, 2008 @ 22:41 GMT)

"The whole point of my article is that there do not exist any completely isolated systems in the real world (except perhaps the universe itself)."

-----------
Comment #1: You quoted David Hilbert in [1] above, so please show that infinities do not, and cannot occur in describing 'the only truly isolated system' -- the universe itself. It is ONE single system, and it should require "infinities" for its description.
----------


3. George Ellis (Dec. 4, 2008 @ 10:00 GMT):

"So a key element is how proper time relates to coordinate time as we move to the future, ... "


4. On Carlo Rovelli's thread,
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/237
George Ellis wrote (Dec. 12, 2008 @ 20:27 GMT):

"But proper time along world lines is indeed a preferred time variable in GR."


5. On Carlo Rovelli's thread,
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/237
George Ellis wrote (Dec. 15, 2008 @ 05:16 GMT)

"Objectively privileged hypersurfaces do indeed exist in standard cosmology, and in all physically realistic solutions."

6. George Ellis (Dec. 12, 2008 @ 06:18 GMT):

"Perhaps this is because all these equations are effective equations deriving from a single deeper unified theory, and it is this common origin that leads to the different times being being consistent. How this could all arise from a unified theory of quantum gravity and fundamental interactions is then what needs clarity."

7. George Ellis (Dec. 4, 2008 @ 05:21 GMT)

"You can't talk about time at all without using the concept of time. My paper is based on how standard quantum theory in fact implies the flow of time in an irreversible way. This is one of the best tested theories in physics."

---------
Comment #2.1: If you wish to talk quantum cosmology, by applying quantum theory to 'the universe itself' (cf. your note [2] above), then I might agree with your conjecture in note [6]. But you will need some brand new quantum theory, not the textbook one, mentioned in [7].

Comment #2.2: If you do not wish to talk quantum cosmology, the task of your whole essay is ultimately focused on your note [3], "how proper time relates to coordinate time as we move to the future", given some "preferred time variable in GR" (note [4]) on some "objectively privileged hypersurfaces" (note [5]).
---------


8. On Carlo Rovelli's thread,
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/237
George Ellis wrote (Dec. 16, 2008 @ 12:01 GMT)

"... enabling the physical states of our neurons to succeed each other in timelike succession in a suitable causally patterned way, there is no way that consciousness can progress from one state to another."


---------
Comment #3:

The Appropriate Content Guidelines for this Forum include "Posts may not contain language or content that is: [...] Excessively outside of the scope of the current topic [...]". The current topic is The Nature of Time, not consciousness.
----------


I wish you best of luck with clarifying the objectives of your essay. If you wish to suggest, after Bill Unruh, that there should exist some "explicit (but unmeasureable) time", please be more specific in its derivation, and then try to imagine how your ideas might help in understanding the gravitational energy -- the proof of the pudding, you know.

Dimi Chakalov


===========

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 18, 2008 @ 10:59 GMT

Dear George,

On Dec. 17, 2008 @ 12:54 GMT, you wrote:

"... why does the arrow of time of quantum theory (related to collapse of the wave function, see for example The Emperor’s New Mind) coincide with the cosmological one (determined by large scale statistical considerations of a classical kind)? I have no answer but it is an important question."

Perhaps because there is no such thing as "arrow of time of quantum theory" in the first place: please check out an essay 'Quantum Mechanics 101'. The link was also provided in the first posting to your thread, from Dec. 2, 2008 @ 07:02 GMT.

I am respectfully awaiting for your professional reply.

Regarding your EBU hypothesis, please also read my specific critical comments from Dec. 16, 2008 @ 14:43 GMT above.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Dimi

---------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 19, 2008 @ 10:33 GMT

Dear George,

You wrote (Dec. 15, 2008 @ 15:22 GMT):

"The current topic is The Nature of Time. I am not interested in a debate on the nature of gravitational energy. Please save us both a lot of bother by desisting this series of postings."

Since you haven't so far found some spare time to answer any of my postings at your thread, may I explain the reason why I respectfully invite you to discuss the nature of gravitational energy as 'the proof of the pudding' for your EBU hypothesis (as well as BU hypothesis in C. Rovelli's "forget time" proposal).

It is well known from GR textbooks (cf. MTW, p. 467) that there are inherent difficulties in defining energy in GR, due to its so-called non-localizability (cf. L. Szabados). Once we introduce Lorentzian metric, we're incapable of capturing the *quasi-local* nature of energy in GR from the outset. There is nothing quasi-local in splitting the spacetime, as in ADM hypothesis, either.

The proponents of BU (Rovelli, Barbour, etc.) can 'sweep the garbage under the rug', because the frozen "block" of spacetime cannot encapsulate any quasi-local object, in neither time nor space. This is a kind of Stalinist approach -- kill the time, kill the problem.

But since you claim that can do better, by proposing an Evolving Block Universe (EBU), I will greatly appreciate your professional explanation of how you tackle the problem of quasi-local -- in time -- energy in GR.

To be specific: You acknowledged (Dec. 17, 2008 @ 12:54 GMT) that cannot offer an answer to the question of "why does the arrow of time of quantum theory (related to collapse of the wave function, see for example The Emperor’s New Mind) coincide with the cosmological one (determined by large scale statistical considerations of a classical kind)?"

Perhaps you can't answer this question because (i) there is no such thing as "arrow of time of quantum theory", as the "collapse" may be an artifact from our incomplete presentation of the dynamics of quantum systems (cf. the first posting to your thread, from Dec. 2, 2008 @ 07:02 GMT), and (ii) the cosmological time arrow encapsulates the quasi-local nature of gravitational energy, which you seem to be very reluctant to discuss.

Please put your cards on the table: there is very little quasi-local time left to the contest ending on January 1, 2009.

Thank you very much in advance.

Dimi

---------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 20, 2008 @ 12:52 GMT

On Dec. 19, 2008 @ 21:15 GMT, George Ellis wrote:

"To Dimi Chakalov:

"I respond to postings that raise questions I find interesting and relevant to the topic under discussion. I do not respond to postings that try to tell me what I should do, and (apart from fqxi essays) I feel no obligation to read any matter on any webpages linked to any postings."

1. Given the lack of professional response to any of my postings on your thread, it seems to me that you do not find the issues raised by me "interesting and relevant to the topic under discussion". You failed to explain which particular issues raised by me were not relevant, however.

2. I was not trying to tell you what you should do, George.

I was quoting from your statements for the sole purpose to show you that they are not better than those produced by your colleagues supporting the "block universe" viewpoint.

I only wanted to help you do better than your opponents. For example, I mentioned your notion of finite infinity from 1984 (Dec. 15, 2008 @ 18:44 GMT), which I believe can be updated and improved, if only you could sort out the tasks set by you: check out the quotes from your numerous postings above (Dec. 16, 2008 @ 14:43 GMT).

3. The fact that you "feel no obligation to read any matter on any webpages linked to any postings" is very sad, in my opinion. As you acknowledged (Dec. 3, 2008 @ 16:47 GMT): "I have puzzled over the Conway-Kochen 'Strong Free Will Theorem' paper, without really understanding what if anything it has to do with free will".

If you follow the link in my first posting (Dec. 2, 2008 @ 07:02 GMT), I suppose you will understand the crux of Conway-Kochen argument. If not, it will be entirely my fault, so please write me back with your specific questions.

Wishing you and all colleagues at this forum a very merry Christmas,

Dimi


-------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 21, 2008 @ 23:18 GMT

George Ellis wrote (Dec. 21, 2008 @ 17:30 GMT):

"Dimi Chakalov

"please explain carefully to me what was unprofessional about my posting of Dec. 21, 2008 @ 12:42 GMT."

You ignored my critical remarks -- all of them.

You wrote (Dec. 21, 2008 @ 12:42 GMT): "In my view the key unsolved problem in classical General Relativity Theory (GRT) is not gravitational energy, it is the definition and nature of gravitational entropy, and the related issue of coarse graining in GR."

I respect your viewpoint, but please notice that you completely ignored all critical remarks in my posting from Dec. 16, 2008 @ 14:43 GMT.

You also wrote (ibid.): "These (pseudotensor definitions - D.C.) have not yet been used to give a satisfactory definition of gravitational entropy, as far as I am aware."

Perhaps because it isn't possible to explain one mess (pseudotensor definitions) with another one (gravitational entropy).

I am not aware of some precise definition of 'low geometric entropy', but if we trust the calculations by Penrose (cf. Singularities and Time-Asymmetry, in General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, ed. by S W Hawking and W Israel, Cambridge University Press, 1979), it seems to me that the initial gravitational entropy had to be *as low as possible*, which in turn means that we cannot begin by assuming a FRW form for the metric -- even approximately.

See Slide 3 from R. Penrose's talk "Before the Big Bang?" (7 November 2005) here.

Big mess. Which is why I asked you to get to the bottom of this 'gravitational energy' and its quasi-local -- in time? -- nature.

But again, the main puzzle in your EBU idea are produced by your own statements, as quoted in my posting from Dec. 16, 2008 @ 14:43 GMT above. As you acknowledged (George Ellis, Dec. 4, 2008 @ 10:00 GMT):

"So a key element is how proper time relates to coordinate time as we move to the future, ... "

If you believe can resolve this 'key element', please test your solution with the problem of gravitational energy, from 1918.

Thank you for your (quasi-local?) time.

D.C.

------------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 04:51 GMT

On Dec. 22, 2008 @ 01:55 GMT, Vesselin Petkov wrote to Peter Lynds:

"Let me propose something that I think is both constructive and fair - publish your objections against the BU view."

The BU hypothesis suffers from an incurable logical error: Non sequitur.

Neither STR nor GR can detect the Heraclitean flow of time, because the latter is supposed to *emerge* along with the *emergence* of 3-D space. These unresolved issues are clearly outside the applicable limits of GR.

If the flow of time were some 'observable in GR', there should be some kind of material content left from it as 'observable in GR', and Einstein’s field equations (EFE) would NOT guarantee "the conservation of total energy-momentum": see Eq. 2 in [George F R Ellis and Henk van Elst, arXiv:gr-qc/9812046v5], and notice that it is valid only if the cosmological constant [lambda] "is constant in time and space" [ibid.]

R. Penrose explicitly stressed (The Road to Reality, p. 777) that "any non-constancy in [lambda] would have to be accompanied by a compensating non-conservation of the mass-energy of the matter."

It should be agonizingly clear that GR cannot address these "dynamic dark energy" (DDE) issues of the Heraclitean flow of time. If GR could detect DDE as some Dirac observable, the latter would make the *perfectly smooth* DDE 'observable in GR', and the ether would come back.

Any definite statement about the flow of time, derived from STR and/or GR, is logically inconsistent. GR is still too "far away" from quantum gravity and quantum cosmology.

If you claim that 'fish cannot ride bicycles, therefore we should "forget" about bicycles', you will make the same logical error, non sequitur. C. Rovelli, J. Barbour, and many other people already made it in their publications.

If you, Peter, or anyone else at this forum cannot understand the text above, it will be entirely my fault, so please don't hesitate to ask questions. Then please tell your students all about the logical error in BU: kids have the right to know everything we know. I hope you all agree.

D.C.

------------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 13:24 GMT

Vesselin Petkov wrote (Dec. 22, 2008 @ 06:02 GMT): "If you really think you have something to say professionally, publish it and you will have my answer."

About twenty years ago, I had a long discussion with two members of Jehovah's Witnesses, and because it was going nowhere, I asked them to formulate the conditions under which they will accept my viewpoint and convert to Catholicism. Never heard from them.

But since Vesselin Petkov is doing science, and is responsible for teaching students (=kids), I respectfully ask him to formulate the conditions under which he will accept that the "block universe" (BU) viewpoint is indeed logically inconsistent, being formulated on the logical error 'non sequitur'.

To the best of my knowledge, Carlo Rovelli and Julian Barbour haven't done it. In the context of the fish & bicycles metaphor (cf. my posting from Dec. 22, 2008 @ 04:51 GMT), they propose to "forget" bicycles, but fail to acknowledge that the "sea" has to have some kind of "boundaries" which nobody has so far managed to *derive* from the "sea" alone (references available upon request).

Stated differently, the first off task toward rejecting the Heraclitean flow of time is to show rigorously the "boundaries" of spacetime. If you can't solve it, you have no logical grounds to expand the applicable limits of STR and GR, and speculate about some "block universe".

Please put *your* cards on the table, and also promise that if I prove BU logically inconsistent, you will tell your students all about it -- kids have the right to know everything we know.

I wonder if you have the guts to do it. You will be the first person to receive my manuscript.

If you can't meet this requirement for scientific research, please note that I am too tired to discuss issues based solely on faith and emotions.

D.C.

------------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 00:38 GMT

Dear Colleagues,

I'm afraid we've been tearing apart George Ellis with our very diverse questions. I for one wish to apologize to George for my violent curiosity.

Perhaps we can put aside our questions, and focus on one issue, which I believe is the crux of his EBU proposal:

I look at my wristwatch, and record some linearized variable called 'coordinate time'. How does my wristwatch read it, given the premise that any finite interval from it belongs to the cosmological time?

------------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 14:10 GMT

George Ellis wrote (Dec. 22, 2008 @ 05:42 GMT):

"There are a number of different positions held by different people making postings on this thread; they have been adequately expressed, and are apparently not going to change."

Please exclude me from this set of people who "are apparently not going to change." I am ready to change my viewpoint, and am flexible enough to accept yours, if only you can make it clear by responding to my critical remarks, hence convince me that I got it wrong.

Merry Christmas to you and all participants in your forum.

D.C.

----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 26, 2008 @ 01:44 GMT

I honestly regret that George Ellis choose to leave this Forum. It is still completely unclear to me how one could falsify his hypothesis about "evolving block universe" (EBU), as compared to the hypothesis about some "block universe" (BU).

I was hoping to see some written statement by George, in which he says something like 'if my conjecture [A] turns out to be wrong, then my EBU hypothesis will be indistinguishable from BU hypothesis'.

In this context, perhaps it is worth considering his statement from Dec. 20, 2008 @ 00:42 GMT above, in which he wrote, in response to Lawrence B Crowell:

"there may not be a timlike Killing vector field, but there is a conformal timlike Killing vector."

The issue of 'conformal timelike Killing vector' has not been mentioned in George Ellis' essay. I will refrain from making any comments, and will instead suggest to the Moderator to ask Claus Kiefer to pass his professional comments on two issues:

(i) the applicability of the 'conformal timelike Killing vector' in cosmology, from the perspective of his latest manuscript "Quantum geometrodynamics: whence, whither?", arXiv:0812.0295v1 [gr-qc], and

(ii) George Ellis' claims that "proper time along world lines is indeed a preferred time variable in GR" (Dec. 12, 2008 @ 20:27 GMT) and "objectively privileged hypersurfaces do indeed exist in standard cosmology" (Dec. 15, 2008 @ 05:16 GMT).

D. Chakalov


-----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 29, 2008 @ 22:05 GMT

Thank you, George, for your comprehensive reply, in which you wrote (Dec. 29, 2008 @ 17:53 GMT):

"... the surfaces S:{s=const} are the globally preferred surfaces of time (“constant proper time since creation of the universe”) on which coming into being will take place."

I also notice that you define proper time along all world lines in "small local neighbourhoods" on which "coming into being will take place", and I promise that will never ever ask more questions about your research. Good luck.

D. Chakalov

------------


Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 14:32 GMT

Responding to Philip Gibbs, George Ellis wrote (Dec. 31, 2008 @ 05:50 GMT):

[1] "By the way I did not emphasize it, but the choice of world lines I make is that of the Landau reference frame, representing the velocity given by the local average of all energy and mass fields in a small neighbourhood."

Responding to Vesselin Petkov, George Ellis wrote (Dec. 31, 2008 @ 05:52 GMT):

[2] "Causality operates as you state it, but only in the EBU region that already exists. This domain is coming into being at the present instant; and what is the present instant now will in another fraction DT of time be in the past.

[3] "As I believe spacetime is quantised, I am happy to assume DT cannot be taken infinitesimally small but rather has a finite lower limit (associated with the Planck time); so there are no paradoxes associated with the present having zero time extent. I am happy if it has a very small but finite duration.

[4] "As regards the quantum case, say the double-slit experiment, I have not attempted a description of how particles exist or not in quantum theory. Whatever works for you in the BU words for me in the EBU according to principle (A), except for cases involving entanglement, which I come to in a minute. I hold by the statement that quantum theory
only predicts probabilities, not specific outcomes.

[5] "Finally, as regards the issue of the EPR-type *experiments*: you state “those experiments are perfectly explained by the BU because the future exists there. But they cannot be explained by the EBU since, on that view, it follows that the non-existing future can determine the outcome of an experiment.”

[6] "But as already stated in a previous post, the EPR analysis is not a relativistic analysis: it is based in the Schroedinger equation.

[7] "As long as any experiment whatever gives a future outcome that is not at present determined even in principle, the EBU description trumps the BU. And we have plenty of such experiments in quantum theory. The relativistic interpretation of the EPR experiments will have to adjust to this fact."

Comment #1: Given the statement [1], about "the local average of all energy and mass fields in a small neighbourhood", and the statement [3], I am under the impression that George Ellis should define the gravitational energy in some 'elementary increment of time' which has "a very small but finite duration". This will be a daunting task, to say the least, because it will require a rigorous explanation of how a "fraction DT of time" [2] is "associated with the Planck time" [3].

Comment #2: By assuming that causality operates "only in the EBU region that already exists" [2], he presupposes the possibility that some physical stuff, call it B , fills in "the present instant now" in a "fraction DT of time", which in turn *implies* that there was (past perfect) some physical stuff A , whose (potential?) future was somehow related, or perhaps influenced, by B . Thus, in order to distinguish EBU from BU, George Ellis has to somehow eliminate totally A in the "fraction DT of time" in which B is present. But the very meaning of B is relational, that is, 'with respect to A and C'. The latter, C , is needed to define B , just as much as A is needed to define B .

I am unable to understand the difference between EBU and BU hypotheses. I'm sure George Ellis can recognize St. Augustine's comments on time in the puzzle above. In modern language, the puzzle was explained by David Bohm as follows (Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Ark edition 1983, p. 204):

"So, if we say that the velocity of a particular *now* (at t_2) is (x_2 - x_1) / (t_2 - t_1) we are trying to relate *what is* (i.e., x_2 and t_2) to *what is not* (i.e., x_1 and t_1). We can of course do this *abstractly and symbolically* (as is, indeed, the common practice in science and mathematics), but the further fact, not comprehended in this abstract symbolism, is that the velocity *now* is active *now* (e.g., it determines how a particle will act from now on, in itself, and in relation to other particles). How are we to understand the *present activity* of a position (x_1) now non-existent and gone for ever?"

Comment #3: Regarding statements [4] - [7], they refer to the clash of STR and QM, which is still unresolved. One of the reasons is that EPR involves counterfactual reasoning, namely, what could have been the outcomes of measurements of "two" (in fact, one) entangled observable(s), had there been some 'now-at-a-distance' reference frame in which one can verify the alleged "instantaneous" correlation. I don't think counterfactual reasoning can be used to support EBU or BU. It is just one big mess.

Happy New Year.


----------------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Jan. 1, 2009 @ 13:58 GMT

In response to the anonymous posting from Jan. 1, 2009 @ 10:31 GMT: I have not posed any questions in my comments from Dec. 31, 2008 @ 14:32 GMT.

I could, for example, ask George Ellis to explain his vision on the non-tensorial gravitational energy in a "fraction DT of time" (cf. Comment #1), but I didn't. The task is known since 1918, if not earlier.

Metaphorically speaking, G. Ellis' EBU hypothesis is like opening the cover of a piano and showing its the moving parts, and then trying to *derive* the actions of the player from the dynamics of these moving parts. Only the player is not there: it is "dark", and we can explain roughly 4 per cent from the composite system 'player + piano'; the rest if a mixture of cold dark matter (CDM) and dynamic dark energy (DDE).

D. Chakalov


-----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Jan. 2, 2009 @ 14:30 GMT

I cannot agree with George that his EBU hypothesis could be "a preferable model to the BU" (Jan. 2, 2009 @ 08:13 GMT).

The current BU hypothesis is adopted in basic GR textbooks. Consider, for example, Robert Geroch (General Relativity from A to B, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978):

"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle."

LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) have adopted this "block" view, and deeply believe that there is no difference between (i) observing the effects of GW radiation in the *past* (as calculated by Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor in the case of the pulsar PSR 1913+16), and (ii) the detection of GWs "online", as they tweak the interference pattern at LIGO.

LSC have spend so far hundreds of millions of dollars and euro -- taxpayers' money -- yet all their "runs" have so far produced stunning failures. Yet they are determined to spend even more, perhaps billions, if the three satellites of LISA are indeed launched.

I think this is far more important than the flexibility of choosing the final date for voting. If George Ellis is right, then LSC might have been on a wrong track from the outset.

Perhaps it will be a good idea if George Ellis proves that EBU hypothesis could be "a preferable model to the BU" by calculating the localization of GW energy along the proper time of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator.

Good luck, George.

Dimi


------------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Jan. 4, 2009 @ 02:42 GMT

On Jan. 3, 2009 @ 12:51 GMT, Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:

"General relativity gives a meaning to proper time, where coordinate time is something determined by a gauge choice. A conformal time, or proper time can lock a choice of coordinate time with proper time, so called synchronous time. Yet all one has done is to make an appropriate gauge-like choice so that certain symmetries of the spacetime define a Killing time vector field. As such the notion of a global time is something which is observer dependent and not "real." "

Larry: Do you believe all this can help George Ellis? As suggested previously (Jan. 2, 2009 @ 14:30 GMT):

"Perhaps it will be a good idea if George Ellis proves that EBU hypothesis could be "a preferable model to the BU" by calculating the localization of GW energy along the proper time of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator."

I am only trying to focus the discussion here, at George Ellis' thread, on this issue of paramount importance.

Perhaps you can help George with his EBU hypothesis, because in the framework of BU hypothesis the alleged localization of GW energy is still theoretically unclear. Besides, recall that LIGO Scientific Collaboration has failed to detect any GW effect whatsoever in five "runs" of LIGO, after spending hundreds of million dollars and euro -- all taxpayers' money.

D. Chakalov


-----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Jan. 4, 2009 @ 12:43 GMT

On Jan. 3, 2009 @ 12:51 GMT, Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:

"That nothing happens in a spacetime or cosmology is due to the fact that time is a part of the field of gravity. This is what makes time, or at least coordinate time, something which is similar to vector potentials, in particular A_t, with internal gauge symmetries. These things do not exist in a physical sense."

I think your last sentence points to a very tricky issue. The Higgs boson hypothesis, for example, is introduced by means of a gauge-breaking "mechanism". As explained by Holger Lyre, Does the Higgs Mechanism Exist? arXiv:0806.1359v1 [physics.gen-ph], pp. 2-3:

"... the status of the symmetries in question, gauge symmetries, is in fact a non-empirical or merely conventional one precisely in the sense that neither global nor local gauge transformations possess any real instantiations (i.e. realizations in the world). Rather their status is comparable to the status of coordinate transformations (the status of gauge symmetries will be addressed in detail in Sec. 3.1).

"How is it then possible to instantiate a mechanism, let alone a dynamics of mass generation, in the breaking of such a kind of symmetry?
...
"Indeed, how can any physical mechanism arise from the breaking of a merely conventional symmetry requirement? (Similarly, one would not think that any physics flows out of the breaking of coordinate invariance! -- Again this will be addressed in detail in Sec. 3.1.)"

But again, let's focus on George Ellis' EBU hypothesis, because if he is on the right track, it should be possible to calculate the alleged localization of GW energy "online", as it tweaks the interference pattern at LIGO.

As George Ellis explained (cf. my posting from Dec. 31, 2008 @ 14:32 GMT):

"This domain is coming into being at the present instant; and what is the present instant now will in another fraction DT of time be in the past."

Can you calculate the localization of GW energy "online", as it is "coming into being at the present instant", along the proper time of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator?

A penny for your thoughts! It may be worth of billions.

D. Chakalov


-----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Jan. 4, 2009 @ 16:03 GMT

John:

Thanks a lot for your comment from Jan. 4, 2009 @ 14:41 GMT. I agree that the past cannot be static, as "it is constantly being added to, as the present becomes past", as you put it.

The same applies to the future in EBU hypothesis, as hinted in John Wheeler's statement: "Time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once". Hence it seems to me that EBU hypothesis should somehow include 'things that we still don't know that we don't know'. If this is correct, George Ellis should allow some brand new things to *emerge* in his EBU, in blatant violation of the unitarity principle.

See how far we can go with philosophy? Let me please go back to the mundane affairs of GW astronomy, from my preceding posting from Jan. 4, 2009 @ 12:43 GMT.

Larry: I can't see anything in your latest posting from Jan. 4, 2009 @ 15:11 GMT that could be relevant to this ultimate test of George Ellis' EBU. Please laid out your professional opinion.

Best regards,

Dimi


----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Jan. 4, 2009 @ 16:38 GMT

P.S. An example of John Wheeler's statement:

Mike Turner pointed out the accepted theoretical claim that elementary particles known as the W boson and the Z boson had no mass when the universe first exploded into being. Modern accelerator experiments have shown, however, that both are very massive today.

Hence one could argue that the W boson and the Z boson had existed "during" the inflationary stage as an Aristotelian potentia. As of today, perhaps the verification of EBU hypothesis (Jan. 4, 2009 @ 12:43 GMT) is also an Aristotelian potentia. I hope Larry will explain his professional opinion.

D.



===============


Final note: Is there light in the tunnel for George Ellis' EBU hypothesis? Maybe. His younger colleague David Wiltshire (University of Canterbury, NZ) stated recently the following (email from Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:06:48 +1300 (NZDT) -- emphasis added):

"Our average background geometry here is close to Minkowski. Spin-2 waves of characteristic frequencies will alter this average background in a time-dependent fashion with a characteristic frequency. That is detectable."

Perhaps he meant the localization of GW energy "in a time-dependent fashion", along the proper time of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator. As he explained today (email from Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:33:13 +1300 (NZDT) -- emphasis added):

"I can write down nonlinear GW solutions, and there is no problem with this. There are a number of solutions of the full Einstein equations which can be written in Kerr-Schild form, and thus are exact perturbations of flat space, with no approximations. This includes Schwarzschild, Kerr and p-p waves. I am not talking about the linearized approximation, or the second order approximation, but the full nonlinear theory."

What a startling revelation!

I immediately asked David Wiltshire to write up a research manuscript on the detection of GWs in the "full nonlinear theory", and explain the detectors for the localization of GW energy "in a time-dependent fashion". Perhaps he will somehow manage to disentangle the alleged localized-on-a-trajectory GW energy from the non-tensorial gravitational energy that cannot perform such miracle due to the Equivalence Principle.

David Wiltshire will face a daunting task: see Hans Stephani, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1982, Sec. 15.3, and Hans-Jürgen Schmidt, gr-qc/0407095, Sec. 4.2, Why do all the curvature invariants of a gravitational wave vanish?

On the other hand, you never know with people like David Wiltshire (he proposed recently that there could be "sections" of the universe in which it is 18.6 billion years old).

Let's wish David L. Wiltshire, Lawrence B. Crowell, and George F R Ellis best of luck with sorting out the whole mess of GW "astronomy".


D. Chakalov
January 4, 2009



 



4
. To Julian Barbour:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 2, 2008 @ 05:20 GMT

Julian Barbour is again trying to suggest that (quote) "time should be banished" (end of quote), but the simple proof against his hypothesis is the fact that his brain is working.

Namely, no living brain can operate in a "block universe", because it will have to function as a Turing machine installed in some IGUS, and the perpetual "encoding of information", by any conceivable "code", will lead to decreasing of the entropy of the "hard drive", until the poor Turing machine develops severe structural damages and breaks down with a stroke.

Please check out the essay 'Quantum Mechanics 101'.
---

Explanatory note: The reason why Julian Barbour (see below) will never ever read the text at the link above is that it will kill his hypotheses by demonstrating the possibility for transience. But it is not produced by some "collapse", as he expected (p. 359): Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

D.C.
March 23, 2009
 



5.
To Chi Ming Hung:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 22:24 GMT

Dear Dr. Hung,

You wrote in your essay (p. 8): "So Time has the topology of a linearly ordered discrete set, isomorphic to the set of integers."

And in your posting from Dec. 3, 2008 @ 01:44 GMT, you expressed your belief that ".. we can define change as simply the discrete transition from the state at one instant to the state at the next instant, WITHOUT ANYTHING HAPPENING IN BETWEEN."

Do you know the nature of continuum, namely, how many points are there on a straight line in Euclidean space? (cf. Kurt Gödel, "What is Cantor's Continuum Problem?", American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 54, No. 9, November 1947, pp. 515-525).

I believe the puzzle of these "points" can be explained with Thompson's lamp paradox: Imagine a lamp that is turned 'on' at some instant labeled with 0 , and is left 'on' for 1 min, then turned 'off' for 0.5 min, then 'on' for 0.25 min, etc., ad infinitum. Do we have a limit? Obviously yes: 2 min. Fine, but what is the state of the lamp in the instant/point labeled with '2 min'? UNdecidable?

Just some musings, prompted by your statement with capital letters.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 01:46 GMT

Dear Chi,

Thank you for your prompt reply from Dec. 11, 2008 @ 01:07 GMT.

You wrote: "But in order for your argument to hold, you actually need to assume a physical time continuum (or at least a dense set) from the start!"

I don't need to assume any additional properties of the continuum, apart from those identified by Kurt Gödel -- please read his 1947 article. I only object to your belief that ".. we can define change as simply the discrete transition from the state at one instant to the state at the next instant, WITHOUT ANYTHING HAPPENING IN BETWEEN."

Nothing can go "in between" two adjacent points, and nothing can verify the state of the Thompson lamp at the point labeled with '2'. Perhaps you may wish to think of it as superposition of |on> + |off> , which of course will produce even more musings.

Regards,

Dimi 
 



6.
To Sean Carroll:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 21:29 GMT

Sean:

To quote from your essay (p. 9), you take "a very reasonable, if far from unimpeachable, set of assumptions -- a quantum state evolving in time according to the conventional Schrödinger equation with a time-independent Hamiltonian", and set your goal (p. 4) as "it is worth our effort to pursue their ramifications and see where we end up."

I have a simple suggestion. Five years ago, in your arXiv:astro-ph/0310342v2, you were musing on the “smooth tension” of the "dark energy", and acknowledged "a problem, a puzzle, and a scandal".

To clarify what kind of "time" may be implied in the set of assumptions in your recent essay, try to embed the “smooth tension” into some Cauchy surface, as explained in your graduate-level textbook "Spacetime and Geometry".

If you fail, I hope you will have a much better idea of "where we end up" with your essay, and how to fix your problems.

Good luck.

Dimi Chakalov



7
. To Carlo Rovelli:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 2, 2008 @ 06:41 GMT

Hi Carlo,

Your Conclusion #4 is "to forget the notion of time all together, and to define a quantum theory capable of predicting the possible correlations between partial observables", which perhaps is related to your statement that "general relativity challenges strongly our intuitive notion of a universal flow of time."

But you stressed in gr-qc/0604045 v2 that "the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable."

Ergo, GR cannot reject something that is beyond it. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you consult Prof. Karel Kuchar.

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 2, 2008 @ 08:21 GMT

P.S. Following the line of reasoning adopted by C. Rovelli, in a fundamental description of nature we must "forget" 3-D space as well, because there is noting in GR to reveal some mechanism producing a spacelike hypersurface with respect to which people talk about "time", as in ADM hypothesis on "the dynamics of GR". In this sense, GR cannot reject something that is beyond it, as stated in my preceding post. Nor can GR explain the apparent time-orientability of spacetime, which also is beyond its applicable limits.

It is completely unclear to me how Rovelli's "partial observables" can shed light on something that is beyond both GR and QM.

It seems to me that Rovelli's recipe for quantum gravity is this: take Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity in their current formulation, with all their well-known problems, blend them into some new theory with "partial observables", and hope that the problems of QM may be solved from GR, and the problems of GR may be solved from QM. Don't try to solve any of the initial problems of QM and GR beforehand. Just hope and pray that the "good parts" from QM and GR will cure all problems.

Picture this: you have a car (QM) which runs quite well on some roads, but fails miserably on some essential roads, and a helicopter (GR) that also runs in some favorable weather conditions, but is totally useless in bad weather. Take the car and the helicopter, and build a brand new vehicle, which will run better than the car and fly better than the helicopter, and will also allow you to dive deep into the ocean, as a perfect submarine.

Is this Rovelli's recipe for quantum gravity?

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 12, 2008 @ 03:58 GMT

Regarding my posting from Dec. 2, 2008 @ 08:21 GMT above: Let's recap on the facts.

As of today, Carlo Rovelli's essay "Forget time" got 6 Registered Votes, and 103 Public Votes.

Yet he hasn't made any effort to explain what may happen to 3-D space in case we choose to "forget time". I do hope he will do this until the contest ending date, January 1, 2009.

Please correct me if I got it wrong: In the canonical formalism of today's GR, the foliation of spacetime into 3-D spacelike hypersurfaces enables the distinction of two infinitesimally neighboured hypersurfaces, so if we "forget" about [delta]_t, we must "forget" about the whole 3-D spacelike hypersurface as well. It's a package -- see the drawing attached.

Carlo Rovelli has been manifestly silent on this fundamental issue.

He wrote (Oct. 24, 2008 @ 17:53 GMT): "... I think that in order to have a clear picture the easiest thing is to "forget space" and "forget time", and only to talk about relations between observable quantities."

And in his latest posting (Nov. 9, 2008 @ 10:42 GMT), he added even more confusing remarks: "... the probabilities of all the possible specific-measurement's outcomes predicted by the theory must sum up to one. Unitarity in *this* sense must of course be implemented by the timeless theory, and it is."

It is totally unclear why would the "observable quantities" care about each other's relational stance, nor what would be the driving force that implements the unitarity principle.

For if Nature chooses to "forget time", the "observable quantities" would need human consciousness to get their job done. Or maybe Carlo Rovelli should re-write his essay?

If he chooses the latter, there is a simple way to convince us that we should indeed "forget time": The very mechanism which shapes '3-D space' should be proven non-existent.

Carlo: If you believe can kill the Heraclitean Time, you should first kill the generation of 3-D space.

Please do not "forget" the event of contest ending, January 1, 2009.

Dimi Chakalov
attachments: adm.jpg
 

 

------


anonymously written on Dec. 12, 2008 @ 16:21 GMT

Hi Carlo:

You wrote (Dec. 12, 2008 @ 13:11 GMT): "The result is that some say I am too radical; others, like Dimi in this post, say I am too conservative... I don't know what I am; I am just trying to find tentative solutions to the problems on the table .... "

1. I never said that you are "too conservative". What I actually suggested (Dec. 12, 2008 @ 03:58 GMT) was this:

If you believe can kill the Heraclitean Time, you should first kill the generation of 3-D space.

2. We all are trying to find tentative solutions to the problems on the table, but I'm afraid your approach is logically inconsistent: you "derive" statements about time and space from a theory -- GR -- that cannot say anything about those same statements. Your whole essay is tantamount to speculating on the precise conditions "inside" a singularity, knowing very well that GR cannot be extended outside its applicable limits.

I also suggested you to consult Prof. Karel Kuchar. If he is busy, I can quote from his research papers.

As to your relational ontology, please check out the so-called Buridan donkey paradox.

Dimi

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 13:01 GMT

Hi Carlo,

I am also going to break in here, because I believe George Ellis made a crucial remark.

George explained his understanding of your claim that there is no preferred time variable in GR (George Ellis, Dec. 12, 2008 @ 20:27 GMT):

"This is correct as regards spacelike surfaces that can represent constant time. But proper time along world lines is indeed a preferred time variable in GR. The fundamental difference from Newtonian theory is that the preferred time is defined along world lines, instead of by spacelike surfaces. Proper times along timelike worldlines is what is measured by clocks ticking (p.3). So you focus on problems with surfaces of constant time, I focus on the meaningful nature of proper time along world lines."

On the other hand, in your arXiv:gr-qc/0604045v2, p. 4, you explained your understanding of 'no preferred time variable in GR' in the following fashion:

"In general relativity, when we describe the dynamics of the gravitational field (not to be confused with the dynamics of matter in a given gravitational field), there is no external time variable that can play the role of observable independent evolution variable. The field equations are written in terms of an evolution parameter, which is the time coordinate x^0, but this coordinate, does not correspond to anything directly observable. The proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself.

Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable.
...

"This weakening of the notion of time in classical GR is rarely emphasized: After all, in classical GR we may disregard the full dynamical structure of the theory and consider only individual solutions of its equations of motion. A single solution of the GR equations of motion determines “a spacetime”, where a notion of proper time is associated to each timelike worldline (notice the remark by George above - D.C.).

"But in the quantum context a single solution of the dynamical equation is like a single “trajectory” of a quantum particle: in quantum theory there are no physical individual trajectories: there are only transition probabilities between observable eigenvalues. Therefore in quantum gravity it is likely to be impossible to describe the world in terms of a
spacetime, in the same sense in which the motion of a quantum electron cannot be described in terms of a single trajectory."

It seems to me that you and George are discussing 'apples and oranges': you are discussing the problem of time in classical GR, while he was (tacitly?) implying some yet-to-be discovered quantum gravity in which the "meaningful nature of proper time along world lines" (George Ellis, Dec. 12, 2008 @ 20:27 GMT) would be akin to "a single trajectory" (arXiv:gr-qc/0604045v2, p. 4).

May I ask you to sort out this issue with 'scrupulous intellectual honesty' (C. Rovelli, arXiv:gr-qc/0109034v2, p. 9).

Please also notice my criticism of your Essay, posted earlier (Dec. 12, 2008 @ 03:58 GMT and Dec. 12, 2008 @ 16:21 GMT): the Heraclitean Time, which corresponds to the very *generation of 3-D space*, is absent in GR.

Again, if you really believe, with scrupulous intellectual honesty, that we should "forget" time, you have to demonstrate the emergence of 3-D space from some primitive (Borel?) set of abstract mathematical points, and then prove that this *emergence* is indeed timeless.

Please act promptly: the Heraclitean Time you have by the contest ending (January 1, 2009) is running out.

Dimi

------


Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 14, 2008 @ 14:01 GMT

Addendum to my request for clarification, posted on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 13:01 GMT:

George wrote (George Ellis, Dec. 12, 2008 @ 20:27 GMT):

"But proper time along world lines is indeed a preferred time variable in GR."

May I ask you to clarify the exact meaning of your "preferred time variable in GR" by elaborating on the affine connection. Let me quote from Wikipedia:

"... parallel transport along the curve preserves the tangent vector to the curve, so

nabla_{dotgamma} dotgamma= 0

at each point along the curve, where dotgamma is the derivative with respect to t."

George: Is your "preferred time variable in GR" keeping track on *each point along the curve*? If yes, what is the mechanism of this tracking?

Also, is dotgamma the derivative with respect to some gauge-dependent coordinate time, t, or is it with respect to the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories?

Regarding the latter, Carlo wrote (C. Rovelli, arXiv:gr-qc/0604045v2, p. 4):

"The proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable."

I trust Carlo will elaborate on the (timeless?) affine connection as well.

As Alan Rendall acknowledged:

"In elementary textbooks on general relativity we read that the Einstein equations imply that small bodies move on geodesics of the spacetime metric. It is very hard to make this into a mathematically precise statement which refers to actual solutions of the Einstein equations (and not just to some formal approximations)."

Perhaps Carlo Rovelli's suggestion to "forget" time and space is rooted on some 'formal approximations'. Recall Murphy's Law No. 15: Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers.

Dimi Chakalov

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 15, 2008 @ 20:05 GMT

On Dec. 12, 2008 @ 13:11 GMT, Carlo Rovelli wrote:

"I apologize for the posts I am not answering to. I am tryng to catch up..."

No rush, please take your time. I believe have showed that your approach is logically inconsistent -- please check out my postings above from Dec. 12, 2008 @ 16:21 GMT, Dec. 13, 2008 @ 13:01 GMT, and Dec. 14, 2008 @ 14:01 GMT, and follow the links.

In a nutshell, your logical error would be similar to the following claim: Fish cannot ride bicycles, therefore we should "forget" about bicycles.

More on the intrinsic limitations of GR in my posting to Gavin Crooks from Dec. 13, 2008 @ 20:55 GMT.

Dimi Chakalov

-------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 15:56 GMT

[My apologies to Carlo for breaking into his thread]

On Dec. 16, 2008 @ 02:58 GMT, Vesselin Petkov wrote:

"Yes, of course, the evidence that time flows is indeed overwhelming, but that evidence is not physical."

If the evidence were physical, there would be some bona fide (Dirac) observable in GR, which would reveal the source and the origin of the "dynamic dark energy", and the ether will come back.

Therefore, we should not expect to catch any *physical* evidence for the flow of time.

You also wrote (ibid.): "... the macro scale evidence supporting the block universe view is overwhelming."

Please see a startling confession by Thomas Thiemann in astro-ph/0607380 v1:

"The puzzle here is that these observed quantities are mathematically described by functions on the phase space which do not Poisson commute with the constraints! Hence they are not gauge invariant and therefore should not be observable in obvious contradiction to reality."

More in my post to Gavin Crooks from Dec. 13, 2008 @ 20:55 GMT.

Dimi Chakalov
 

------

Note: I believe the confusion between George Ellis and Carlo Rovelli can be explained with a modified picture of the foliation of spacetime, which I will borrow from C. Kiefer and B. Sandhöfer, arXiv:0804.0672v1 [gr-qc], Fig. 1.


Perhaps George Ellis was implying the picture on the left (as he put it, "the fundamental difference from Newtonian theory is that the preferred time is defined along world lines, instead of by spacelike surfaces"), while Carlo Rovelli (arXiv:gr-qc/0604045v2, p. 4) was talking about the picture on the right, "where a notion of proper time (but not "preferred time", as George Ellis claims - D.C.) is associated to each timelike worldline", depicted with three coordinate-dependent points A, B, and C, projected on the upper 3-D hypersurface.

But these coordinate-dependent "points" A, B, and C are nothing but the "local coordinates on M", at "each point along the curve, where dotgamma is the derivative with respect to t", as explained in Wikipedia. We cannot employ the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories, to write the geodesic equation, so we have to replace it with its linearized (if available), and highly misleading, "projection", t , left on a Cauchy surface.

This "projection", t , is highly misleading and causes great confusion even to experts in GR, because it is an already-linearized, and gauge-dependant, 'time in GR' that your poor wristwatch (cf. Chris Isham) does read very well. The dynamics of this linearization procedure is what is missing in GR, to resolve the Cauchy problem for Einstein field equations.

Any time you look at your wristwatch and talk about GR, you enter this huge unresolved task in GR. More from Graham Nerlich.

You may need quantum gravity to actually "see", from the viewpoint of some absolute meta-observer, the "proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories"  -- it "cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself", says Carlo Rovelli.

A lot more can be said about the difference between some "single solution of the GR equations" (C. Rovelli) and the hypothesis of George Ellis, as well as about the very dynamics of selecting a single solutions from all potential "eigenvalues" -- one-at-a-time only, along The Heraclitean Time (cf. the arrow of spacetime).

Check out my posting No. 9 to Gavin Crooks below.

As to George Ellis' hypothesis, he summarized it in the following fashion (Dec. 12, 2008 @ 20:27 GMT): "But proper time along world lines is indeed a preferred time variable in GR." A brief explanation was offered to Lawrence B. Crowell (George Ellis wrote on Dec. 12, 2008 @ 04:24 GMT; links added to explain my viewpoint):

"Time in GR is represented as integrals along particle world lines, related to measurement and physics by ideal clocks (which of course being physical objects move along timelike world lines). The underlying assumption is different such clocks (atomic, electromagnetic, mechanical, etc) will all concur on one universal concept of time ('proper time') along the world line."

And on Dec. 12, 2008 @ 06:18 GMT, he added:

"The additional comment is that there are 'times' that occur in each of the fundamental equations of physics: Newton's equation, Maxwell's equations, the Schroedinger equation, the Dirac equation, general relativity when expressed in the 1+3 covariant formalism. Now these different times along an arbitrary world line could have been incommensurate, but in fact they turn out to be the same (up to a constant that can be normalised to unity by choice of units). That is the deep feature that leads to a consistent concept of time along world lines, mentioned in my last posting. Perhaps this is because all these equations are effective equations deriving from a single deeper unified theory, and it is this common origin that leads to the different times being consistent.

"How this could all arise from a unified theory of quantum gravity and fundamental interactions is then what needs clarity."

I fully agree. As stated by Sergiu Klainerman: "A proper definition of global solutions in GR requires a special discussion concerning the proper time of timelike geodesics." And 'global solutions in GR' is what we need to clarify most, before embarking to quantum gravity.
 

D. Chakalov
December 13, 2008
Last update: December 15, 2008

 



8
. To Claus Kiefer:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 11:47 GMT

Hi Claus,

You wrote: "Time emerges from the separation into two different subsystems: one subsystem (here: the gravitational part) defines the time with respect to which the other subsystem (here: the non-gravitational part) evolves."[footnote 2]

Footnote 2: "More precisely, some of the gravitational degrees of freedom can also remain quantum, while some of the non-gravitational variables can be macroscopic and enter the definition of time."

May I ask you to elaborate on the GR dictum -- 'matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter where to go' -- in the framework of your ideas, as clarified in footnote 2. Thank you very much in advance.

As to the "problem of time", check out a simple Gedankenexperiment in Wikipedia and its discussion here.

Regards,

Dimi

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 14:01 GMT

Hi Claus,

I very much hope to hear from you. To explain my request posted on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 11:47 GMT, may I quote from your essay (p. 2): The Schrödinger equation (1) is, with respect to t, deterministic and time-reversal invariant. As was already emphasized by Wolfgang Pauli, the presence of both t and i are crucial for the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics, in particular for the conservation of probability in time."

But if we accept your belief that time emerges only as some “semiclassical time”, and is (p. 6) "only an approximate concept", how would you address the Hilbert space problem? In your words: "What is the appropriate inner product that encodes the probability interpretation and that is conserved in time?" (C. Kiefer, arXiv:gr-qc/9906100v1, p. 15)

I wonder if you can solve the Hilbert space problem with some “semiclassical time”, given your speculation that (Essay, p. 6): "... the Hilbert-space structure, too, is an approximate structure and that different mathematical structures are needed for full quantum gravity."

For if you can't solve the Hilbert space problem, your prerequisites from the Schrödinger equation (p. 2) may not be relevant at all, and you will have to start from scratch, by replacing the Hilbert-space structure with ... well, something else (perhaps "different mathematical structures", as you put it).

I believe Schrödinger provided a viable hint to this 'something else' in November 1950; check out 'Quantum Mechanics 101'.

Regards,

Dimi

-----------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 26, 2008 @ 17:01 GMT

Dear Claus,

You wrote (Dec. 23, 2008 @ 17:05 GMT) that you "want to advocate a novel perspective on the interpretation of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and its timeless nature: being very conservative and imposing only two principles (universal validity of the Schr"odinger equation and the semiclassical correctness of Einstein's theory)..."

The first principle you decided to employ, the alleged "universal validity of the Schr"odinger equation", may be wrong, as I tried to argue since I read Ch. 10, 'Quantum gravity and the interpretation of quantum theory', in the first edition of your monograph "Quantum Gravity" (May 2004).

Please check out my essay 'Quantum Mechanics 101'; the link was in my posting from Dec. 11, 2008 @ 14:01 GMT above.

You also wrote (Dec. 23, 2008 @ 17:05 GMT): "In the quantum theory, on the other hand, spacetime has disappeared completely as a consequence of the uncertainty relations, ..."

I believe it is safe to say that, while quantum theory has been empirically established, there could be many *artifacts* from the "filter" we impose on the quantum realm with the 'spacetime of facts' of STR: please check out the KS Theorem in the essay on QM mentioned above.

If you disagree, please explain your arguments.

If you agree, please notice that the Hilbert space problem (C. Kiefer, Quantum geometrodynamics: whence, whither?", arXiv:0812.0295v1 [gr-qc]) may be solved along with the 'problem of time'  en bloc , as it should be done.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Dimi

 



9
. To Fotini Markopoulou:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 03:15 GMT

Dear Fotini,

You claim that, in quantum gravity, "[mu]atter becomes both geometry and matter" (p. 8), but because in GR "matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter where to go", it is obvious that your wristwatch cannot "read" the non-linear dynamics of negotiation between
the two sides in Einstein Equations (p. 1). Perhaps your (inanimate) wristwatch will inevitably halt by trying to "read" such (global) time, hence the illusion about some "problem of time".

Check out a Gedankenexperiment from Wikipedia here.
 



10
. To Adam Helfer:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 03:37 GMT

Dear Adam,

You claim (p. 2) that "the main unanswered question in quantum theory is, When does a measurement occur?", and stressed (Sec. 5) that "a natural approach to understanding time in quantum theory is via its classically conjugate variable, energy." All this reminded me of the invisible cat, Macavity, which shows up only when no one is looking at it, just like the
negative energy density in QFT (arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v2). Perhaps Macavity is always unobservable or gauge-dependent, and can be "located" only with a Gedankenexperiment from Wikipedia here.

I like your essay very much. The more I read it, the more I learn from you. Thank you.

Best regards -- Dimi

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 20:14 GMT

Adam:

Glad to learn that the ideas in your Essay are related to the "invisible" (gauge-dependent?) cat Macavity (arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v2).

Please check out the so-called Buridan donkey paradox. Perhaps Macavity facilitates all "negotiations" between the donkeys. As you conjectured in your Essay (p. 3), "perhaps time is not merely a parameter, but another sort of thing, in quantum theory."

To the best of my knowledge, you are the first person to propose a new sort of time-energy uncertainty relation (Sec. 5.3, p. 8). I hope you will be awarded 10xFirst Prize in this contest.

Best - Dimi
 



11
. To Gavin Crooks:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 20:55 GMT

Dear Dr. Crooks,

May I try to answer the question in the title of your essay.

In your essay "Whither Time's Arrow?", you wrote: "Neither Newtonian mechanics, special or general relativity, quantum mechanics, nor quantum field theory picks a preferred direction in time, anymore than these theories picks out a preferred direction in space."

The apparent "expansion" of space due to the so-called 'dark energy from empty space' (L. Krauss, reference available upon request) does not pick up any preferred direction in space either, simply because this "direction" is omnipresent -- there is no direction in which space does NOT expand. The latter is ultimately needed as a reference direction w.r.t.w. we could discover another, preferred direction of space expansion.

Notice that such task is banned in GR by default, because it would require that GR determines the evolution of the lapse function and shift vector, along the "arrow" of the spacetime foliation. But as the lapse and the shift are gauge functions, any conversion into some Dirac observables would inevitably expose an *observable* absolute reference frame, and the ether will come back.

Hence many people at this Forum claim that we should "forget" time, but somehow avoid the driving force of the cosmological time arrow, and also the drastic contradiction between the predictions of their theories and all astronomical evidence of the cosmological time. As Thomas Thiemann acknowledged in astro-ph/0607380 v1:

"Why is it that the FRW equations describe the physical time evolution which is actually observed for instance through red shift experiments, of physical, that is observable, quantities such as the scale parameter?

"The puzzle here is that these observed quantities are mathematically described by functions on the phase space which do not Poisson commute with the constraints! Hence they are not gauge invariant and therefore should not be observable in obvious contradiction to reality."

In short, to answer the question posed in the title of your essay, the direction of time arrow is the one in which the amount of dynamic dark energy (DDE) is increasing -- the more time elapses along the cosmological time arrow, the more DDE we wind up with.

I tried to explain this paradoxical situation to my teenage daughter as follows: Suppose you accelerate a car, but the fuel gauge shows that you're actually gaining more fuel by accelerating the car. That's the ultimate 'free lunch' provided by DDE, only physicists cannot explain it.

A penny for your thoughts! It may be worth of billions, since we're talking about the cleanest and truly unlimited energy source.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
 




12.
To Dean Rickles:

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 4, 2008 @ 01:30 GMT

Dean:

May I ask you to help me understand your main idea. You wrote:

" ... general relativity leads us to view spacetime geometry as part of a dynamical system, as something that satisfies equations of motion and evolves. But clearly the evolution here cannot be understood in a temporal sense, unless we have at our disposal some external time parameter in which to understand it."
...

"The observables so 'localized' are relational in the sense that they are not defined on a background space but only relative to other dynamical entities (matter fields, spatial volume, etc.). Observables are not of the form A(x; t) (where x and t label an independent manifold) but A(B) (where B is another observable and neither B nor A is privileged in any sense)."

Footnote 5: "I restrict the discussion to classical systems in order to make the presentation easier to follow. For the technically savvy, one can transform to the quantum case, roughly, by thinking of the functional relation or correlation A(B) as representing the expectation values of A relative to the eigenvalues of B."

I am not "technically savvy" (cf. footnote 5), and cannot grasp the line of thought in the three excerpts from your essay, particularly the adverb "roughly" in footnote 5.

To be specific, the relational emergence of time poses a paradox, which may be explained as follows.

Imagine a herd of Buridan donkeys, with two stacks of hey in front of each donkey, such that the distance from any given donkey to its stacks of hey is determined -- relationally -- by 'the rest of the donkeys in the herd'.

Consider a donkey called A, and denote 'the rest of the donkeys in the herd' with B, to match your idea in the second excerpt above.

We end up with totally halted/frozen set of (Buridan) donkeys, because donkey A has to wait until the distance to its stacks of hey is determined by B , but any donkey that belongs to the subset denoted with B has to wait until the distance to its stacks of hey is determined -- relationally -- by A.


And since none of the donkeys is "privileged in any sense" (cf. above), the same halting occurs for all donkeys.

I restrict the discussion to classical donkeys in order to make the presentation of the paradox easier to follow. Hope you can solve this 'classical Buridan donkey paradox', and show that the "relational emergence of time" matches the time read by your wristwatch. Then please proceed to the mystery outlined in your footnote 5 above.

Good luck.

Dimi Chakalov

------

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 14:31 GMT

Dean:

RE your reply from Dec. 4, 2008 @ 02:16 GMT: to get the dynamics for 'the whole universe' -- the only 'truly isolated system' -- your first off task is to define some reference object with respect to which you can talk about 'the whole universe'. As you acknowledged, your procedure is 'local', hence you are forced to "employ different internal times and patch them together (using some suitable transformation rules)", which in turn makes your "relational evolution" look like pulling yourself (and your horse) out of the swamp by your own hair (Baron Munchausen).

The task is known since Aristotle -- recall The First Cause and Karel Kuchar's Unmoved Mover ("The Problem of Time In Quantum Geometrodynamics", in "The Arguments of Time", ed. by Jeremy Butterfield, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, p. 193).

I'm afraid you have completely missed the argument in the Buridan donkey paradox.

D.C.
 


 

Three questions to the technically savvy (cf. footnote 5 above) readers:

Q1: If you allow all donkeys to negotiate their 'relational evolution' in the global mode of time, as explained eloquently in Wikipedia, would you observe their collective holomovement (like a shoal of fish swinging along a coral reef) and their "quantum wave"?

Q2: Would you observe any jerky movement resembling Schrödinger's verdammte Quantenspringerei ?

Q3: What kind of detector can poke into the energy of GWs?


BTW these at-the-same-time negotiations (more here) in the
Buridan donkey paradox, as depicted with Esher's drawing below, may be very elucidating for understanding the dynamics of the human brain (the 'binding problem'), as well as the dynamics of GR.

 


D. Chakalov
December 11, 2008

 


============================



Subject: The Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity is inherently flawed
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:17:06 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Natalia Kiriushcheva <nkiriush@uwo.ca>
Cc: Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>

Dear Natalie,

I read with great interest your latest paper [Ref. 1]. Regarding the issue of (active) diffeomorphism invariance, and the task for avoiding the restriction imposed by the "slicing" of spacetime (ibid.), perhaps you may wish to check out

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Angelo

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Perhaps some day Bob Wald will upgrade his ageing textbook with your arguments, and also re-examine the (dark) energy in GR,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Paddy

Kindest regards,

Dimi

----

[Ref. 1] Natalia Kiriushcheva et al., The Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity: myths and reality, arXiv:0809.0097v1 [gr-qc],
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0097

p. 7: "The conclusion about the results of [19] and [26] should be that the ADM decomposition is inessential and incorrect because it does not lead to diffeomorphism invariance. This discrepancy between these two recent results vindicates Hawking's old statement [27] "the split into three spatial dimensions and one time dimension seems to be contrary to the whole spirit of relativity", ... .
...
pp. 8-9: "In GR, an entire spatial slice can only be seen by an observer in the infinite future [34] and an observer at any point on a space-like surface does not have access to information about the rest of the surface (this is reflected in the local nature of (3) in field theories). It would be non-physical to build any formalism by basing it on the development in time of data that can be available only in the infinite future and trying to fit GR into a scheme of classical determinism and nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics with its notion of a wave function defined on a space-like slice.

"The condition that a space-like surface remains space-like obviously imposes restrictions on possible coordinate transformations, thereby destroying four-dimensional symmetry, and, according to Hawking, "it restricts the topology of space-time to be the product of the real line with some three-dimensional manifold, whereas one would expect that quantum gravity would allow all possible topologies of space-time including those which are not product" [27].

"This restriction, imposed by the slicing of space-time, must be lifted at the quantum level [35]; but, from our point of view, avoiding it at the outset seems to be the most natural cure for this problem."
 

 

==================


Subject: Quantizing Spacetime: Quantum Mechanics 101
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:00:00 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: John <john.g.taylor@kcl.ac.uk>
Cc: Franklin Felber <felber@san.rr.com>,
Fran De Aquino <deaquino@uema.br>,
Alexander Kaganovich <alexk@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>,
Kazunari Shima <shima@sit.ac.jp>,
Motomu Tsuda <tsuda@sit.ac.jp>,
Chris.van-den-Broeck@astro.cf.ac.uk

Dear John,

I agree with you that in the quantum realm the spacetime cannot be an affine manifold [Ref. 1], but for quite different reasons,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

I will appreciate your opinion, as well as the professional feedback from your colleagues.

Best regards,

Dimi

----

[Ref. 1] J. G. Taylor, Quantizing space-time, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2336-2348 (1979), http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v19/p2336


==================
 

Subject: Re: The Ashgate Companion
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:58:25 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Dean Rickles <drickles@ucalgary.ca>,
Dean Rickles <d.rickles@usyd.edu.au>
Cc: david.wallace@balliol.ox.ac.uk


http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Just never ever tell people you knew nothing about 'Quantum Mechanics 101'.

D.C.


-------------
Subject: Re: The Ashgate Companion
From: Dean Rickles <drickles@ucalgary.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 00:52:12 +1100
Message-Id: <6D064C12-437E-455C-A3AF-6F0EB8DC93AA@ucalgary.ca>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Cc: david.wallace@balliol.ox.ac.uk,
Dean Rickles <d.rickles@usyd.edu.au>

Dimi,

You won't receive the kind of polite response Chris Isham gave from me: instead, I cordially invite you to get stuffed. Do some real work instead of writing all of these stupid, rude emails - and go learn some physics if you're genuinely interested in it!

[snip]


 

==================

Subject: Black holes?
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Demetrios Christodoulou <demetri@math.ethz.ch>
Cc: Shahar Hod <shaharhod@gmail.com>,
Jarmo Makela <jarmo.makela@puv.fi>

Dear Dr. Christodoulou,

I searched all 594 pages of your arXiv:0805.3880 v1 for "Loinger". Can't understand why you didn't even mention his articles and monographs,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Loinger

Perhaps you could explain your professional opinion on Prof. Loinger's work in arXiv:0805.3880 v2, say.

Your two colleagues in the CC: list also ignored some basic facts about those alleged "black holes".

Sincerely yours,

D. Chakalov
----

Note: Suppose naked singularities (singular points that are not preceded by a trapped region, and which are causally connected to infinity) occur "in the gravitational collapse of a scalar field", as suggested by Demetrios Christodoulou in arXiv:0805.3880 v1, by working with "a spacetime manifold (M, g), with boundary, smooth solution of the vacuum Einstein equations". How come none of these vicious "naked singularities", the timeliked ones included, have happened in the past 13.7 billion years?

I can't trust any 'smooth spacetime manifold with boundary' obtained under such drastically simplified case, because it may produce a hoax: some geodesically complete spacetime tending to flatness at infinity along any geodesic, thus "establishing the stability of Minkowski space" in the framework of GR (Surveys in differential geometry: Essays on Einstein Manifolds, 365-385, Surv. Diff. Geom. VI, Int. Press, Boston, MA, 1999). If this were the case chosen by Nature, Demetrios Christodoulou might be able to convert apples (GR) into oranges (STR), along with "providing the basis for a rigorous theory of gravitational radiation", but only after denouncing all rigorous proofs to the opposite, from Angelo Loinger.

Unless you focus exclusively on vacuum Einstein equations, there is no way to derive STR as some smooth limit of GR -- read Anatol Logunov. The very idea that Minkowski spacetime would provide "the basis for a rigorous theory of gravitational radiation" makes no sense, unless the reader of these lines can demonstrate some smooth reversible transition between GR and STR. And because the "gravitational radiation" makes no sense in the full non-linear GR, the transition GR <--> STR (the alleged "basis for a rigorous theory of gravitational radiation") doesn't make sense either.

In the final chapter of arXiv:0805.3880 v1, Demetrios Christodoulou writes: "We are now ready to reach the aim of this work, namely the analysis of the formation of trapped surfaces", that is, a spacetime region where the future light cones have cross-sectional areas decreasing with (or in the local mode of) time. But if you employ the global mode of time, you may never reach a trapped surface, ever.

Demetrios Christodoulou was awarded 100,000 Swiss Francs, since he somehow managed to convince people that all naked singularities, although inevitable, were somehow "unstable" and therefore "physically irrelevant", contrary to Murphy's Law that has been running in the past 13.7 billion years. If Demetrios Christodoulou can embed the Dynamic Dark Energy (DDE) of [X] into his "spacetime manifold (M, g), with boundary, smooth solution of the vacuum Einstein equations", and then demonstrate that [X] does not, in any way, increase the chance for any "naked singularity" whatsoever, I believe he will be nominated for a Nobel Prize, and I will immediately delete this web site, of course.

"And off course the nature of the future “boundary” of the maximal development, when incompletess holds, remains an open question", says Demetrios Christodoulou in arXiv:0805.3880 v1, p. 590. There are two typos in his last sentence, which is yet another reason to correct arXiv:0805.3880 v1 and produce a second (and maybe abridged) version, after studying carefully the articles and monographs by Angelo Loinger.

Meanwhile, Demetrios Christodoulou will have to suggest a rigorous solution to the Cauchy problems for the field equations and other intricate problems of present-day GR, ensuing from "a spacetime manifold (M, g), with boundary, smooth solution of the vacuum Einstein equations". In other words, he will first have to solve the real problems of GR, to address the objections to those "black holes" and "gravitational waves" presented by Angelo Loinger. It may take some time to complete arXiv:0805.3880 v2, even if Sergiu Klainerman agrees to help him.

When will Demetrios Christodoulou start working on arXiv:0805.3880 v2? When pigs fly, I'm afraid.
 

D. Chakalov
May 27, 2008
Last update: May 31, 2008
 

==================

Subject: "The basic rules of the game are still to be uncovered", 1999 Bôcher Speech
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 22:55:58 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Sergiu Klainerman <seri@math.princeton.edu>

Dear Dr. Klainerman,

I wonder if you'd be interested in exploring some old ideas summarized at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Angelo

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Petkov.html#ADM

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: I recently asked Prof. Sergiu Klainerman for a copy from his paper "On Cosmic Censorship and the Cauchy Problem", presented at the conference "BEYOND EINSTEIN" (Mainz, 22-26 September, 2008). He first sent me by mistake another paper, which is not yet completed (cf. my email from Wed, 12 Nov 2008 below), and then sent the requested paper (cf. my email from Thu, 13 Nov 2008), which contained only the slides from his talk "On Cosmic Censorship and the Cauchy Problem" at the conference in Mainz.

Notice below my remark regarding elliptic differential equations, and follow the links. I claim that 'strongly hyperbolic' Hamiltonian description of GR is a myth, meaning that no physically realistic spacetime can be made 'globally hyperbolic' in the strict mathematical sense. The issue is quite technical, and I was hoping that Sergiu Klainerman might be interested. Since he didn't react to my email from Thu, 13 Nov 2008, I will try here to explain the issue in a way comprehensible to my teenage daughter, stressing that "the basic rules of the game are still to be uncovered", as Sergiu Klainerman himself acknowledged in 1999.

Imagine a shoal of fish swinging along a coral reef, and try to design the proper spacetime of their holomovement (read a story from
April 1984). To obtain such holomovement, some "global web" of quasi-instantaneous correlations would be required, such that all fish negotiate their collective movement in the realm of 'potential reality' -- in addition to, and "in the same time of", their communications by signals sent with speed not exceeding the "speed" of light in vacuum (local mode of time). Notice that we're talking 'relational ontology', as in the Buridan donkey paradox.

There should exist an additional input from 'the whole shoal', such that it does not make fish trajectories "non-local" but quasi-local. This is the so-called sufficient condition for fixing the dynamics of bodies in GR. It works in the human brain too (cf. Neurophysiology 101). The story goes back to Aristotle, which is why this additional connection was named after him. Just ponder on the "appearance" of the affine structure and Christoffel symbols (G. Nerlich and L. Szabados), and try to figure out what agent or entity can develop an affine connection and make the Hausdorff manifold connected, as well as connect a bunch of "points" to form a 'set' (Georg Cantor).

It is not possible to derive The Aristotelian Connection from the additional geometric structure you postulate on such connected spacetime manifold afterwards, such as a metric (R. Geroch). It is the primitive "binding" agent that acts as a pre-geometric plenum and defines the time-orientability and space-orientability of the physical spacetime  M  (compared this to the conformal recipe). It is 'the universe as ONE'. Physically, it is located both "inside" the infinitesimal and "outside" the cosmological horizon, thanks to which the spacetime is "wrapped" by ... itself.

In other words, the "direction" along which the self-wrapping of spacetime is produced is physically unobservable (the balloon metaphor); otherwise the ether will be physically observable.

In short, no "black holes", no CTCs nor Cauchy problems for Einstein field equations exist in Nature.

But if Sergiu Klainerman or any other theoretical physicist can design some globally hyperbolic spacetime with built-in time-orientability and "boundary conditions" eliminating negative mass, which is also free from such quasi-instantaneous correlations and "constraints" that naturally generate "waves", the suggestions above will be proven redundant, hence wrong. Currently, there are no physically motivated boundary conditions in the case of the Einstein equations, nor do we know how to build a "mirror" for GWs (Alan Rendall).
 

D. Chakalov
November 18, 2008
Last update: March 17, 2009




Subject: Re: "On Cosmic Censorship and the Cauchy Problem" (request for paper)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:29:38 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Sergiu Klainerman <seri@math.princeton.edu>

Dear Sergiu,

> This is what I have meant to send you.

Seems to me that Slide 4, The Problem of Evolution, contains the same unresolved problem mentioned in footnote 4 of your unfinished manuscript.

It is also very unclear to me how Bruhat-Geroch could cook up some "unique, future, maximal, globally hyperbolic" development by eliminating all traces from those cases which require elliptic differential equations. I mean, the distribution of matter should be governed by instantaneous correlations *as well*, wise men say :-)

Regards,

Dimi


-------


Subject: Re: "On Cosmic Censorship and the Cauchy Problem" (request for paper)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:36:00 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Sergiu Klainerman <seri@math.princeton.edu>

Thank you very much, Dr. Klainerman.

It seems to me that your manuscript is not yet completed, and the most important issue is placed in footnote 4, p. 4:

"A proper definition of global solutions in GR requires a special discussion concerning the proper time of timelike geodesics."

I very much hope to read all about this 'special discussion'. If you can solve the problem of the proper time of timelike geodesics, I suppose you will suggest a brand new path toward quantum gravity.

Please keep me posted.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU



==================


Subject: Graduate Students, Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos, Pen State
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 16:34:50 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Martin Bojowald <bojowald@gravity.psu.edu>,
Victor Taveras <victor@phys.psu.edu>,
David Sloan <sloan@gravity.psu.edu>,
William Robbins <wrobbins@phys.psu.edu>,
Orcan Ogetbil <orcan@psu.edu>,
Stephen Movit <movit@astro.psu.edu>,
Adam Henderson <adh195@psu.edu>,
Chris George <george_c@math.psu.edu>,
Adrienne Criss <acriss@phys.psu.edu>,
Nick Conklin <nbc109@psu.edu>,
Tanja Bode <tbode@gravity.psu.edu>,
Eloisa Bentivegna <eub115@psu.edu>,
Nico Yunes <yunes@gravity.psu.edu>,
Shaun Wood <spw147@psu.edu>,
Edward Wilson-Ewing <euw122@psu.edu>,
Tyler Anderson <tba109@psu.edu>,
Jerzy Lewandowski <Jerzy.Lewandowski@fuw.edu.pl>,
Abhay Ashtekar <ashtekar@gravity.psu.edu>,
Roger Penrose <rouse@maths.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Daniel Larson <djlarson@psu.edu>

Dear Dr. Bojowald,

It seems to me that you and your colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos are wasting your time with "loop quantum gravity" and "gravitational astronomy", which might ruin the career of
many graduate students at Penn State,

http://igc.psu.edu/people/index.php#gradStudentList

and waste time, money, and computational resources (cf. the note below).

Consider your latest Report IGC-08/4-3, arXiv:0805.1192v1 [gr-qc], in which you wrote:  "How quantum gravity regularizes the big bang depends
crucially on properties of the quantum state."

I'm afraid you do not understand Quantum Theory in the first place. See

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

If you and/or some your colleagues wishes to reply, please do it professionally. It's about time.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov

----
"Penn State is home to three of the 200 fastest computers in the world. One of those – the Pleiades Cluster – is owned by the Physics Departments Gravity Group and is dedicated to the analysis of data from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), whose goal is the detection of gravitational waves and their use as a new tool of astronomical discovery."


Note: The tacit recipe for quantum gravity, which Martin Bojowald and his boss Abby Ashtekar use, is this: take Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity in their current formulation, with all their well-known problems, blend them into some new theory (called "loop quantum gravity"), and hope that the problems of QM may be solved from GR, and the problems of GR may be solved from QM. Don't try to solve any of the initial problems of QM and GR beforehand [Ref. 1]. Just hope and pray that the "good parts" from QM and GR will cure all problems.

Imagine this: you have a car (QM) which runs quite well on some roads, but fails miserably on some essential roads, and a helicopter (GR) that also runs in some favorable weather conditions, but is totally useless in bad weather. Take the car and the helicopter, and build a brand new vehicle, which will run better than the car and fly better than the helicopter, and will also allow you to dive deep into the ocean, as a perfect submarine.

That's the tacit recipe for "loop quantum gravity". It also sweeps the garbage under the rug (e.g., "time-like singularities, however, do not generically arise", and "generic singularities are then space-like or null", [Ref. 1, footnote 19]): just one naked timelike singularity in the past 13.7 billion years would be sufficient to destroy the whole universe. If Max Plank was following the "reasoning" of Martin Bojowald, he would have never discovered the quantum of action, since we all know that the ultra-violet catastrophe, just like a naked timelike singularity, has never happened.

But let's focus on a very simple issue: does GR allow for any sensible formulation of the question of the dimensionality of the world? Can you talk about 'dimensions' if you cannot extend them into an arbitrarily large volume of 3-D space?

"If the theory does not allow us, even in principle, to extend solutions arbitrarily far in one direction, it may be difficult to view this direction as a dimension of the world", says M. Bojowald [Ref. 1].

It isn't "difficult". It is impossible.

"One of the biggest mysteries is that we live in a world in which it is possible to look around, and see as far as we can" (L. Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, p. 205).

If Martin Bojowald wishes to speculate about the dimensionality of the world in the framework of GR, he needs to fix the dynamics of GR in the first place. Namely, he will first have to introduce 'boundary of space' and 'global conservation laws' in GR (see the "causal diagram of space-time region integrated over to derive global conservation laws", Ref. 1, Fig. 8.1, p. 139).

Don't expect to get help from QM, and subsequently from "loop quantum gravity". Get real.


D. Chakalov
July 31, 2008

 


[Ref. 1] Martin Bojowald, Canonical Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World, arXiv:0807.4874v1 [gr-qc]. In: Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World, Ed. by Vesselin Petkov (Springer, 2007, ISBN: 1402063172), Ch. 8, pp. 137-152.

"8.3.1 Singularities

p. 148: "Locally, solutions to Einstein’s field equations always exist and determine the space-time metric as well as manifold. This played a crucial role in our arguments given so far where we wanted to eliminate backgrounds and consider dynamical space-time. These equations are,
however, non-linear and so global aspects are more difficult to control. One consequence is that most solutions which we think are relevant for what we observe are singular when extrapolated in general relativity. They allow one to describe space-time only for a finite amount of proper time for some, and in some cases all, observers after which the classical theory breaks down [14]. This is usually accompanied by a divergence of curvature, but in any case represents a finite boundary to space-time.

p. 149: "If the theory does not allow us, even in principle, to extend solutions arbitrarily far in one direction, it may be difficult to view this direction as a dimension of the world. (...)

"This is not the case with singularities. If we are interested in a four-dimensional interpretation, then, we will have to deal with fundamental limitations to the extension of four-dimensional objects, including space-time itself.
---
Footnote 19: "There can also be boundaries to space arising from singularities where space-time cannot be extended in spatial directions. Such time-like singularities, however, do not generically arise in relevant
cosmological or black hole solutions and thus can be ignored here. (...) Generic singularities are then space-like or null."
---
 

 



==================

Subject: E sarà mia colpa se così è?
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:36:49 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: ruffini@icra.it, maria.bernardini@icra.it, bianco@icra.it,
letizia.caito@icra.it, chardon@lapp.in2p3.fr, cherubini@icra.it,
dainotti@icra.it, fraschetti@icra.it, geralico@icra.it,
roberto.guida@icra.it, barbara.patricelli@icranet.org,
michael.rotondo@icra.it, jorge.rueda@icra.it, xue@icra.it
Cc: Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>


Dear colleagues,

I greatly admire your work on GRBs, but it seems to me that the so-called black holes require a crucial object called event horizon, which is ill-defined in GR, simply because cannot be defined within GR (I will be happy to provide references). In other words, if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may not necessarily be a duck ("black hole").

More from Prof. Angelo Loinger,

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0402088

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612160

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0403092

My efforts to speculate on quantum gravity can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Petkov.html#ADM

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Remo Ruffini et al., On Gamma-Ray Bursts, arXiv:0804.2837v1 [astro-ph]

"GRBs are giving the first clear evidence for the extraction of energy from black holes during the last phases of their formation process. This new form of energy is unprecedented in the Universe, both for its magnitude and its very high efficiency in transforming matter into radiation, which reaches the 50% limit while the nuclear energy reaches efficiency of 2-3% only. These sources, with their energy of 1054 ergs/pulse, dwarf the corresponding nuclear energy events with their energy of ~ 1022 ergs/pulse."
 

----


Note: In the framework of the theory proposed at this web site, the energy of GRBs could be identical to the so-called "dark energy": please see the Ansatz from 3 November 2002, and consider the possibility that "negative energy densities" could stay quietly in the 'potential future' (global mode of spacetime) produced by the putative arrow of spacetime.

All you may need is to model the universe as a huge brain which "thinks" with its holistic ("dark") stuff, and also to consider not two but three ontologically different forms of reality, as explained here.

As to the references on the so-called event horizon, check out the review articles by Jonathan Thornburg and Michael Cohen et al. (emphasis and links added). Regarding the "boundary of the region of the spacetime that is causally connected to future null infinity", check out the proposed update of G.F.R Ellis' 1984 finite infinity proposal here. Notice also the notion of "when" in the second review article below.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has tried so far to implement John Cramer's hand-shaking interpretation of QM to GR, by employing the third option regarding GWs, and Kevin Brown's idea of "two more "curled up" dimensions of angular orientation to represent the possible directions in space": these two "curled up" dimensions may reside in the "ether", and provide for the "dark" torsion in GR. The Angels are in the details of the "boundary points to all null-geodesics" (Jörg Frauendiener) and the geodesic hypothesis (Alan Rendall).


D. Chakalov
April 18, 2008
Last update: September 17, 2008
 


Jonathan Thornburg, arXiv:gr-qc/0512169v2: "The event horizon is defined nonlocally in time: it’s a global property of the entire spacetime, ... "



Michael I. Cohen et al., Revisiting Event Horizon Finders, arXiv:0809.2628v1

"There are two useful concepts to describe the location of black holes in a spacetime, apparent horizons (AH) and event horizons (EH). An EH is the true surface of a black hole: it is defined as the boundary of the region of the spacetime that is causally connected to future null infinity. Because the definition of the EH involves global properties of the spacetime, one must know the full future evolution of the spacetime before the EH can be determined exactly. This difficulty has led researchers to instead identify black holes with apparent horizons, (...).
...
"Since outgoing null geodesics diverge from the event horizon when going forward in time, when going backward in time they will converge onto the event horizon [11, 12]. All recent EH finders use this observation, and follow null geodesics or null surfaces backward in time [13, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 6]."


K.S. Brown, Spacetime Mediation of Quantum Interactions,

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-10/9-10.htm

"An interesting feature of this interpretation is that, in addition to the usual 3+1 dimensions, spacetime requires two more "curled up" dimensions of angular orientation to represent the possible directions in space. The need to treat these as dimensions in their own right arises from the non-transitive topology of the pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Each point  [t,x,y,z]  actually consists of a two-dimensional orientation space, which can be parameterized (for any fixed frame) in terms of ordinary angular coordinates  q  and  f . Then each point in the six-dimensional space with coordinates  [x,y,z,t,q,f ]  is a terminus for a unique pair of spacetime rays, one forward and one backward in time."


 

============

Subject: The Arrow of Spacetime
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 04:27:30 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Justin Khoury <jkhoury@perimeterinstitute.ca>
Cc: Laura Mersini-Houghton <mersini@physics.unc.edu>,
Andreas Albrecht <albrecht@physics.ucdavis.edu>,
Paul Davies <deepthought@asu.edu>,
Brian Greene <greene@phys.columbia.edu>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Roseanne Cheng <rmcheng@physics.unc.edu>,
editorial@nyas.org

Dear Dr. Khoury,

I regret that wasn't informed about your Conference on October 15th last year,

http://www.nyas.org/ebrief/miniEB.asp?eBriefID=687

It seems to me that your idea about "boundary matter"

http://www.fqxi.org/large-grants/awardee/details/khoury

can be traced back to Aristotle, only it isn't actually "mater",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Petkov.html#ADM

If some day you decide again to gather people to discuss such issues, please drop me a line. I suppose your colleagues would agree to discuss ideas that are totally different, if not incompatible, with theirs.

Finally, let me take this opportunity to invite you and all your colleagues to attend my talk (cf. the subject line) in Munich on September 21, 2008,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#Lucretius

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: If we are to treat the spacetime as 'one entity', after Hermann Minkowski, a hypothetical 'arrow of time' can only make sense if an 'arrow of 3-D space' is introduced as well; hence the talk is about a hypothetical arrow of spacetime.

If we reject the hypothesis about some "curved block space-time" (G F R Ellis, gr-qc/0605049 v2, footnote 3), one option to consider is that the cosmological time arrow may be driven by some hidden "dynamic dark energy" producing an arrow of spacetime. I plan to (i) elaborate on the "boundaries" of such dynamical spacetime (basically, this is G F R Ellis’ 1984 notion of finite infinity, updated from Aristotle), and (ii) introduce the so-called 'scale relativity principle' aimed at clarifying the nature of 3-D space.

The prelims to Quantum Theory & General Relativity are here and here.

The talk will be on Sunday, 21 September 2008, in Munich (the exact venue will be announced by August 31st), from 10 AM to 10:45 AM, after which a lively discussion is anticipated.

Please confirm your participation by August 30, 2008. Thank you.
 

D. Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
June 2, 2008, 15:02:35 GMT

----

Hermann Minkowski, September 21, 1908:

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

(Raum und Zeit, in: Vorträge von der 80. Naturforcherversammlung zu Köln, Physikalische Zeitschrift, 10, 104-111, 1908)
 


===================

Subject: Re: Young scholars from the New Vision 400 conference
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:00:52 +0800
From: Yi Wang <wangyi@itp.ac.cn>
Sender: tririverwangyi@gmail.com
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>

Dear Dimi,

Thanks a lot for your information. The god-does-not-play-dice is really a
good website.

You can find information of the New Vision 400 conference in this URL:
http://www.nv400.org/

Best regards,

Yi Wang

2008/6/4 Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>:

> Dear Dr. Wang,
>
> I wonder if you could email all young scholars from the New Vision 400
> conference this URL:
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#talk
>
> It seems to me that adult scholars aren't terribly interested in
> quantum gravity.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dimi Chakalov
>


Note: Yi Wang (Institute of Theoretical Physics, CAS, Beijing) has written an exceptionally clear article for the young scholars competition at the New Vision 400 Conference [Ref. 1]. And because China will become -- beyond any doubt -- the world leader in science and technology by 2015, I strongly suggest to all readers of these lines to register for the Conference (available from June 6, 2008), and start learning Mandarin (it is very tough, yes, but we have no choice).

Now, regarding the "eternal inflation" [Ref. 1]: from the perspective of the current theory of relativity, the alleged "inflation" is an anti-relativistic, that is, acausal phenomenon (cf. Edward W. Kolb). Its "dynamics" requires the hypothetical 'global mode of time'. Each "event" from the latter consists of "infinitely many" potential events, so if we "get off the train", we will use only one event from the local mode of time of the train, yet we'll have infinite "time" to "walk outside the train". Every human brain has access to the global mode of time, and every human brain uses a perfectly smooth and continual local mode of time.

From the perspective of the 'time read by a physical clock', however, the global mode of time will inevitably look frozen, like the proper time of a photon. Not because the global mode of time pertaining to 'the universe as ONE' doesn't evolve, but because the poor inanimate clock cannot "read" all infinite potential events that are embedded "within" each and every complex potential event from the global mode of time. Your inanimate clock can read only the time parameter of, say, a Frisbee on a background Minkowski space, but not the proper time [tau] in the background-free GR (cf. C. Rovelli).

So, how is this model of 'the universe as a brain' related to "inflation"? In one sentence: the alleged "inflation" is an artifact from the current, and incomplete, GR, because with the present-day GR it looks like 'one non-relativistic event from the cosmological time, as read by some physical clock', and subsequently people think of it as something that has happened across the entire universe, right "after" The Beginning, with "duration" just 10-30 sec, as measured with their clock "inside the train". But with the additional degree of freedom called 'global mode of time', this seemingly "10-30 sec" would be infinite for all local observers "inside the train", because their watch will read this "last" portion of deflation time as 'getting asymptotically close to The Beginning', without actually reaching it -- ever. Thus, once created with such Aristotelian "boundaries", the universe becomes truly eternal for all observers in the local mode of time, since they are "wrapped" by the holistic state of 'the universe as ONE' (global mode of time), which is also known as the Aristotelian First Cause. Curiously, in such model you have indeed "eternal inflation" in the local mode of time, as well as a dual age of the universe: finite in the global mode (currently some 13.7 billion years "after" The Beginning), and infinite/indecisive in the local (teleological) mode of time, as read by your wristwatch "inside the train". And because 'the universe as ONE' is simultaneously "outside" the boundaries of the local mode of spacetime and "inside" it -- in the "dark gap" between every two successive events from the local mode -- no observer in the local mode can actually "reach" the Beginning-and-End (also known as [John 1:1]).

Otherwise you will be baffled with the question from L. Mersini-Houghton, "what selected such extremely unlikely initial conditions for the birth of our universe?" (arXiv:0809.3623v1, p. 2), and with the metaphysics of some "conformal boundary where the space-time conformal geometry extends smoothly to a region prior to it" (Roger Penrose).

I suppose the young scholars attending the New Vision 400 Conference would have many questions to ask -- please don't hesitate! As usual, there are no definite answers. Read, for example, Eric Linder (11 February 2008), Dark energy, Scholarpedia, 3(2):4900, and ponder on the following question: how the two tug-of-war effects of gravity, CDM and dark energy of [you name it], shape the galaxy formation and evolution? The current stipulation is that "the dark energy hardly affects galaxy formation and evolution at all, since galaxies form in the matter dominated era" (Ben Moore, email communication, 4 June 2008). But we may accept such opinion only if we know the "dynamics" of the evolution of that "dark energy of [you name it]", then solve the Coincidence Problem, and finally prove that the two "dark" effects of gravity do not have common origin, to make sure that DDE does not play some hidden role in the galaxy formation and evolution. Better keep our mind open and wait for the BOSS.

As to the adult scholars, if you encounter the familiar statement endorsed by Chris Isham -- "the background Newtonian time appears explicitly in the time-dependent Schroedinger equation" -- don't buy it. I'm afraid this widely advertised opinion is 'not even wrong': see the implications from KS Theorem above, and read Jan Hilgevoord's article from here.

Chris Isham may have different opinion, but he still hasn't provided any evidence whatsoever.


D. Chakalov, a.k.a. "just another crank"
June 4, 2008
Last update: June 5, 2008
 

P.S. Perhaps because nobody knows how to deal with the cosmological "constant" interpreted as vacuum energy (cf. Richard Feynman), many people are ignoring this fundamental task, and suggest a whole zoo of ad hoc postulated "scalar fields" (cf. T. Padmanabhan) and other exotic stuff, which reminds me of an old joke I heard from my daughter:

Q: What is green, lives underground, has one eye, and eats stones?
A: The One-Eyed Green Underground Stone Eating Monster!

Now, replace the question line with this one, after Daniel Eisenstein:

Q: What would be like tossing a ball in the air, waiting for it to fall, and instead seeing it accelerate upwards and disappear from sight?

I certainly cannot answer it, since it would seem that the ball has acquired some kind of self-acting faculty, and has also gained access to some pool of "negative mass" that looks like the "dark energy" from the undisturbed quantum vacuum (when nothing is "looking at it" with Casimir effect, say), so the quantum-vacuum "dark stuff" may qualify as 'quantity zero' (George F R Ellis), such that it can be actualized only through some innocent "closed system"; for example, a ball that we would toss in the air, waiting for it to fall, and instead seeing it accelerate upwards and disappear from sight due to that sneaky quantum-gravitational "dark stuff" inside it, ....

Well, this doesn't make much sense as a theory for propellantless propulsion, so let's wait for the BOSS instead. Meanwhile, keep in mind the two main unresolved issues in GR.

First, any energy contribution to the physical world, which comes from 'pure geometry' -- the grin of the cat without the cat, as noticed by Alice --  will inevitably look "dark", in the sense that there is no way to trace back its origin [Ref. 2]. My interpretation is that such holistic, "contextual" effects cannot be represented with any tensor in principle: it
would be like "tossing a ball in the air, waiting for it to fall, and instead seeing it accelerate upwards and disappear from sight", as explained eloquently by  Daniel Eisenstein. Put it differently, proper energy conservation laws in GR are prohibited from the outset (e.g., consider the inevitable "unphysical" stuff in Wald & Zoupas, gr-qc/9911095), so if we wish to understand GR, we need quantum gravity.

Secondly, there is no way to make GR "parametrized theory" (cf. C. G. Torre above), because the genuine non-linear "time parameter" in GR cannot be read by any physical clock (cf. C. Rovelli): all instants from this non-linear "time" are the nexus of an already-completed negotiation between the two parts from the Einstein filed equations. As Laszlo Szabados stressed above (emphasis added), "this is a consequence of a much deeper fact, namely that the metric has a double role: it is a field variable and defines the geometry at the same time." And also John Baez: "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at the same time - D.C.) affected by, the other fields".

It should be agonizingly clear to all young researchers from the New Vision 400 Conference that their wristwatch will display such non-linear time as "frozen": it is logically impossible for an unanimated physical system, evolving along a linear (polynomial) time, to literally create its time, and at the same time evolve in that same time. Only the human brain could "read" such non-linear and quasi-local global mode of time; in present-day theoretical physics, it has produced the notions of Heraclitian time (p. 13) and the so-called auxiliary internal time (pp. 8-9), in Macias & Quevedo, arXiv:gr-qc/0610057v1.

Notice that if you prefer to treat the human brain as some unanimated zombie or IGUS (cf. Jim Hartle), you will have to consider the human mind and consciousness as some unphysical ghosts that can act directly on the brain and the physical world (creating, for example, the "illusion" of time, cf. Hermann Weyl). On the positive side, perhaps you'll never get insults from the established theoretical physics community, and may even join the famous LIGO Scientific Collaboration. On the negative side, I'm afraid you will be ready to retire.

Check out, again, the prelims to Quantum Theory & General Relativity here and here, the story about the Higgs boson here, and make your (free will?) choice. More on 21.09.2008.


D.C.
June 5, 2008
Last update: July 5, 2008

 

[Ref. 1] Yi Wang, Eternal Inflation: Prohibited by Quantum Gravity? arXiv:0805.4520v1 [hep-th]; 4 pages, written for the young scholars competition of the New Vision 400 Conference

"One of the key problems in quantum gravity is the non-renormalizable nature of gravity. In order to have a renormalizable or finite theory for gravity, one need to suppress the quantum fluctuations in the high energy
regime. On the other hand, the slow roll eternal inflation needs large quantum fluctuations. So it is likely for quantum theory effects to kill slow roll eternal inflation. One explicit example of this general argument is shown in Subsection D of this section.

"It is well known that it is very difficult to construct a measure for eternal inflation. Two classes of measures are considered in the literature, namely, the global [6, 7] and local [8, 9, 10] measures. However, regardless of technical difficulties such as divergences or gauge dependence, both the global and local measures suffer problems of the nature of quantum gravity."


[Ref. 2]
Yurij Baryshev (June 25, 2008), Energy-momentum of the gravitational field: crucial point for gravitation physics and cosmology, Problems of Practical Cosmology, June 23-27, 2008, St. Petersburg, Russia, pp. 1-3.

“Schrodinger (E. Schrödinger (1918), Phyz. Zeitschr. 19, 4) showed that the mathematical object  tik  suggested by Einstein in his final general relativity for describing the energy-momentum of the gravity field may be made vanish by a coordinate  transformation for the Schwarzschild solution if that solution is transformed to Cartesian coordinates. Bauer (H. Bauer (1918), Phyz. Zeitschr. 19, 163) pointed out that Einstein's energy-momentum object, when calculated for a flat space-time but in a curvilinear system of coordinates, leads to a nonzero result. In other words,  tik  can be zero when it should not be, and can be nonzero when it should.

“How can one detect, localize, hence extract energy from a non-localizable field by means of an antenna, like in gravitational wave detectors? If there is no local energy density of the field, then there is no energy in a finite volume, too.”

 

================

Subject: "The quasiclassical realms of this quantum universe", arXiv:0806.3776v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:13:46 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: IGUS Jim <hartle@physics.ucsb.edu>

Hi Jim:

Back in January 1997, I sent you my critical comments regarding your gr-qc/9701022. I haven't yet received your professional reply, so I will only suggest you to check out my essay 'Quantum Mechanics 101' at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

In your terminology, it is about the dynamics of the reversible transition [non-settleable bets] <--> [settleable bets] , after your arXiv:0801.0688v2 [quant-ph].

If you wish to speculate professionally on "the quasiclassical realms of this quantum universe", perhaps you should read your papers a bit more carefully.

Take care,

Dimi
----

Note: The physically observable part of the quantum system -- the three colored legs above -- can indeed form "an exhaustive set of exclusive alternatives" (cf. arXiv:0801.0688v2 [quant-ph]) that belong to one instant from the local mode of time , t , as read by your wristwatch. And because the so-called "decoherence" doesn't work -- try to resolve the task above  -- we need to answer the question of how the quantum system exists as physically UNobservable dough of potentialities (global mode of time), firstly, and secondly -- how the "classical world" emerged in the first instants of the cosmological time, as read by your wristwatch.

So, because no reference to an external "measurement" agency can be made in quantum cosmology, and the alleged "decoherence" can't solve the measurement (macro-objectification) problem nor the Hilbert space problem, I decided to write an essay on 'Quantum Mechanics 101'.

Perhaps J. B. Hartle will never read these lines, although, as he and M. Gell-Mann stressed, "quantum mechanics is best and most fundamentally understood in the framework of quantum cosmology" (ref. [2] in arXiv:gr-qc/0502016).

Notice the task of formulating "a quantum mechanical measurement of some part of the geometry of some region", from Louis Crane below. In the context of Donald Salisbury's proposal (cf. arXiv:gr-qc/0105097v1), some brand new "symmetry group" should be made "projectable" onto the phase space (cotangent bundle), and the first off challenge of finding such new "symmetry group" is that diffeomorphism-induced transformations are not the sole requirement to achieve "projectability": we need to incorporate Karel Kuchar's multifingered time (called here global mode of time) which may have the unique faculty of advancing along directions perpendicular to the constant time hypersurfaces (recall that we have infinitely many Wheeler-DeWitt equations -- one equation per space point, cf. Giulini & Kiefer, gr-qc/0611141v1, p. 16), and hence acquire (hopefully) the origin of some future-directed timelike vector in classical GR, instead of just introducing it by hand (e.g., see the initial assumptions in Wald & Zoupas, gr-qc/9911095, from February 7, 2008). Obviously, neither Kuchar's multifingered time nor the so-called "explicit (but unmeasureable) time" (W. G. Unruh) or 'the Heraclitian time' of Unruh & Wald can show up as 'observables in GR'. This is a fundamental issue in GR.

Our poor (inanimate) wristwatch could "read" such multifingered time only as "frozen" (eternity blind, John G. Bennett), which in turn tallies to the idea that the "dynamics" (if any) of GR can only be generated by constraints, as with the Hamiltonian formulation of GR.

Notice also that there is no need to "recover" QM and GR in a "classical limit" (cf. Louis Crane below), because we have a rock solid "back bone" of the whole quantum-gravitational realm in the form of 'local mode of spacetime', at all length scales.

Louis Crane has of course quite a different opinion, and he has recently been awarded $135,247 to sort out some "New Approach to Quantum Gravity, with Possible Applications to the Origin & Future of Life". Well, I never heard from Louis Crane, but I do hope he isn't some unanimated zombie or IGUS, and wish him best of luck with his project.

I only regret that Gustaf Strömberg (cf. below) is not here, because back in 1961 he wasn't aware of all the "dark stuff" in present-day GR. Surely the 'eternity domain' must be described as non-metrical (ibid.): see the sufficient condition for the elementary displacement in GR.


D.C.
June 25, 2008
Last update: June 27, 2008
-------------

Louis Crane, Categorical Geometry and the Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Gravity, arXiv:gr-qc/0602120v2:

"1. Spacetime contains a continuously infinite set of pointlike events which is independent of the observer.
...
"The ideal foundation for a quantum theory of gravity would begin with a description of a quantum mechanical measurement of some part of the geometry of some region; proceed to an analysis of the commutation relations between different observations, and then hypothesize a mathematical structure for space-time which would contain these relations and give general relativity in a classical limit. We do not know how to do this at present."



Gustav Stromberg, Space, Time, and Eternity, J Franklin Inst, 272(2) 134-144 (August 1961).

"Bennett calls the new axis the eternity axis, and it runs perpendicular to Minkowski's time axis; since it is also perpendicular to the three space axes, it defines a realm beyond the four-dimensional space-time world of physics. We may call this recently discovered world the "Eternity Domain of the Universe." Bennett tells us that the reason why we have no immediate experience of events which take place in this nonphysical realm is that we are "eternity blind."
...

"Since there can be no units of length or of time in the eternity domain, it must be described as non-metrical. Separations in space cannot be defined, although there may be some kind of "mental separation". (...) We may expect that there is a causal relationship between events in the physical and non-physical worlds."



James B. Hartle, The quasiclassical realms of this quantum universe, arXiv:0806.3776v1 [quant-ph]

p. 11: "There remains the origin of classical spacetime to which we turn after a brief discussion of the second law of thermodynamics.
...
p. 12: "A special initial quantum state is needed to predict with high probability the classical spacetime whose symmetries are the origin of the conservation laws behind classical determinism. (...) The initial quantum state of our universe must be such that it leads to the decoherence of sets of quasiclassical histories that describe coarse-grained spacetime geometry and matter fields.
...
p. 13: "The discussion in Sections III-V relied on a fixed notion of time to describe histories -- a notion which is not available when spacetime itself is a quantum variable. The following heuristic discussion may however give some sense of the issues involved.
...
p. 14: "Does the no-boundary quantum state predict classical spacetime for the universe and if so what classical spacetimes does it predict? The answer to the first part of the question is ‘yes’. (...) An ensemble of classical spacetimes is predicted with different probabilities. The probabilities will be different for such things as whether the universe bounces at a minimum radius or has an intial singularity, how much matter it has, and the duration of an inflationary epoch.
...
p. 15: "Why then do we as human IGUSes focus almost exclusively on quasiclassical realms?

"Questions of the form ‘Why do we ....?’ can be answered by understanding human IGUSes as a particular kind of physical system in the universe. (...) The elementary answer to the question of why we focus on quasiclassical variables is that we are physical systems described by quasicalssical variables that possess senses that are adapted to perceive quasiclassical variables.
...

p. 18: "The following is a short and selective list of outstanding problems:

"Decoherence of Classical Spacetime: Our understanding of the emergence of classical spacetime from particular states in quantum gravity is more primitive than our understanding of the emergence of the classical behavior of matter given a fixed spacetime."



=====================

Subject: Netiquette
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:08:31 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Louis Crane <crane@math.ksu.edu>,
Donald C Salisbury <dsalisbury@austincollege.edu>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>

Dear colleagues,

I mentioned your names and research papers at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Jim

I cannot even post a manuscript at ArXiv.org server, because nobody agrees to endorse it, so if some day you decide to mention my efforts, even in a footnote, please drop me a line.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov

=====================

Subject: arXiv:0808.1223v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:57:58 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: julian.barbour@physics.ox.ac.uk
Cc: B.Z.Foster@phys.uu.nl

Hi Julian,

I hope all my email messages sent in the past six years have been safely received.

In your latest arXiv:0808.1223v1 [gr-qc], you and Dr. Foster wrote:

"Because full foliation invariance is a much more complex issue than simple reparametrization invariance, we defer further discussion of it to a later paper. We will also consider there the difficult question of whether observables in quantum GR must be perennials."

Let me assure you that the address of my web site, which I am sure you know very well, hasn't been changed.

Perhaps you may wish to read some simple arguments starting at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Don't hesitate to follow the links.

NB: If you can produce any argument in your forthcoming paper, which has not already been spelled out at my web site, please write me back.

Good luck.

Dimi
----
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
 

=====================


Subject: Looking for the right answer to the right question
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:35:07 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Luke Butcher <l.butcher@mrao.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Anthony Lasenby <a.n.lasenby@mrao.cam.ac.uk>,
Michael Hobson <mph@mrao.cam.ac.uk>,
Leonid Grishchuk <Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk>,
Stanislav Babak <stba@aei.mpg.de>

Dear Dr. Butcher,

I was expecting that Babak-Grishchuk hypothesis (gr-qc/9907027) will turn out to be wrong -- "ill-defined and devoid of physical meaning" [Ref. 1, p. 9]. My efforts to formulate 'the right question' can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Angelo

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Petkov.html#second

We need a new kind of time to treat an energy-momentum object (not tensor) that can 'hunt with hunters and run with rabbits' (canonical and metrical, gr-qc/9907027, p. 3). With all that "dark energy from empty space", it's a whole new ball game,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Have a nice summer vacation.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
---


[Ref. 1] Luke M. Butcher, Anthony Lasenby, Michael Hobson, The physical significance of the Babak-Grishchuk gravitational energy-momentum tensor, arXiv:0807.0112v1 [gr-qc]

p. 1: "The canonical response to the gravitational energy-momentum problem is to dismiss it as "looking for the right answer to the wrong question"[2]; but while the well-known argument presented by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is certainly compelling, it is far from watertight. (...) Despite these reservations, the argument in [2] remains vindicated as yet by the failure of these escape-routes to yield anything which can be physically interpreted as an energy-momentum tensor."
--
[2] C. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H.
Freeman, 1973), p. 466.
----


Note: The formulation (not the solution) of 'the right question' on the gravitational energy-momentum object (not tensor) can be made clear by recalling Angelo Loinger's "On Gravitational Motions", arXiv:0804.3991v1, and the artifacts from the linearized GR and quadrupole approximations in the so-called "GW astronomy".

Consider the hypothetical "strain tensor" (Clifford M. Will, cf. ref. [5] in gw.pdf), which is the essence of "GW astronomy": first of all, you need a special background spacetime to (i) identify and separate the h+(t) and hx(t) waveforms ("each polarization has its own gravitational-wave field", says Kip Thorne), and (ii) separate the dynamics of the "curvature of space" (see the horizontal line, denoted with  t  , in Fig. 22.1 from B. Schutz) from the dynamics of the "curvature of time" (B. Schutz argues that "the force of the Moon comes from the curvature of time", and "the deformation produced by the Moon is partly directed towards the Moon (the longitudinal direction)", along which there are no GWs). The difference between the dynamics of the "curvature of space" and the dynamics of the "curvature of time" is crucial: the dimensionless ghost called "GW amplitude" (denoted with  h  , in Fig. 22.1 from B. Schutz) shows up only in the first case. Notice that you will also have to separate the dynamics of the "curvature of time" from the dynamics of the two waveforms, h+(t) and hx(t) , each of which, according to Kip Thorne, "has its own gravitational-wave field", such that "a passing gravitational wave would change the distance between the weights, first in one arm, then in the other arm, which is arranged at a right angle to the first" (LIGO web site). As B. Schutz eloquently explained (p. 317): "Energy is only conserved in situations where external forces are independent of time. For weak waves, it is possible to define their energy with reference to the "background" or undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes." And these people weren't joking.

But only the Jehovah's Witnesses of GW Astronomy can believe in such background spacetime in GR. If LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) manage to detect GWs, they will wipe out GR, by demonstrating that there is some special background spacetime with undisturbed metric, with respect to which GWs propagate in 3-D space (just like EM radiation), hence can be detected. The usual "argument" for producing such background spacetime is as follows: "You just write down the Einstein field equations for g_ab and notice that certain terms in the equations are very small and can be neglected" (David Garfinkle). It is like building an antennae that can only detect very weak TV signal, because the "linearized approximation" cannot cope with any strong TV signal whatsoever.

NB: My objections from 15 February 2007 can be read here, and the proposal to LSC here. In a nutshell, the challenge to LSC is to demonstrate that GWs are indeed transverse waves propagating in 3-D space only, with a simple Gedankenexperiment, analogous to the cancellation of the EM phase with two Polaroid filters, as explained by B. Schutz.

Otherwise the Jehovah's Witnesses of GW Astronomy have no right to claim that all the non-radiating nodes are irrelevant or somehow naturally ignored by LIGO, while the physical "push" from the dimensionless GW amplitude (denoted with  h  , in Fig. 22.1 from B. Schutz) is detectable.

Moreover, there are no observable GWs in the initial dipole mode, as confirmed by all failures of LIGO to detect the "ripples" of the metric. Here people say that
the conservation (if any) of energy-momentum would (hopefully) imply the absence of monopole and dipole gravitational radiation (e.g., T. Damour), so there's got to be gravitational radiation from the quadrupole approximation.

As explained eloquently by Bernard F. Schutz, by resorting to the post-Newtonian approximation to GR and ignoring higher order effects (reference here):

"But this (Eq. 10 - D.C.) is the total momentum in the system, and (to lowest order) this is constant. Therefore, there is no energy radiated due to dipole effects in general relativity."

See also Chris L. Fryer et al. (link added):

"At lowest order, GWs come from the time changing quadrupolar distribution of mass and energy; monopole GWs would violate mass-energy conservation, and dipole waves violate momentum conservation."

Again, only the Jehovah's Witnesses of GW Astronomy can believe in conservation of the gravitational energy-momentum in our universe, totally dominated by DDE. All the rest should seriously examine the possibility of dipole gravitational "radiation"; see the third option mentioned above and the proposed explanation of the puzzle with the pulsar PSR 1913+16, and recall that, in the non-linear GR, GWs are "gauge-dependent" objects propagating with "the speed of thought" (Arthur Eddington).

It's a whole new ball game with the energy of empty space (see the essay on "tidal waves" by John Baez here, under the stipulation that "in the vacuum there is no energy density or pressure", in sharp contradiction to what he wrote later, regarding the quantum vacuum energy.)

According to Roger Penrose, "any non-constancy in [lambda] would have to be accompanied by a compensating non-conservation of the mass-energy of the matter."

Nobody seems to be interested, however. Even worse, some people are offering the same old story about GWs as an exercise for undergraduate students (Christian Bracco et al., arXiv:0811.0317v1 [physics.pop-ph]).

Isn't this brainwashing, plain and simple?
 


D. Chakalov
July 7, 2008
Last update: November 4, 2008
 

P.S. I apologize to Jehovah's Witnesses for relating their beliefs to those of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC). The only similarity is that I found to be impossible to argue with either group of people.

The difference is that LSC are wasting hundreds of millions of US dollars and Euro -- taxpayers' money -- and demonstrate an aggressive professional negligence which is without precedent in modern history of science.

Period.

D. Chakalov
July 11, 2008
 

=====================

Subject: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:04:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>
Cc: Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
hiroto_j@ligo.caltech.edu,
GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov,
kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu,
lsfinn@psu.edu


Dear Sir or Madam:

I accuse LSC of aggressive professional negligence,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#LSC

Should you and/or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov

-------------

Note: LIGO Scientific Collaboration -- 490 scientists, generously sponsored by U.S. National Science Foundation and many other institutions (see their acknowledgment printed below) -- are trying to outsmart Mother Nature with math, by "producing" a domain of spacetime with "undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes" (see B. Schutz above).

Their task requires a theory demonstrating the exact physical mechanism by which "the non-tangible nature of gravitational energy" is converted into "tangible forms of energy" (Hermann Bondi), and the other way around (in case one could accept Hulse & Taylor hypothesis about PSR 1913+16).

But their "GW detectors" are manifestly blind and deaf to the quasi-local (non-tangible) gravitational energy from the outset (J.G. Pereira et al.): LIGO is supposed to measure the physical impact from
"a passing gravitational wave", first in one arm (let's denote this instant with t1), then in the other arm (denote this instant with t2), "which is arranged at a right angle to the first" (source here), to match the so-called "invariance angle", elevated at the length scale of LIGO from the alleged spin of a hypothetical "graviton" (read more on this version of quantum gravity from 1960s here).

The non-tangible source (GW amplitude) of the tangible forms of energy is "something that is dimensionless" (exact quote from Kip Thorne), yet it is supposed to be acting on LIGO's arms, producing a continual chain of perfectly localized energy states of LIGO's arms ("tangible forms of energy", Hermann Bondi) with finite duration, from t1 to t2, as measured with the wristwatch of LIGO's operator: see (i) Eanna Flanagan and Scott A. Hughes, gr-qc/0501041v3, p. 16, Fig. 1 and Eq. 3.13, and (ii) Slide 4 from Kip Thorne:

t1 --> [delta]L/L = h+

t2 --> [delta]L/L = hx

I call this recipe for extracting energy from geometry 'GW parapsychology', because the fundamental rule of gravitational energy (cf. Hermann Weyl) has been grossly violated: the domain of spacetime with "undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes" (see B. Schutz above) has been promoted to some absolute reference frame in which one could time the propagation of GWs, as measured with the wristwatch of LIGO's operator. Recall that GWs are "oscillations of the "fabric" of spacetime itself" (Kip Thorne), hence the difference between EM waves and GWs is crucial: a photon propagates in spacetime, in the sense that there is always a finite domain of space 'ahead of it', in which the photon is 'not yet there'.

Now, if you wish to talk about the "propagation" of GWs  in spacetime and try to detect them on Earth (e.g., by placing the GW burst source at the center of the Galaxy, as in the Gedankenexperiment by Marie-Anne Bizouard et al., gr-qc/0701026v1), you tacitly invoke some absolute reference frame, in which you can "see" the whole spacetime en bloc -- as it is being meanwhile stretched by DDE -- and in which the two consecutive instants, from t1 to t2, can be recorded with the wristwatch of LIGO's operator. Needless to say, in present-day GR, the spacetime itself does not "move" anywhere. Which brings the whole bundle of issues with DDE into "GW astronomy", as mentioned above.

To expose the errors of LSC (more from C. Hoefer and J. G. Pereira et al.) and the pitfalls in their "linearized approximation" [Ref. 1], I have offered a simple Gedankenexperiment with the GW "phase", which demonstrates that it is impossible in principle to embed the dimensionless GW "amplitude" in 3-D space, and also provides a hint -- just a hint -- to a global component of GWs, which may cover the whole spacetime en bloc.

Needless to say, the dimensionality of the very entity which fixes a 'meter' cannot be presented with what it produces -- 'meters' -- so the GW "amplitude" got to be dimensionless, just like the "amplitude" of quantum waves. We can't define the very entity that determines 'the length of a meter' with [meters].

Also, the insoluble problems of the version of quantum gravity from 1960s are well known, but have been aggressively ignored by Kip Thorne, Clifford Will, and the rest of their LSC colleagues.

NB: It does not matter if the "waves" are weak or strong, ladies and gentlemen from LIGO Scientific Collaboration -- there is no way you could catch a dimensionless GW "amplitude" with the L-shaped arms of LIGO.

Moreover, there is no way you could explain the conversion of the "tangible forms of energy" of the current candidates for GW emission into the unknown "non-tangible nature" of GW energy with your linearized approximation.

The deceptive analogies from EM waves of Maxwell theory are two folded: one is the incorrect "linearized approximation" (see van Holten), and the other one is that, unlike EM waves, with GWs "no shielding is possible" (John Stachel); more from Angelo Loinger.

This whole enterprise is like building a thermometer that can only measure fluctuations of room temperature (with some "linearized approximation"), while the "theory" itself does not, and cannot cope with any higher temperature produced with your home heating system. It is just ridiculous.

Moreover, LSC could speculate about some "change in the quadrupole moment of the mass distribution" only after they discovered some energy-momentum tensor in GR, explain the origin and dynamics of the "dark energy from empty space", and then show that the dipole "radiation" is indeed impossible or banned due to some energy conservation law that takes into account the "dark" energy of empty space.

The whole mess with the "GW astronomy"
originates from wishful thinking: the assumption that some "emission" of GWs were responsible for the observed loss of kinetic energy of the pulsar PSR 1913+16, under the crucial stipulation that the corresponding energy conservation law (Afriat & Caccese, p. 23) holds in GR, despite the fact that the conservation law in question -- governing the conserved conversion of energy between the two sides of Einstein equation -- cannot be derived in GR in principle. Such "conservation law" of reversible conversion of physical forms of energy into 'non-tangible forms of gravitational energy', and back to physical forms of energy, is not available in GR. Its linearized approximation may be used under very strict limitations only (cf. Hermann Weyl and Angelo Loinger). Despite all this mess, Hulse & Taylor were awarded a Nobel Prize for correctly 'dividing Tuesday by 11'.

At this point, some people may try to defend LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC), by saying that, even though they are obviously fishing in murky waters, "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" (Michel Leclerc).

I think the case of "GW astronomy" is entirely different. Suppose you have a collaboration of 490 quantum physicists, who have decided to use some custom-made classical approximation of QM, such that it allows for simultaneous observation of non-commuting observables. If they succeed, the essence of Quantum Theory will be proven wrong. Likewise, if LSC manage to extract energy from geometry with their custom-made theory, "GRAVITATIONAL WAVES IN FLAT SPACETIME", they will prove that the essence of General Relativity -- the non-localizable gravitational energy (Hermann Weyl) -- is wrong.

If so, the "background" or undisturbed geometry, "which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes" (cf. B. Schutz above), will abolish GR and replace it with some "QFT in curved space" (see 2.1 and [Ref. 1]).

How did LSC obtain such "background" or undisturbed geometry in the first place? They split the metric field into two parts: one that has become (in their imagination) an 'undisturbed background', with respect to which they hope to detect the temporal and spatial disturbances of the other part of the same metric field, the "disturbed" one, after which they install in this "disturbed" section two "independent polarizations", with their own "gravitational-wave fields". Surely every measurement is relational by its nature, so they need a new referential background, but LIGO Scientific Collaboration had made an incredible error of "producing" it from the very stuff they were supposed to measure.

This is one of the many reasons to accuse LSC of aggressive professional negligence. Can't have your cake and eat it. Only Baron Munchausen can perform such self-measuring and self-acting miracles.

To sum up, if some member of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) wishes to defend her/his academic credentials, the first off tasks are as follows:

1. Discover some tensorial presentation of some "boundary sensitive" gravitational energy (six specific requirements are listed here), explain the dynamics of propagation of GWs in the full non-linear GR, and finally derive some "linearized approximation" from such (totally unknown) theory, to match the case of weak GWs that could reach LIGO's arms. Then, and only then, apply the additional "quadrupole approximation" (B. Schutz).

By analogy, people widely use the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation which ignores the quantum vacuum effects, but can switch to QFT, if needed. Thus, they are not doing parapsychology.

2.1. Explain the "projection" of the "invariance angle", from graviton's spin, at the length scale of tables and chairs, eliminate the nonrenormalizable divergences from the alleged high energy "gravitons" that run in loops, and finally demonstrate that GR can be recast as some "parametrized theory" (cf. C. G. Torre above) from QFT in "curved space". (e.g., N.D. Birrel and P.C.V. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space, CUP, Cambridge, 1982; pp. 10-11 and Ch. 2.2.) Then you should be able to explain how virtual particles couple to "gravitons".
 

2.2. If you prefer to work within GR, you have to explain the L-shape of LIGO's arms. First, you'll have to discover some brand new background spacetime which is needed to identify and separate the h+(t) and hx(t) waveforms: "each polarization has its own gravitational-wave field" (Kip Thorne). Hint: if you consider the fact that light is a transverse wave, "the kind of geometrical object that is turned into itself by an 180o rotation is a line" (Bernard Schutz). With the transverse GWs, you have more freedom in 3-D space, since the two "polarizations" are shifted not in 90o (as with light) but in 45o (click the image below for reference to Kip Thorne's course at Caltech).
 


 

At instant  t1 , the  +  polarization, which "has its own gravitational-wave field", must be totally shielded from the neighboring gravitational-wave field of the  x  polarization, in such a way that the latter can wait patiently to wobble the metric field at  t2 , as recorded by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator (see above). For if the two "polarizations" interfere in 3-D space, it is completely unclear what can happen to the poor GW "observer", by being simultaneously stretched and squeezed by the  +  polarization, and squeezed and stretched in 45o by the  x  polarization.

If you can understand such schizophrenic behavior of gravity, chances are you can pass Kip Thorne's course Physics 237-2002 at Caltech. He should have explained it in 1991, before being granted the first $23.5 million -- taxpayers' money -- for LIGO.

NB: Notice that the Gedankenexperiment with cancellation of GW phase is impossible in 3-D space: the two "polarizations", as well as the longitudinal quadrupolar and transverse quadrupolar modes (cf. J.G. Pereira et al.), will inevitably overlap and commingle, like spaghetti bolognese. For if you manage to do it, you should be able to (i) "discover" the direction of propagation of GWs in 3-D space (usually denoted with  z , but in the case of propagation of light on flat Minkowski space), employed by the two distinct gravitational-wave fields (cf. Kip Thorne above), then (ii) demonstrate that this "direction" somehow produces two consecutive effects (denoted with t1 and t2  above) which can be recorded with the wristwatch of LIGO's operator, and finally (iii) recover the genuine dimensionality of GW amplitude -- again in 3-D space, and by using Cartesian coordinates. Should LSC members manage to complete this three-step geometrical exercise on a sheet of paper, perhaps they will be able to explain the tantalizing L-shape of LIGO's arms, as well as the "projection" of the "invariance angle" from graviton's spin at the length scale of LIGO, after which nobody will claim that LSC are in fact doing parapsychology.

Instead, we all will patiently wait for the three LISA satellites in 2018.

Get real. All you need is blank notebooks and sharp pencils. Stop wasting money earned with hard labor by millions of people. It's just not fair.


As to the third option above and the proposed explanation of the puzzle with the pulsar
PSR 1913+16, read the text below (source here):

I spillced coffcee cincto my kcey boardc.c As a rcesulct, c's gcet inctermixcced with cwactever I ctypce. Plcease replace mcy kceyboard.
ccthanks.

Notice that the "non-tangible context", which covers the whole sentence (spacetime) en bloc, produces "quasi-local" meanings to all words en bloc.

If your brain can do it, Mother Nature should certainly do it as well. All we need is to build a GW detector that can "sense" the quasi-local GW energy. If this is difficult, try to use the GW detector above your neck, but bear in mind that in today's GR there are no quasi-local observables whatsoever -- they may show up only as some disguised "gauge dependent" stuff.

Not surprisingly, the effect of the "non-tangible context" cannot be explained in present-day GR, as T. Thiemann acknowledged in total dismay; more from H. Lyre.

As of today, no intelligent response from LSC members has reached me. They all are keeping quiet, included Josh Goldberg, who was responsible, from 1956 to 1963, for US Air Force support of research in GR, based at the Aeronautical Research Lab at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, where all this mess started to evolve.

The sole feedback I got from LSC members (H. Richard Gustafson) is this (source here):

"I don't know you and wish you out of my face, my computer."

I sincerely hope that Beverly Berger, Tom Carruthers, Denise Henry, and Ramona Winkelbauer, all from National Science Foundation, will choose a different language. If they believe GWs are detectable in principle, it would be nice to learn about the opposite possibility, which would make them undetectable in principle, but leads to contradiction with some theory or experiment, hence they've chosen the first possibility, and continue to pour taxpayers' money into "GW astronomy".

 

D. Chakalov
July 12, 2008
Last update: September 22, 2008
 


----
"The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National Science Foundation for the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council of the United Kingdom, the Max-Planck-Society and the State of Niedersachsen/Germany for support of the construction and operation of the GEO600 detector. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the support of the research by these agencies and by the Australian Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India, the Department of Science and Technology of India, the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Tecnologia, the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation."
------------


[Ref. 1] Jan-Willem van Holten, Gravitational waves (AIO-School, Catholic University of Leuven, The Netherlands, February 6, 2006),
http://www.nikhef.nl/~t32/gwaves.pdf

Cf. p. 5, "the equation of local energy-momentum conservation in flat space-time" (Eq. 36), and Sec. 5, 'Energy and momentum of the field', p. 10 (emphasis added):

"The theory under discussion is that of a spin-2 field in flat Minkoswski space, the invariance under time- and space translations imply conservation of energy and momentum."

See also "the flux through the boundary", Eq. 79, and p. 11:

"We emphasize, that this is possible only because we consider fluctuations in a flat space-time background."

Comment: I fully agree with Prof. van Holten on this last statement. The alleged "theory" of spin-2 field in flat Minkowski space simply does not exist. Rather, it is a wishful thinking that leads to a dead end -- the unresolved problems are known since 1960s.

As to the artifact from the linearized approximation (cf. Hermann Weyl's 1944 article here), called in MTW textbook (Sec. 13.6) "the gauge of the local observer" [Ref. 2], recall that GWs pertain to the global properties of spacetime, which brings all the problems of the so-called event horizon of "black holes" into "GW astronomy". More from Angelo Loinger.

The calculations performed by Christian Corda [Ref. 2] may be correct -- as Steven Weinberg noticed, "I often find that people who say silly things actually do correct calculations, but are careless in what they say about them."

Besides, as stated above, it's a whole new ball game with the "dark energy from empty space".
 

D.C.
September 14, 2008
Last update: September 17, 2008


[Ref. 2] Christian Corda, On the gauge-invariance of gravitational waves, arXiv:0706.2412v3 [gr-qc]

"As interferometers work in a laboratory environment on Earth, the gauge in which the space-time is locally flat and the distance between any two points is given simply by the difference in their coordinates in the sense of Newtonian physics has to be used [12, 13, 15, 16, 17]. In this gauge, called the gauge of the local observer [15], GWs manifest themselves by exerting tidal forces on the masses (the mirrors and the beam-splitter in the case of an interferometer, see Figure 1).
...
"A special property of the TT gauge is that an inertial test mass initially at rest in these coordinates, remains at rest throughout the entire passage of the GW [3, 15, 16]. Here, the use of words “at rest” has to be clarified: one wants to mean that the coordinates of the test mass do not change in the presence of the GW.
...
"A detailed analysis of the gauge of the local observer is given in Ref. [15], Sect. 13.6. (...) In the computation of the response functions in this gauge, a common misconception about interferometers will be also clarified. This misconception purports that, because the wavelength of the laser light and the length of an interferometer’s arm are both stretched by a GW, no effect should be present, invoking an analogy with the cosmological redshift of the expanding Universe.
...
Here the misconception will be clarified in the full angular and frequency dependences of a GW, showing that the variation of proper time due to the photons redshift is different from the variation of proper time due to the motion of the arms.
...
p. 16: "This is exactly the contribution of the photons redshift. If it results different from the contribution of the test masses motion in previous analysis (i.e. the sum of the two contributions is different from zero),
it also clarifies the misconception purporting that, because the wavelength of the laser light and the length of an interferometer’s arm are both stretched by a GW, no effect should be present.
...
p. 20: "Then, the total response functions of interferometers for the + and × polarization of GWs, in their full angular and frequency dependences, are equal in the TT gauge and in the gauge of a local observer. In this way, the gauge-invariance has been totally generalized."

 

=====================

Subject: Re: Netiquette
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:34:33 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: christian.corda@ego-gw.it


On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:17:53 +0200 (CEST), <christian.corda@ego-gw.it> wrote:
[snip]

> I assure you that my understanding on
> gravitational waves CANNOT be discussed.

I am interested in facts, not bold statements.

Please elaborate on your understanding on gravitational waves by performing the Gedankenexperiment with the their phase. You will see that the two independent "polarizations" will inevitably overlap and conflate, like spaghetti bolognese :-)

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Dimi Chakalov dchakalov@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:20:48 +0300
> To: christian.corda@ego-gw.it
> Subject: Netiquette
>
>
> Dear Dr. Corda,
>
> I quoted from your latest arXiv:0706.2412v3 at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#pulsar
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dimi Chakalov
>


==================

Subject: Re: Netiquette
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:33:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: christian.corda@ego-gw.it


On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:07:04 +0200 (CEST), <christian.corda@ego-gw.it> wrote:
>
> I can agree with your point of view, but the important point here is that
> such a overlapping and conflating, like spaghetti bolognese, could in
> principle, generate a signal which is different from zero in the arm of an
> interferometer.

1. In order to agree with my point of view on the spaghetti-bolognese "direction" of propagation of GWs, you will have to recover the *dimensionality* of the amplitude of these transverse waves. Notice that my Gedankenexperiment is leading you and the whole "GW astronomy" to a dead end. The approach I use is 'reductio ad absurdum'.

2. Moreover, even if you choose to ignore the Gedankenexperiment, the problems with your hypotheses are still unresolved:

R. Aldrovandi, J. G. Pereira, Roldao da Rocha, K. H. Vu, Nonlinear
Gravitational Waves: Their Form and Effects, arXiv:0809.2911v1 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2911

"As a matter of fact, since the geodesic deviation is produced essentially by tidal forces, a gravitational wave can only give rise to longitudinal oscillations, that is, oscillations in the direction of wave propagation. This is the signature a gravitational wave will leave in a detector, the effect to be looked for."

This is one more reason to convert the LIGO tunnels to wine cellars, as I
suggested in March 2006.

Please write up a paper on the two issues above, and post it on ArXiv.org server.

Good luck.

D. Chakalov
----

Note: If Christian Corda completes the Gedankenexperiment, he will discover the "direction" of GW propagation along the Z axis, and by the same token recover the dimensionality of GW "amplitude"  (in meters or bananas, whichever he prefers) projected on x/y axes. Can't do it in 3-D space, of course. The GW amplitude got to be dimensionless: see above.

Should Christian Corda agree to write a research paper and post it on ArXiv.org server (I can't do this, because nobody agrees to endorse the submission of my manuscripts to ArXiv.org server), he will probably open the Pandora box of GW parapsychology, and may lose his job. So, I suppose he will instead claim that can't understand the arguments above.

As Upton Sinclair put it, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Just ponder on the following questions: How are the two ideal observers [Ref. 3] implemented in LIGO? And given the instantaneous origin of inertial forces (James Woodward), what is the quasi-local feature of GWs?


Only the human brain might be able to detect GWs, since it may act as a quantum-gravitational detector, by tracking en bloc an infinite number of "ideal observers" in a finite 3-D domain, "however small its effect may be" [ibid.].

More in 'Quantum Mechanics 101' above.
 

D. Chakalov
September 18, 2008
last update: September 20, 2008
 

[Ref. 3] J.G. Pereira et al., The Equivalence Principle Revisited, gr-qc/0212034 v1; Found. Phys. 33 (2003) 545-575

"The key notion is that of ideal observer, which is a time-like curve, a world-line. Such a curve represents locally, in well-chosen coordinates, a point-like object in 3-space evolving in the timelike 4-th direction. To represent an extended object -- in particular, a real observer -- a bunch of world-lines is necessary, one line for each of its points in 3-space.
...

"An ideal observer in a gravitational field is locally equivalent to an ideal observer in the absence of gravitation, while an ideal observer in a gauge field will always feel its presence.

"At least two ideal observers are needed to detect gravitation, but only one is enough to detect an electromagnetic field. In this sense gauge fields are local, and gravitation is not.

"Concerning the Quantum Mechanics of a system immersed in a gravitational background, an ideal observer -- a point in 3-space -- is indeterminate. Quantum Mechanics in 3-space will always probe a 3-dimensional domain, intersecting a bunch of curves in spacetime and, consequently, will always be aware of a gravitational field, however small its effect may be."

 

=====================

Subject: Wine cellars and spaghetti bolognese
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:47:36 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: christian.corda@ego-gw.it
Cc: Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>

> Thanks, but I not have the time to read all the nonsenses which are
> present in your site.

Then try the "nonsenses" from Jose Geraldo Pereira et al., for if they are right, some day your VIRGO may be converted to two orthogonal cavities of 3 kilometers long wine cellars. What a wonderful tourist attraction! You have a similar one, Torre pendente di Pisa, but VIRGO will be undoubtedly far more exciting.

E sarà mia colpa se così è?

D.C.
 

=====================

Subject: Re: Support of LIGO Research?
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:15:11 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Peggy Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>,
OIG <oig@nsf.gov>,
Joseph Dehmer <jdehmer@nsf.gov>,
Beverly K Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
LIGO Scientific Collaboration Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Joint NSF/NASA Task Force <GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
Rainer Weiss <weiss@ligo.mit.edu>,
Steven Weinberg <weinberg@physics.utexas.edu>,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de, kip@tapir.caltech.edu, info@ligo.mit.edu,
info@ligo.caltech.edu, fyi@aip.org,
The James S McDonnell Professor Joseph Hooten Taylor Jr <joe@pulsar.princeton.edu>


Dear all,

Regarding my email from Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:03:52 +0300, please see an update at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#pulsar

General arguments against "GW astronomy" at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#order

As Richard M. Jones reminded, in late summer of 1991, the House Science Subcommittee passed a bill prohibiting LIGO construction funding, but on 27 September 1991 "conference action on the NSF bill was completed, and LIGO had the full $23.5 million the Bush Administration had requested."

http://www.aip.org/fyi/1999/fyi99.162.htm

I was in the United States in 1991, but cannot recall any major discovery in the late summer of that year, which could have changed drastically the course of action set by the House Science Subcommittee, prohibiting LIGO construction funding.

I accused LSC of aggressive professional negligence,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#NSF

Perhaps it will be a good idea to put all financial support of LIGO on hold, until some member of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) elaborates on the arguments at the links above. The whole reputation of NSF may be at stake. See also the statement by Prof. Joseph H. Taylor below.

As always, I remain at your disposition for clarifying my arguments against "GW astronomy". Please don't hesitate to write me back.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
----

"Our nation's science enterprise has been well served by having open, broadly based mechanisms for setting priorities in astronomy, and by closely following the wise decisions made in that way."

Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., Statement before the Committee on Science, The
U.S. House of Representatives, February 2, 2005

 

=====================

Subject: Re: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 19:49:54 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
hiroto_j@ligo.caltech.edu,
GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov,
kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu,
lsfinn@psu.edu


P.S. Update at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#pulsar

D.C.

=============

Re: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:51:16 -0400
Message-ID:
<A74B5B2C42009044AD35C5490049DAE7011BA3A6@NSF-BE-01.ad.nsf.gov>
From: Berger, Beverly K. <bberger@nsf.gov>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>

I will be on vacation until Sept. 8 and will have no email contact for most of that time. If you cannot wait until I return, please contact Denise Henry (dshenry@nsf.gov) .
 

==============

Subject: Re: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Message-ID: <48C171B9.8060901@nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:51:53 -0400
From: Joan M. Centrella <Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>

*Kindly* remove me from your email list and all future communications --


Dimi Chakalov wrote:
> P.S. Update at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#pulsar
>
> D.C.
>


--
Joan M. Centrella
Chief, Gravitational Astrophysics Laboratory
Code 663, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
Phones: (301) 286 - 3966 office
(301) 286 - 1532 admin
Email: Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov


==============


Subject: Re: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 21:24:33 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joan M. Centrella <Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <48C171B9.8060901@nasa.gov>
Cc: LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>, Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>, hiroto_j@ligo.caltech.edu,
GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov, kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de, cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu, lsfinn@psu.edu


Dear Dr. Centrella,

I will be more than happy to permanently remove you from my email list
and all future communications, provided you stop wasting taxpayers'
money for your totally irresponsible dream,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#NSF

I hope you and your colleagues will accept my proposal from 1 Mar 2006 to convert the LIGO tunnels to wine cellars. And please forget about
LISA.

Do you agree?

D. Chakalov

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:51:53 -0400, Joan M. Centrella
<Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> *Kindly* remove me from your email list and all future communications --

 

=====================

Subject: LIGO: The schizophrenic behavior of gravity
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:25:41 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mark Hannam <markodh@googlemail.com>,
Deirdre Shoemaker <deirdre.shoemaker@physics.gatech.edu>,
Bernard Kelly <bernard.j.kelly@nasa.gov>,
Joan Centrella <joan.centrella@nasa.gov>,
John Baker <john.baker@nasa.gov>,
Thomas.Cokelaer@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Devanka.Pathak@astro.cf.ac.uk
Cc: kip@tapir.caltech.edu


Ladies and Gentlemen,

Regarding your arXiv:0901.2437v3 [gr-qc] and arXiv:0903.4791v1 [gr-qc], check out

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

If you cannot resolve the problems at the links above, may I suggest you to forget about LIGO 'n LISA.

Dr. Centrella: This is not spam (email from Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:51:53 -0400, Message-ID: <48C171B9.8060901@nasa.gov>). You and your colleagues are personally responsible for wasting hundreds of millions U.S. dollars -- all taxpayers' money -- for chasing your dreams.

I seriously urge you to get professional. The sooner, the better.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov



=====================

Subject: Re: Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:26:56 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Leonid Grishchuk <Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk>
Cc: Stanislav Babak <stba@aei.mpg.de>,
John Whelan <john.whelan@ligo.org>,
M Alessandra Papa <papa@aei.mpg.de>


On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:22:57 +0100 (BST), Leonid Grishchuk wrote:
>
> I did my best to explain you the origin of your confusion.

The "confusion" isn't mine. The problem with the energy from the gravitational "field" is from 1918.

If you or some of your colleagues wish to respond professionally, please read the arguments at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#order

and

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#pulsar

Dimi

 

=====================

Subject: Re: UK support for "GW astronomy"?
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:19:01 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: STFC Chief Executive Keith Mason <keith.mason@stfc.ac.uk>

Dear Dr. Mason,

I haven't yet received your reply to my email from Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:49:30 +0300,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#Mason

A brief expose of the errors of your colleagues can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#NSF

Please feel free to pass the link above to any expert in GR, who cares about spending the money of UK taxpayers.

Should you or any of your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov

=====================

Subject: Re: UK support for "GW astronomy"?
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:21:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: STFC Chief Executive Keith Mason <keith.mason@stfc.ac.uk>

P.S. Update at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#pulsar

D.C.
------
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it

Upton Sinclair


=====================

Subject: STOP wasting taxpayers' money !
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:56:19 +0200
From: dchakalov@gmail.com
X-Sender: dchakalov@gmail.com
To: webmaster@rssd.esa.int
Cc: dchakalov@gmail.com
Message-id: <0K740071PUHVNL00@rssd-gw.estec.esa.int>


http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#pulsar

D. Chakalov

============

Subject: [#WMO-848792]: STOP wasting taxpayers' money !
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:56:21 +0200
From: ESA RSSD <webmaster@rssd.esa.int>
To: dchakalov@gmail.com
Reply-to: webmaster@rssd.esa.int
Message-id: <k74uhw.3vcz4@localhost>

dchakalov@gmail.com,
Your Ticket has been received and a member of our staff will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this Ticket. Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times.

Ticket ID: WMO-848792
Subject: STOP wasting taxpayers' money !
Department: Web Support
Priority: Low
Status: Open

=====================
 

Subject: LSC/VIRGO Joint Meeting, September 2008
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:04:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jo van den Brand <jo@nikhef.nl>,
Kees Huyser <keeshu@nikhef.nl>,
Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl>,
Thomas Bauer <thomas@nikhef.nl>,
Jim Hough <J.Hough@physics.gla.ac.uk>,
David Berley <dberley@nsf.gov>,
Masa-Katsu Fujimoto <fujimoto@gravity.mtk.nao.ac.jp>,
Alan Weinstein <ajw@caltech.edu>,
Carlo Bradaschia <carlo.bradaschia@pi.infn.it>,
ego@ego-gw.it,
secretariat@ego-gw.it


Dear all,

I think you're wasting your time and the money of taxpayers,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#pulsar

Your professional (not emotional) feedback will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov

=====================



"BEYOND has received a research grant to confront the biggest question of all: the link between mind and matter. The $100,000 grant was awarded to a consortium that also includes a group at Columbia University led by string theorist Brian Greene, and a research center at George Mason University involving quantum physicists Yakir Aharonov and Jeff Tollaksen. The consortium will apply novel ideas of quantum physics in an attempt to meld the subjective and objective worlds, addressing such issues as the flow of time and the emergence of a single reality from a quantum superposition."

The grant was awarded in December 2007, under the STARS program of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. See http://www.ctnsstars.org/enews/news_team5.html
 

Collaborate on research

"We are actively seeking individuals, commercial companies and philanthropic organizations who would like to partner specific research projects."

---

One month ago, Paul Davis, the Director of BEYOND, and Brian Greene were invited at my talk on September 21, 2008 (see the list here), since they are "actively seeking individuals (...) who would like to partner specific research projects". No feedback has reached me so far, however.

 

D. Chakalov
July 2, 2008


==============

Subject: Brain-Controlled Cold Plasma (BCCP)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:14:39 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Eric Davis <ewdavis@earthtech.org>,
Ray Lewis <r3l@psu.edu>,
James Woodward <jwoodward@fullerton.edu>,
Gregory Meholic <Greg.V.Meholic@aero.org>,
Arsenal Research <gf@arsenal.ac.at>,
Eric Rice <ricee@orbitec.com>


Dear colleagues,

I wonder if you would be interested in the ideas at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Butcher

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: If you ponder on the title of this email, "Brain-Controlled Cold Plasma (BCCP)", the only thing that is relatively comprehensible is the adjective "cold". But let me assume, just for the sake of the argument, that the so-called 'scale relativity principle', which is supposed to clarify the nature of 3-D space, is correct. Then we have a long list of questions.

First question: The usual setup for "over-unity" and "anti-gravity" hypotheses is to postulate a hypothetical new conservation law in the form 'A + B = 0', then try to create  A , such that the effect of  B , produced due to the conservation law, would do the job (e.g., "... is produced by the field in order to compensating for the perturbation therein", D. Rabounski and L. Borissova, Progress in Physics, July 2007, p. 72). It is not clear whether BCCP falls into this class of hypotheses, because the human brain is supposed to evoke the physical manifestation of  B  due to tweaking  A  and the unknown "conservation law" that includes the "dark energy from empty space", and one thing we know from the outset is that we are not dealing with some 'energy conservation law'. Quite the opposite. Perhaps BCCP could be the ultimate 'free lunch', if tweaking the phase of quantum waves turns out to be an effortless job.

Second question: How do we manufacture (reversibly, of course) this putative "plasma", and most importantly, plasma of what?

Recall that inertial reaction forces are instantaneous [Ref. 1], in the sense that the net duration of the "atemporal handshaking" (John Cramer), which "takes place" in the global mode of time, is zero -- as read by your inanimate wristwatch (not brain). If the human brain operates also at the putative global mode of spacetime, the so-called "negative mass" (cf. the third case of "dipole radiation" above) may be projected in the form of 'potential future states', which would look just like 'cold plasma'. Now, all you have to do is to cancel -- locally and reversibly -- the scalar gravitational potential caused by the positive mass in the whole universe (here we enter a new Machian theory of gravity and inertia, which requires quantum gravity), and the object in question may become effectively inertia-less, after which you may feely levitate it in any direction in 3-D space, just like you move your thoughts.

Trouble is, the paragraph above creates even longer list of questions, one of which could be a very simple one: why am I writing this? Because there are people who actually do it.

Let's not leave all this to street magicians and CNN [Ref. 2] only. Be aware that your local government may strongly oppose any unclassified research in this field, but since their trusted experts and gifted individuals haven't deliver, we better move on and get the job done. The future of energy research is open, up to 'the unknown unknown'.

"Whether you believe you can do a thing or believe you can't, you are right", said Henry Ford.

 

D. Chakalov
July 9, 2008
Last update: July 25, 2008
 


[Ref. 1] James F. Woodward, Gravitation: The Origin of Inertia,
© 1998,
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

"The act of pushing on something causes a disturbance in the gravitational field to go propagating off into the future. It makes stuff (the "absorber") out there wiggle. When the stuff wiggles it sends disturbances backward (and forward) in time. All the backward traveling disturbances converge on what we're pushing and generate the inertial reaction force we feel. No physical law is violated in any of this. And nothing moves faster than the speed of light. It only seems so because of the advanced waves traveling at the speed of light in the backward time direction."
---
"(W)e have to assume that the "field" that produces inertial reaction forces has a real, independent physical existence apart from the sources that create it.

"Better yet, we'd like to have a field that doesn't have any sources like the distant matter in the cosmos at all."

See also D.W. Sciama, On the origin of inertia, MNRAS, 113 (1953) 34-42;

p. 39: "... local phenomena are strongly coupled to the universe as a whole, but owing to the small effect of local irregularities this coupling is practically constant over the distances and times available to observation. Because of this constancy, local phenomena appear to be isolated from the rest of the universe..."

[Note: If the gravitational "constant" can ‘sense’ the whole universe, perhaps the "field" that produces inertial reaction forces isn't a field in the first place, since its source could be the 'potential reality' of 'the whole universe': notice the generation of "waves" above. Many years ago, when I was working as a porter, I was very much willing to cancel these inertial reaction forces, so that I can lift just about everything without efforts, like those people who were (allegedly) carrying stone blocks for the Kheops pyramid. It didn't work out though, maybe because my brain doesn't know how to tweak the phase of these "waves".  D.C.]


[Ref. 2] Larry King Live: Did government cover up UFOs? Source: CNN. Added on July 20, 2008, duration 10:48 min
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/20/lkl.ufo.long.cnn



 

 

==================


Subject: What is meant by cosmic acceleration ?
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 05:38:45 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mark Trodden <trodden@physics.upenn.edu>
Cc: Alessandra Silvestri <asilvest@mit.edu>, guth@ctp.mit.edu, jpritcha@cfa.harvard.edu, afarmer@cfa.harvard.edu, dfinkbei@cfa.harvard.edu, vilenkin@cosmos2.phy.tufts.edu

Dear Dr. Trodden,

Nineteen years ago, I was living in Boston and was very much hoping to attend the Joint Harvard/MIT/Tufts Cosmology Seminars. I even dared to phone Alex Vilenkin, in January 1990, and asked him whether he would be interested in my ideas (he wasn't).

May I offer you my comments on your fascinating article co-authored with Dr. Silvestri [Ref. 1].

I tried to explain what is meant by 'cosmic acceleration' to my
teenage daughter in the following fashion: Suppose you accelerate a
car, but the gauge fuel shows that you're actually gaining more fuel
by accelerating the car. That's the ultimate 'free lunch' provided by
DDE, only physicists cannot explain it.

I merely translated an explanation offered by Eric Linder, replacing
"you store extra energy" (cf. the link below) with "gaining more
fuel",

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-HST-supernovae-sidebar1.html

Please notice that I associate DDE with the quantum vacuum and Einstein's cosmological "constant", since cannot accept any ad hoc postulated fields, nor the "anthropic" parapsychology (let's not mention names). I also found it difficult to agree with Eq 13 and Eqs 18-21 in [Ref. 1], because I don't believe in conservation of energy in GR under the condition of an evolving cosmological "constant".

The proposed solution to the cosmological constant problem begins with the clarification of the adjective "dark" in DDE: it seems to me that the UNdecidable quantum state (KS Theorem) is precisely "dark",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Should you or some of your colleagues are interested, please check out the essay at the link above and write me back. I will be happy to elaborate. More at

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

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

----

[Ref. 1] Alessandra Silvestri, Mark Trodden, Approaches to Understanding Cosmic Acceleration, arXiv:0904.0024v1 [astro-ph.CO],
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0024

p. 17: "Without a well-understood and calculable quantum theory of gravity, this (the expected contribution to the cosmological constant from quantum fluctuations in the vacuum - D.C.) is surely not reasonable.
...
p. 18: "The issue of reliably calculating the cosmological constant, and finding a framework in which that calculation leads to a result dramatically different to the expected one has proven remarkably resistant to theoretical attack. It is fair to say that there are not currently any especially promising approaches.
...
pp. 44-45: "Perhaps the biggest question to be answered is binary in nature - is cosmic acceleration due to a cosmological constant or not? In many ways, an affirmative answer is the most depressing, since a true cosmological constant varies in neither space nor time, and thus, if it is the driver of acceleration, we already know all that we will ever know about it."
 

=============

Subject: Re: What is meant by cosmic acceleration ?
Message-Id:
<8573C959-F1D6-4BCD-8751-696CF12018D9@physics.upenn.edu>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400
From: Mark Trodden <trodden@physics.upenn.edu>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>

Please remove me from your mailing lists - I do not wish to receive further communications. Thank you.
 

==============

Note: Pity Mark Trodden choose to avoid discussion of his paper [Ref. 1], and particularly Eq 13 therein. It is the textbook version of "energy conservation in GR" (vanishing of the covariant divergence of the energy-momentum tensor), which, in the presence of an evolving cosmological "constant", is nothing but wishful thinking. And since he insisted on some "perfect fluid" (Eq 5 and Eqs 18-21), the conclusion was inevitable:

"It is fair to say that there are not currently any especially promising approaches" [Ref. 1].

Welcome to the world of evolving [lambda]/DDE. You have two things to consider: the first one is the true cosmological constant that "varies in neither space nor time" [Ref. 1], and the second is the explicated, in the current cosmological epoch, and evolving amount of DDE. Place the first thing in the global mode of spacetime, and the explicated and evolving [lambda]/DDE in the local mode. My teenage daughter was able to grasp it; you should be able to understand it as well.

Anyway. Regarding the adjective "dark" and the essay on QM above: we never wonder why we don't observe all possible explications of a quantum particle, and we also know that QFT only cares about energy differences (John Baez), or else vacuum mass density will be about 1096 kilograms per cubic meter. But GR and the quantum vacuum are incompatible 'apples and oranges' in the first place: "If there is quantum mechanical vacuum energy, then that means it should have some form of energy momentum stress tensor which means you do not really have a vacuum" (Maurice Dupré, private communication). Einstein was not aware of this problem with the quantum vacuum (Wolfgang Pauli reveal it in early 1930s), yet he wrote to Paul Ehrenfest on 4 February 1917:

"I have again perpetrated something relating to the theory of gravitation that might endanger me of being committed to a madhouse."

GR and QM are incompatible. That's the crux of the challenge. Don't sweep it under the rug with some ad hoc postulated exotic "perfect fluid" fields.

Also, people believe that in the presence of gravitation "the absolute value of energy matters" (Ed Masso), and then follow the seemingly obvious reason in the note by Georges Lemaître from 1934 and seek some Lorentz-invariant form of vacuum energy density (G. Marsh, arXiv:0711.0220v2, Eq 2), as if the theory of relativity were applicable to the utterly "dark" object -- the "value" of the fundamental increment of time produced by the true cosmological constant that "varies in neither space nor time" [Ref. 1]. Then they apply another, also seemingly obvious, conjecture that DDE should be related to positive energy densities only (T. Padmanabhan), and inevitably wind up with some perfect fluid that has "zero inertial mass" and "can be accelerated with no cost, no effort" (B. Schutz). Dead end.

Notice that the theory of relativity is inevitably blind to the fundamental increment of time  dt  produced by the true [lambda]/DDE, and the "direction" of space expansion is omnipresent, which too makes it "dark" in the framework of the current theory of relativity. In other words, we encounter "dark" objects, for different reasons, in QM, QFT, and in GR, all of which can be safely placed in the global mode of spacetime, after which we can never encounter any "dark" stuff -- in the local mode (never used in plural) the energy from "empty space" is precisely zero. Nonexistent.

Yes, we can have our cake and eat it. All we need is two modes of spacetime and an arrow of spacetime. For if 3-D space itself does not "change" by emerging from "something else" (Isham & Butterfield), there can be no "change" in time either. It's a bundle called 'spacetime'.

These are just preliminary notes; back in January 1990 I had some very general ideas about the "dark matter", and didn't mention anything about the "dark energy" (S. Weinberg) in my phone call to Alex Vilenkin. Now it seems the case is much clearer, yet the response is the same.

I can easily wait until Christmas 2009. The fun part with that "energy conservation in GR" is just around the corner!


D.C.
April 4, 2009
Last update: April 7, 2009


 

==================

Subject: arXiv:0807.2356v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:52:00 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: paddy@iucaa.ernet.in


"Treated as a fluid, this component has negative pressure (assuming positive energy density), ... "

Paddy, you're such a smart guy, can't you see that this last assumption is [snip]?

D.
----

Note: I believe ninety years are long enough time to realize that, due to the equivalence principle, the presentation of 'energy from geometry' cannot be "non-dark" or tensorial. This positive energy from geometry is just as "dark" as the energy from "empty space". People are searching for some "dark energy from empty space" with positive energy density only to feel comfortable with the same positive energy density from GR textbooks, which nobody understands, because it cannot be presented with some tensor in principle. It may look somehow familiar only because the unsolved task has been with us in the past ninety years: the energy conservation laws, after Noether's theorem, hold only in flat spacetime. In GR, the 'energy from geometry' is "a matter of opinion" (Afriat & Caccese); more from Carl Hoefer and Kenneth Dalton.

Look at the drawing below -- what do you see?


    |--------------|


Obviously, this is an elephant walking on tightrope, only it has just dropped off, due to some coordinate transformations.

NB: We need a new form of reality in GR -- potential reality -- to replace the ugly, and profoundly misleading, adjective "dark" in CDM & DDE: we encounter two scale-dependent and "opposite", tug-of-war effects of one and the same phenomenon. The mechanism by which the energy of gravitational field emerges into 3-D space as 'positive energy' is just as "dark" as is the mechanism by which the energy of quantum vacuum (see also Peter Rowlands) acts on both sides of Einstein equation. Compare this to the original proposal of cosmological "constant" by Einstein in 1917 (Norbert Straumann) and with Eq. 1 in (Yurij Baryshev).

In the same year of 1917, Tullio Levi-Civita stressed that there is no "simple localisation of energy" in GR (more above), and in 1955 Wolfgang Pauli made a crucial conjecture that "a more general group than the Lorentz group is present." In other words, the prerequisites for my talk on 21.09.2008, regarding possible modification of GR, have been laid out by 1955, and regarding QM by 18 November 1950, by Erwin Schrödinger.

(Regrettably, N. Straumann, C. Kiefer, and many other physicists didn't even acknowledge my invitation sent in June 2008, and N. Straumann didn't mention my efforts even in a footnote. Also, nobody has so far agreed to comment on my proposal regarding "GW astronomy", nor to endorse the submission of my manuscripts to ArXiv.org server.)

Taking the risk of becoming terribly boring, may I say it again: the 'grin of the cat without the cat' (Alice), which we see in the LHS of Einstein equation, should be understood as an adjective; say, blue. It is always [blue something], and this 'something' has always positive energy density, and is always placed in the RHS of the same equation. So, we have all forms of energy from classical physics, manifested only in the RHS, where the [blue] had  already  (notice the missing dynamics of spacetime) been converted to [blue something]; for example, EM radiation from GRBs. There is no 'generic blue of itself' in neither side of Einstein equation.



 

Consider the blue stuff (see above) as  'blue sky', and think of the adjective 'blue' as the geometrical part in Einstein equation, in line with the bi-directional "talk" of matter and geometry (John Wheeler). If you choose to place some additional terms in the RHS (see again Eq. 1 in Yurij Baryshev), by assuming its "positive energy density", you should alter the LHS of 'blue' as well, because you're dealing with one object, called 'blue sky'.

NB: We shouldn't alter only the end result that resides inevitably in the RHS, but the whole equation, to catch the cause of the puzzle.

But at this point we need to modify GR, as I've been arguing throughout this whole web site (we need to uncover the genuine dynamics of spacetime, but this task is not feasible with the misfortunate Hamiltonian formulation of GR). Some people haven't noticed it, however.

Thus, when we talk about the "dark" energy of 'blue sky', we refer to the seemingly paradoxical situation (well-known in quantum and solid state physics) in which there is an "additional" but holistic (or "dark", as some people call it) entity embedded into the 'blue sky' en bloc. This holistic entity (see the forest metaphor) cannot be disentangled from the 'blue sky' (for example, it cannot be reproduced by adding some term to the 'blue sky' evolving on flat Minkowski space), and hence cannot be identified and traced back to neither side of Einstein equation; it is in this particular sense "dark".

Otherwise the puzzle with the gravitational energy (see above) would have never occurred.

People who ignore this fundamental puzzle are inclined to take the easy approach to the "dark" energy of gravity, by presuming that it pertains to the "ordinary" matter with positive energy density. But we are not dealing with some "Lorentz-invariant" state "characterized by a new type of conserved charge q, which is constant over spacetime" (Frans Klinkhamer, arXiv:0810.1684v1 [gr-qc], p. 2).

The underlying puzzle is why we observe matter with one "charge" only. Recall that "in no other theories of physics is energy effectively a charge, and the same holds for momentum" (Sokolowski & Staruszkiewicz). In my just-another-crank opinion, if we are to modify GR, we should start with some brand new "charge"-neutral stuff (called here potential reality): see the water lily metaphor below.

That's the origin of the ninety-year old puzzle. It cannot be solved by tweaking its end result only, as Thanu Padmanabhan, Frans Klinkhamer, and many more people are trying.

To help you 'connect the dots' about what is "dark energy" in present-day GR, and why it must look "dark", recall that the gravitational potentials are considered instantaneous: "the whole universe must know about everything instantaneously" (Mike Zucker). Yet these gravitational potentials don't refer to some physical interaction, because the two "waves" (cf. James Woodward) cancel each other exactly at a point (recall that we have the freedom to "eliminate" gravity only at a point), leaving no physical trace from the preferred reference frame of 'the whole universe as ONE' and its holistic (or "dark", if you prefer) effects, so you can happily write down "conservation" recipes, such as "the twice contracted Bianchi identities" (reference here; see also M. Montesinos).

Thus, GR explicitly forbids any physical trace from the new "ether" (global mode of spacetime), yet the need for it is more than obvious. Which is the reason why I was interested in null-surface formulation of GR (see below) -- "the only "natural" foliation would be a family of null hypersurfaces" (John Stachel) -- and have suggested a third option regarding GWs, resembling those in Cramer's interpretation of QM; more here. We do need to modify GR, but in a way totally different than all published efforts.

All efforts to picture the "dark" energy of 'blue sky' with [energy of something] in the RHS leads to hypothetical situations which are totally unacceptable: read D. Eisenstein and E. Linder. And that's only the tip of the iceberg (cf. Abreu & Visser).

In short, the 'energy from geometry' is always "dark", in the sense that it cannot be presented with some tensor. Perhaps we need to know how to fix boundaries in 3-D space with two "dark" torsion degrees of freedom, or else the notion of gravitational energy will always remain elusive, as it has been in the past ninety years (Afriat & Caccese).

If you nevertheless wish to play with positive energy density of the 'blue sky', don't start with some custom-made 'equation of state' of some ad hoc postulated esoteric stuff: you should at least try to address the crucial question of whether the energy from quantum vacuum gravitates. Don't sweep it under the rug.

Once you propose a tentative answer to this first off question, you'll have to squeeze a perfectly smooth and omnipresent fluid into something that is 18 times smaller (4% ordinary stuff vs. 73% "dark" stuff), so that the Strong Energy Condition (SEC) will be "violated on cosmological scales right now!" (Barcelo & Visser, gr-qc/0205066v1), as the universe acquires an increasing flux of positive energy from ... well, from  itself , in a way resembling the famous "trick" by Baron Munchausen. Let me explain.

Suppose I want to display the color of my hair (y axis), as it evolves along the timeline of my life (x axis). I was born with black hair, sources say, at (x0, y0), but at my current age my hair is roughly 20% black and 80% white. Here I use a background time variable, in line with the so-called dualist conception of time (J. Christian): I presume an external background time, existing independently of my hair, whereas its dynamical evolution of 'getting white', although parameterizable by this external background time, is viewed to be ‘internal’, specific to my hair itself. Now, suppose I introduce a special "scalar filed" that makes my hair white, and write down its Equation Of State (EOS), such that it matches the curve, and then talk about my hair as 'the whole universe'. The "scalar filed" will then be part from 'the whole universe', and because it creates its cosmological time (x axis), it must "evolve", as it creates its time, in the same time that it creates -- all this at the same time. (In the same vein, we can't define the very entity that determines 'the length of a meter' with [meters]; see above.)

Only the human brain may read such intrinsically non-linear time, while an inanimate physical clock will "report" that there can be no dynamics whatsoever -- it will inevitably look  frozen , unless you can fabricate a linearized (and highly deceptive) approximation à la Chris Isham: "... I can certainly read the time on my wrist watch!" This fundamental problem cannot be resolved with "QFT in curved space-time" (Shapiro & Sola) either. We simply don't know the mechanism by which the non-linear (John Baez), unobservable "time" in GR gets converted into a linearized "time variable" (cf. Chris Isham above): recall the problem of time in classical GR (Carlo Rovelli) and the "second time derivatives" in canonical quantum gravity, T.P. Shestakova.

Therefore, we need to introduce the 'sufficient condition' for the dynamics of 'the whole universe': the so-called Aristotelian Connection. It is inevitably "dark", because it originates from the unique ONE state of the universe, which cannot be reached from/within the local (teleological) time.

In short, you should not be able to trace back the source of the dark stuff  [X]  "on the lake surface", or else it will cease to be "dark". Yet, since you presumed its positive energy density, it will then look like some perfectly homogeneous "fluid" that is being distributed evenly across the entire universe, so the mechanism by which it "enters" the world of positive mass and energy -- and necessarily violates SEC -- would be such that its perfectly homogeneous omnipresence could only be increased smoothly (cf. Matt Visser), in order to avoid all local, and certainly catastrophic, irregularities that could be observed "on the lake surface", and subsequently used to trace back its source [X].

Can you think of some "dark pump" that would inflate "dark energy from empty space" through each and every spacetime point (cf. N. Wright), --  evenly, throughout the whole (local mode) of spacetime ("the lake surface"), so that the latter would acquire en bloc more "dark energy"? This is the crux of the self-acting faculty of the universe: just like the human brain, the universe can 'act on itself', and this self-action will of course look "dark" to any local sub-system. Think of the latter as some
fishing rod float which can move only up and down (orthogonal to the lake surface), and then upgrade this 'up - down' direction to three orthogonal axes (now you have 3-D space orthogonal to the lake surface). If you're confined within this '3-D fishing rod float', can you tell from your time-reversible "motion" where the wave that makes you "move" comes from? The Aristotelian Connection is "dark" because is omnipresent.

Briefly, if the origin of an action is literally everywhere (i.e., if it comes from a "4th spatial dimension", Ned Wright), such omnipresent stuff cannot be 'traced back', because there is no direction left in 3-D space, from which it does not originate: there is no privileged direction in 3-D space that can be used as a reference "direction" for tracing back the "dark pump" which makes the fundamental timelike displacement throughout the whole "lake surface". Such self-acting and self-referential "dark pump" pertains to 'the whole universe en bloc', and can show up in present-day GR only as some disguised "gauge dependent" stuff.

If your math skills aren't strong enough to deal with 'the universe as ONE', try the problem from 1918.

Since February 1984, I've been studying the theoretical possibilities for upgrading GR to include the three forms of mass (cf. Ya.P. Terletsky) by means of two "mirror worlds" (timeless interaction of two non-physical universes, August 15, 1999); the latest comments on the unsolved problems, from April 7, 2007 can be read here. Gerard 't Hooft has a very interesting idea, which sheds some light on this incredibly complex task.

Notice a very important clue from Thanu Padmanabhan (a.k.a. Paddy):

"The cosmological constant problem in those days was to understand why it is strictly zero. Usually, the vanishing of a constant (which could have appeared in the low energy sector of the theory) indicates an underlying symmetry of the theory. For example, the vanishing of the mass of the photon is closely related to the gauge invariance of electromagnetism. No such symmetry principle is known to operate at low energies which made this problem very puzzling." (T. Padmanabhan, Dark Energy and its Implications for Gravity,  arXiv:0807.2356v1 [gr-qc], p. 2)

We need an underlying symmetry of the two "mirror worlds" running against each other in the global mode of spacetime, such that all but one state with positive mass (e.g.,  blue stuff , see above) will be cancelled by equal "negative amplitudes" from the "confirmation wave" in the "negative world". This is the 'actualization of potentialities': only one potential outcome -- one-at-a-time -- will be selected/allowed by zero "negative amplitude", by attributing an uncanceled "positive amplitude" to it, hence will be actualized with certainty -- "God casts the die, not the dice", Albert Einstein -- while all the other potentialities will be cancelled, like waves with equal amplitudes but opposite phase. Notice also that at each instant from the local mode of time (Photoshop "layer"), the "cosmological constant" is strictly zero, but if you ignore the global mode of spacetime and examine only the chain of these already-actualized instants, you will be deeply puzzled by some "dark" contribution from some "dark energy of empty space", and will be forced to trace back the source of this "dark energy" in the local mode of spacetime, which is of course wrong. Namely, if you consider only the "stack of Photoshop layers" (local mode of time), every such instant will look like a non-unitary transformation (creatio ex nihilo) along the arrow of spacetime, while if you run this arrow backwards (deflation time), the physical content of the universe will gradually fade away, in a way opposite to creatio ex nihilo (something like a non-unitary "information loss"), until it approaches asymptotically the "initial" state of [zero entropy]: see the eternal inflation with dual age above.

All these rudimentary speculations are driven by a very simple idea: the "chooser" of the actualization of one potentiality is 'the rest of the universe' in its ONE state (global mode of spacetime), by canceling all but one potentiality -- one-at-a-time -- hence creating the local mode of spacetime. There should exist just one quantum-gravitational "standing" wave in the global mode of spacetime, but how can we separate the "positive" and "negative" virtual worlds in four (not two) segments? This is the main unresolved task in my tentative talk on the so-called BCCP; notice
the favicon.ico of this web site:



 

Think of it as a completely open water lily with four leaves (a very remote analogy is the Kruskal-Szekeres map), which displays the kinematical snapshot of spacetime, such that we can make calculations by 'sum over potentialities' (not "histories"). Then close up the four leaves almost completely, to obtain the arrow of spacetime, such that only a miniscule fraction -- just one potentiality -- from these two worlds can be used to create the local mode of spacetime, with its vanishing small (but not zero) "cosmological constant" producing 'the elementary step' (the "dark pump") of this spacetime arrow -- see the drawing from 21.09.2008 above.

In other words, the residual fraction from the two worlds with "inverted space" (in line with the so-called scale relativity principle) can show up only as 'positive mass' of one explicated potentiality -- one-at-a-time -- in the local mode of spacetime ("on the lake surface"). Therefore, the "generic" gravitational energy, corresponding to "the lake surface" itself, should not have any finite value -- it should be infinitesimal, approaching asymptotically zero. Only some ideal, or meta-observer in the global mode of spacetime would notice the "dark spring under the lake". All events from "the lake surface" (local mode) are created dynamically, by just one explicated potentiality, hence a "horizontal" cosmological evolution will look entirely different from the "vertical" cosmological evolution, as one would expect from the dual age cosmology.

Namely, each and every "horizontal" slice of the arrow of spacetime stands as a perfectly legitimate, carpe diem universe, in which all holistic (or "dark", if you prefer) effects from the "ether" (global mode) are already interwoven into "the lake surface", so an observer confined "on the lake surface" will never witness any non-unitary, creatio-ex-nihilo-like event -- such creative events are untraceable in the local mode of spacetime. Notice that such observer "on the lake surface" can only record energy differences actualized from the quantum vacuum, so the claim that the 'energy difference' that has been actualized some 13.7 billion years ago is smaller/larger than the 'energy difference' actualized 'right now' requires comparison of two "horizontal" universes along the "vertical" arrow of spacetime. But such task is impossible for on-the-lake-surface observer (local mode of spacetime). For if you choose to ignore the two modes of spacetime and the dual age cosmology, you will have to wrestle (Bob Wald) with two tremendously unclear alternatives: either some accessible "beginning" of the cosmological time arrow (which in turn leads to the so-called vacuum cleaner paradox), or some truly eternal universe (the toy model would be the Thompson's lamp paradox). In order to 'have your cake and eat it', we need the only remaining possibility described at this web site, which includes all the 'good parts' from the two "alternatives".

Notice also that, from the perspective of the scale relativity principle, an observer at the length scale of tables and chairs may notice redshifted Supernovae Ia "candles" due to the changing, scale-dependent metric toward The Large. This could be an alternative to the (quite brutal) stipulation that some galaxy were actually receding from Earth with speed proportional to the distance to it. It just seems to me that Mother Nature is far more subtle and smart. Perhaps the true Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) with "two" Aristotelian cutoffs is yet to be discovered.

As to the question of what makes the 'water lily' open and closed, like a "breathing" (inhaling/exhaling) universe, perhaps it is related to the next question of why all this breathing exercise is "needed" in the first place, but such teleological stance is very questionable. Perhaps the human mind cannot understand the First Cause, and might display it only as 'pure mathematics'.

I suppose those people who are obsessed with the anti-theistic religion would really hate such ideas. As T. Padmanabhan suggested at his web site: "If you can't join them, beat them !"

Great idea. I am nothing but a psychologist, and I don't need quantum gravity. My task is to sort out the metaphysics of quantum gravity, and outline the model of 'the universe as a brain' in purely phenomenological terms. If the model turns out to be the correct one, the mathematics will automatically appear due to its enormous usefulness in the natural sciences, "something bordering on the mysterious" (Eugene Wigner).

Why would a fish need a "mysterious" bicycle?

Besides, nobody and nothing can stop the wasting of taxpayers' money for "GW astronomy" anyway: the so-called enhanced LIGO will try an S6 run in 2009, to probe a volume of space eight times larger than the one that produced five consecutive failures of LIGO. Of course they will end up empty handed, but instead will shut down LIGO temporarily in 2011, only to install new, "advanced interferometers". The insane efforts with the "advanced" LIGO will continue in 2014, with ten times the current "sensitivity", which means screening a volume of space 1000 larger than the one that produced the current five failures of LIGO. They will again fail miserably, because the problem is not related to the alleged "sensitivity" of LIGO. But because LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) don't care -- they have all the taxpayers' money they need -- they will try their last shot: the three LISA satellites in 2018.

Nobody cares. Nobody reads. Nobody thinks.  Nobody.


D. Chakalov
July 16, 2008
Last update: October 17, 2008
----



Gabriel Abreu and Matt Visser, Quantum Interest in (3+1) dimensional Minkowski space, arXiv:0808.1931v1 [gr-qc]

"It is well-known that quantum physics permits arbitrarily large negative energy densities at individual points [1, 2], though averages and total energies over volumes or lines are much more tightly constrained. This is of critical importance when developing singularity theorems, and other theorems based on global analysis, in that this simple observation is enough to guarantee that the so-called “classical energy conditions” are not fundamental physics, they are at best classical approximations to a more subtle quantum universe [3].

"Note that without something similar to the energy conditions to constrain the spacetimes one wishes to consider as “physical”, one can construct arbitrarily weird spacetimes containing such exotic objects as warp-drives [4, 5], traversable wormholes [6, 7, 8, 9], singularity-free “black holes” [10], GNACHOs [11], violations of the generalized second law [12], violations of cosmic censorship [13], and even time machines [14, 15, 16]. Because of the need to keep such oddities somewhat constrained, ... "
 


Edward L. Wright (last modified 8-May-1998), Balloon Analogy in Cosmology, © 1998,
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html

"The expanding balloon analogy for cosmological models is shown below at two different times. A common misconception is that the balloon is expanding into empty space that is "beyond the Universe" and that it is expanding from a single point in the center of the balloon. But the balloon analogy is a 2-dimensional model, and the center of the balloon and the space around are not part of the 2-dimensional Universe.

"In our 3-dimensional Universe, these points could only be reached by traveling in a 4th spatial dimension (not the time dimension of 4-D spacetime), but there is no evidence that this dimension exists."



Yu. V. Baryshev, Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics, arXiv:0810.0153v1 [gr-qc]

"In cosmology eq.(19) gives us a possibility to calculate of how much the energy increases or de-creases inside a finite comoving volume but it does not tell us where the energy comes from or where it goes.

"As Edward Harrison emphasized: "The conclusion, whether we like it or not, is obvious: energy in the universe is not conserved" (Harrison, 1981 , p.276). The same conclusion was reached by Peebles (1993) when he considered the energy loss inside a comoving ball of the photon gas. On page 139 he wrote "The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local concept, ... there is not a general global energy conservation in general relativity." But what is more there is no also local energy conservation in each comoving cell, and the root of the puzzle is in the geometrical description of the gravity."


Ilya L. Shapiro and Joan Sola, Can the cosmological "constant" run? - It may run, arXiv:0808.0315v2 [hep-th]

p. 6: "Essential for the RG method in cosmology is to understand that, in order for the vacuum energy to acquire dynamical properties, we need an evolving external metric background.
...
p. 13: "The real problem here, of course, is that we don’t know all the parts of the EA that feed the entire physical CC (most conspicuously the dynamical ones associated to the expanding background).
...
p. 19: "The physical running (if it is there at all) is not in μ but in q (or in the dynamical properties of the external background metric)."


Claus Kiefer, Quantum Gravity, 2nd ed., publication date: 22 February 2007; ISBN: 978-0-19-921252-1. See Chapter 10, 'Quantum gravity and the interpretation of quantum theory', and compare it with 'Quantum Mechanics 101' above.

Regarding the problem of time in canonical quantum gravity, read the opinion of C. Kiefer at
http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-921252-X.pdf  ,

and a note by Wolfgang Pauli from 1955 (ibid., p. 4): "It seems to me that it is not so much the linearity or non-linearity which forms the heart of the matter, but the very fact that here a more general group than the Lorentz group is present."



Norbert Straumann, Problems with Modified Theories of Gravity, as Alternatives to Dark Energy, arXiv:0809.5148v1 [gr-qc]. 20 pages, 4 figures, 15 footnotes. Invited talk at the conference "BEYOND EINSTEIN", Mainz, 22-26 September, 2008



Peter Rowlands, What is vacuum? arXiv:0810.0224v1 [physics.gen-ph]

pp. 7-8: "To understand vacuum, we simply imagine creating a fermion ab initio, that is, from absolutely nothing (global mode of spacetime - D.C.), with all the characteristics that we want to give it in terms of added potentials, interaction terms, etc. Vacuum is then simply the state that is left -- everything other than the fermion.
...
"Vacuum, in this understanding, becomes the ‘hole’ in the zero state produced by the creation of the fermion, or, from another point of view, the ‘rest of the universe’ that the fermion sees and interacts with. So, if we define a fermion with interacting field terms, then the ‘rest of the universe’ needs to be ‘constructed’ to make the existence of a fermion in that state possible. Vacuum defined in this way requires a zero totality universe, a possibility that is now very seriously considered, especially in relation to a universe beginning ab initio. A zero condition for the entire
universe is logically satisfying because it is necessarily incapable of further explanation. It is also a powerful route to understanding fundamental physical concepts because vacuum now becomes an active component of the theory. Here, it is important to realise that nilpotency (global mode of spacetime - D.C.) is a statement of a physical principle, rather than a purely mathematical operation.
...

p. 33: "None of this actually gives the exact structure of the vacuum, in the sense of constructing the ‘rest of the universe’ that needs to exist to make a fermion in a particular state actually possible. However, it does suggest that the explanation of some things that are currently mysterious, such as dark matter, dark energy, and even gravity itself, might respond, at some future date, to considerations based on the physical requirements that are needed to maintain the nilpotent vacuum existence condition."


==============


Subject: Elephant on tight rope
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:18:34 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: norbert.straumann@gmail.com, kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de

Dear Norbert and Claus,

I mentioned your names and opinions at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Paddy

If you disagree and/or wish to make a comment, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Dimi
----

Note: Suppose Norbert Straumann and Claus Kiefer were car mechanics, and were trying, in the past two decades, to fix the engine of their car, but have decided to use only hammers. I approached them six years ago, and said (very politely), 'look, I believe had the same kind of challenge with my car, have tried to fix it with your hammer, but it didn't work, then I used my wrench, and now it seems to me that my car is fixed, so why don't you try my wrench?' But the two car mechanics didn't even reply, and continued to wrestle with their car, by using more sophisticated hammers. Then I invited them to examine my car, to see how it runs, but they didn't even acknowledge my invitation. And if you ask them today whether they have ever heard about my suggestion to use a different tool, they will probably deny, or at best will say, like Lee Smolin, that don't read web pages.

Such kind of reaction may be called 'the worst of criticism is neglect'. Only they haven't made any progress whatsoever in the past six years. Which inevitably raises the question, which option is more important to them: fixing their car, or just workings with hammers. Because if you know only hammers, every problem will look to you like a nail (with positive energy density), and your ninety-year old car may never be fixed.


D. Chakalov
October 8, 2008



===================




Subject: The beach: Do asymptotically flat spacetimes exist?
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 01:39:57 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>

Hi,

> unfortunately, I only have the slides of my presentation yet and not a
> written account. I attach it in case your interested.

Thank you very much for the slides. I changed the subject of this email, and in case you believe that some asymptotically flat spacetime would "allows us to define gravitational radiation rigorously", I invite you to ponder on some practical issues at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#NSF

Best regards,

D. Chakalov


===================


Subject: The null-surface version of GR
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:27:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ted <newman@pitt.edu>
Cc: Simonetta Frittelli <simo@mayu.physics.duq.edu>,
Carlos Kozameh <kozameh@famaf.unc.edu.ar>,
George F R Ellis <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>,
Luca Bombelli <bombelli@olemiss.edu>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@midway.uchicago.edu>

Dear Ted:

You got your Ph.D. from the Syracuse University in 1956, so I suppose nothing said here and on my web site would be new to you.

May I take the risk of being (again) terribly boring, by making the following suggestions regarding your null-surface version of GR (Fuzzy spacetime from a null-surface version of GR, arXiv:gr-qc/9603061).

I agree with you and your colleagues that "the manifold idea itself" must be changed, and regarding your analogy with QM on p. 10, please see my essay on QM at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Just replace your 'fuzzy' with 'flexible', as explained in the text at the link above. The task is to make the spacetime itself dynamical, such that one could rigorously prove that there exist unique "boundaries" of this dynamical spacetime, which guaranty the uniqueness of the solutions for *any* given initial data, and particularly to avoid Cauchy problems for Einstein field equations (I consider the latter as 'the proof of the pudding' for any Conformal Infinity recipe for asymptotically flat spacetime).

The underlying idea is to update G F R Ellis' notion of 'finite infinity' with some well-known ideas from Aristotle,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#talk

Regarding your claim in arXiv:gr-qc/9603061 that "the spacetime manifold ceases to exist as a well-defined entity in the quantum theory", please see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Angelo

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Paddy

Regarding the H-space, my speculations can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Petkov.html#torsion

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Greenberg.html#addendum

I regret that you couldn't attend the talk on 21.09.2008,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Talk.txt

The next one will (hopefully) be in November 2015.

Do you know why we see mass with one "sign" only? I don't, and will appreciate your help, as well as the insights from your colleagues.

Best regards,

Dimi
-------



Note: I cannot understand the metaphysics of some "conformal boundary where the space-time conformal geometry extends smoothly to a region prior to it" (Roger Penrose). Also, I have a number of questions regarding the review article by Jörg Frauendiener [Ref. 1], which I hope the reader can intuitively grasp just by pondering on the text highlighted with bold and bold red.

For example, his main stipulations that (i) "infinity" could be placed far away with respect to the space-time metric [x] , and (ii) in order to "get to infinity" one needs infinitely many "metre sticks" in succession (ibid.), are incomprehensible in the case of expanding metric due to the so-called "dark energy". In my opinion, J. Frauendiener's claim "this does not mean that the following discussion is only valid for vacuum space-times, it simply allows us to make simpler statements" (ibid.), is a bona fide example of Murphy's Law No. 15: Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers. Another example is discussed above.

Besides, there is no guarantee that the number of spacetime points were denumerable, or even countably infinite, so that only a finite number of "metre sticks" would eventually suffice to cover "an infinite range" (cf. NB below).

Consider, for example, a line segment AB (see below), and attach two rational numbers to its ends, 1 and 3, replaced by A and B, respectively. Think of AB as a line segment with length 2 cm (notice that we also need an arbitrary or "sliding" cutoff point at 0). Somewhere between 1(A) and 2, there is a unique, and perfectly well-defined, point C (not shown), which is the Golden Mean of AB, such that AC/CB = CB/AB.

___0___A___2___B___

The point  C  (not shown) corresponds to an irrational number which belongs to the set of points from AB, so my guess is that this set of geometrical points, constituting the finite line segment AB ("metre stick"), is a nondenumerable and non-Archimedean entity (you may call it 'continuum', if you know what this means). If you are inside this non-Archimedean spacetime, there is no way you could reach its "boundaries", by "drinking" all "Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall".

To explain 'being inside', let's briefly examine the line segment AB above, which can only be defined with respect to 'something else' that remains outside it. The puzzle is known from Thompson's lamp paradox: the sum of the infinite geometric progression

1 + 1/2 + 1/4+ 1/8+ 1/16, ...

will reach 2 exactly at infinity, but because no finite partial sum could add up to 2, the state of Thompson's lamp at the instant 2 is indecisive (recall Gödel's Theorem), just like the intrinsic properties of the quantum system (global mode of spacetime) examined above.

NB: The lesson from Quantum Theory is that all points from the closed interval [A, B] are explicated or "dressed up" with their quasi-local quantum states (regardless of the kind of numbers associated to them), just like the "blue stuff" above. Stated differently, the underlying axioms of set theory (cf. the "objects m of our intuition" in G. Cantor's definition of ‘set’ from 1895 here) are rooted on Quantum Theory

The fact that the infinite geometric progression above has a limit exactly at infinity does not guarantee that the set of all such finite partial sums has a well-defined cardinality, such that we could tell apart 'countably infinite' from 'uncountably infinite'. If we wish to speculate that the "last" step in this infinite geometric progression, which "happens" exactly at infinity, is governed exclusively by the same rule/algorithm that generates the elements of this set of finite partial sums, we will face the unsolved puzzle recognized by Lucretius some 2060 years ago. Surely this "last" step somehow exists, or else there can be no finite objects around us, no difference between 'large' and 'small', and hence no 3-D space. But this "last" step cannot be derived exclusively from the rule that generates the set of finite partial sums: see again the Thompson's lamp.

NB: The only entity that can act as 'actual infinity', to complete this "last" step, is 'the universe as ONE' (global mode of spacetime), while all elements from this set are locked "inside" the set, and can approach the limit only asymptotically (cf. Stephen Leacock). To paraphrase Woody Allen, infinity is very long, especially towards the end.

In short, there should exist a special object known from Aristotle, which always remains "outside" the set of geometrical points with which we model the spacetime continuum, and with respect to which the very notion of 'set' makes sense. But if you are a member of this set (=inside the spacetime continuum), you cannot reach this special object in principle.

Going back to more mundane affairs, notice that Penrose's "conformal boundary" encapsulates a profound problem of cosmology, which is usually formulated like 'the universe started some 13.7 billion years ago from  [?] , yet in the deflation time it can approach its initial state of  [?]  only asymptotically'. But any final time interval requires three fixed values, so the phrase 'the universe had started asymptotically from  [?] ' is a jabberwocky. (If you prefer, call it "a huge burden", cf. A. Ashtekar; more from Bob Wald). Again, the universe can only "start" from the special object mentioned above --  'the universe as ONE' -- which is also called 'potential reality'. In the local mode of time, the same universe can approach its Beginning and End only asymptotically, which in turn suggests a dual age cosmology.

As to Geroch-Kronheimer-Penrose "ideal points" and Jörg Frauendiener's review article [Ref. 1], they have to reconcile two incompatible requirements. On the one hand, the "physical spacetime" must be connected to its larger source, the "unphysical spacetime" (see the "beach of the lake" above), because you can talk about "the lake" only with respect "the beach", and vice versa. On the other hand, they have to be totally disconnected, or else you will have to deal with the inevitable "unphysical" stuff from "the beach", and will have to introduce additional assumptions by hand (e.g., Wald & Zoupas, gr-qc/9911095). Can't have your cake and eat it.

George F. R. Ellis tried to address the task above with its 'finite infinity' proposal, stressing that "a null surface does not work well in this context", but his 1984 article wasn't mentioned in the references provided by Jörg Frauendiener. To understand the importance of the issue of 'boundaries of spacetime', read Steven Harris; more here.

You need to 'hold onto something' in order to fix 'boundaries of spacetime', but you can't find such reference object in "the lake" (physical spacetime) nor in "the beach" (unphysical spacetime). And then the problems from the Hamiltonian formulation of GR are inevitable -- you split the spacetime into two "parts", and try to "evolve" one of them with respect to the other: read Stephen Hawking above. All you could achieve is to make Hermann Minkowski spin in his grave like a helicopter.

See the drawing of 'the arrow of spacetime' above, and notice that the "dark gaps" of 'the universe as ONE' are placed at the "boundaries" of the volume of 3-D space in both "directions" (the two black horizontal arrows), toward The Small and The Large, in line with the so-called scale relativity. There is no way I could accept the absolute structure of 3-D space, for reasons explained here. (Recall also that there is no problem of space in canonical quantum gravity.)

To sum up, the dark gaps of 'non-existence' (St. Augustine) must be introduced on the differentiable manifold from the outset. Their action has been called The Aristotelian Connection, as they produce finite volumes of 3-D space (cf. the Hausdorff manifold and the puzzle from Lucretius here). The unique object of 'the universe as ONE' is both "outside" the (local mode of) spacetime, to fix its "boundaries", and "between" any two neighboring points -- the dark gaps -- from the (local mode of) spacetime. It is both infinitely close and infinitely away from any observer in the local (teleological) time. It is also the engine of the arrow of spacetime: the Aristotelian First Cause.

Otherwise you're destined to some "block universe" (George F. R. Ellis), in which there is no room for any "dark energy", nor explanation of the 'positive mass' that might eventually occur only on some smooth, complete, asymptotically flat spacetime with "fixed boundaries at infinity".

So, why do we see mass with one "sign" only (cf. Pankaj S. Joshi, gr-qc/0702116v1, p. 5)? I hope to suggest some constructive ideas by November 2015, commemorating the 100th anniversary of Einstein's General Relativity. Which means that, in the following seven years, I will keep following the advice from John Wheeler (courtesy from Christopher Fuchs): "We must make as many mistakes as we can, as fast as we can, or we'll never have a hope of gaining a true understanding!"

For if we don't leave for India, how else can we discover America?


D. Chakalov
October 3, 2008
Last update: October 8, 2008

 


[Ref. 1] Jörg Frauendiener, Conformal Infinity,
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2000-4

Sec. 2.1

"Thus, we are led to consider a different kind of "isolation procedure". We imagine the system as being "alone in the universe" in the sense that we assume it being embedded in a space-time manifold which is asymptotically flat. How to formulate this is a priori rather vague. Somehow we want to express the fact that the space-time "looks like" Minkowski space-time "at large distances" from the source.
...

"These considerations lead us to focus on space-times which are asymptotically flat in the appropriate sense. However, how should this notion be defined? How can we locate "infinity"? How can we express conditions "at infinity"?
...

"What is needed, therefore, is a definition of asymptotically flat space-times which allows to overcome both the problem of "where infinity is" and the problem of simulating an infinite system with finite resources. The key observation in this context is that "infinity" is far away with respect to the space-time metric [x] . This means that one needs infinitely many "metre sticks" in succession in order to "get to infinity".

NB: "But, what if we replaced these metre sticks by ones which grow in length the farther out we go? Then it might be possible that only a finite number of them suffices to cover an infinite range, provided the growth rate is just right. (... and also the number of spacetime points were countably infinite, which is by no means obvious - D.C.)
...

"In this way we can construct a boundary consisting of all the end points of the succession of finitely many rescaled metre sticks arranged in all possible directions. This construction works for Minkowski space and so it is reasonable to define asymptotically flat space-times as those for which the scaling-down of the metric is possible.
...

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2000-4/node4.html

"Roughly speaking (see the next section for a detailed account), the general idea is to attach boundary points to the "physical" space-time manifold which idealize the end-points at infinity reached by infinitely extended null geodesics. This produces a manifold with boundary, the "unphysical" manifold, whose interior is diffeomorphic to the physical
manifold. Its boundary is a regular hypersurface whose causal character depends on the cosmological constant.
...


http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2000-4/node5.html

"Definition 1: A smooth (time- and space-orientable) space-time  M  is called asymptotically simple, if there exists another smooth Lorentz manifold  M  such that ... "

"According to the first condition, the space-time  M , which we call the physical space-time, can be considered as part of a larger space-time  M , the unphysical space-time. As a submanifold of  M , the physical space-time can be given a boundary which is required to be smooth.

(A bit later, this smooth boundary will be promoted to a special cutoff which separates causally  M  from  M  , yet the the unphysical metric will be kept well-defined on both   M  and  M  , which of course includes the alleged smooth boundary "between" them  -- D.C.)

"The unphysical metric  gab  is well-defined on  M  and, in particular, on M , while the physical metric  gab  is only defined on  M  and cannot be extended in a well-defined sense to the boundary of  M  (Sic! - D.C.) or even beyond.

(The extension of the physical metric  gab  beyond the boundary of  M  is assumed to be "causally disconnected from  M "; see below -- D.C.)

"The metrics generate the same conformal structure, they are conformally equivalent in the sense that on  M  they define the same null-cone structure.

"Note that although the extended manifold  M  and its metric are called unphysical, there is nothing unphysical about this construction.

(There is, however, a lot of poetry in the phrase "in a well-defined sense to the boundary of  M " above  -- D.C.)

"As we shall see below, the boundary of  M  in  M  is uniquely determined by the conformal structure of   M  and, therefore, it is just as physical as  M .

(The crucial assumption here is that the boundary of  M  is "uniquely determined by the conformal structure of   M  "; however, the physical metric  gab  cannot be extended "in a well-defined sense" to this boundary, which renders the physical metric  gab  at the very "boundary"  unphysical , and the two metrics may overlap smoothly at the "red/black boundary" -- the unphysical metric  gab  is well-defined on both  M  and  M  , hence the boundary "between" the two spacetimes disappears, at least at the "entry points" from  M  towards  M  -- D.C.)

"The extension beyond the boundary, given by  M , is not unique, as we have already seen in Section 2.2, but this is of no consequence for the physics in  M  because the extension is causally disconnected from  M .

(But the extension is not causally disconnected from within  M  , because the unphysical metric is kept well-defined on both  M  and  M  . Besides, if the "number" of points is uncountably infinite (see "Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall"), the rate by which the "metre sticks" grow in length "the farther out we go" (see above) is irrelevant. You can't make the growth rate "just right", because you can't "drink all the uncountably infinite bottles" in the first place. It won't help if you try to "drink all aleph-null bottles" along null geodesics either. Thus, if the number of points in a "metre stick" does not depend on its length but is always 'uncountably infinite', you can't cook up any "conformal boundary" by playing with "metre sticks" that grow in length "the farther out we go" -- D.C.)
...

"We defined asymptotically flat space-times by the requirement that the Einstein vacuum equation holds near the boundary, i.e., that asymptotically the physical space-time is empty.

(Great, because the "dark energy" springs from empty space -- D.C.)

"Therefore, we will assume henceforth that the physical space-time is a vacuum space-time. This does not mean that the following discussion is only valid for vacuum space-times, it simply allows us to make simpler statements.
...

"In summary, our qualitative picture of asymptotically flat space-times is as follows: Such space-times are characterized by the property that they can be conformally compactified. This means that we can attach boundary points to all null-geodesics.

(If you can suggest a null-surface formulation of GR -- "the only "natural" foliation would be a family of null hypersurfaces" (John Stachel) -- follow the link above -- D.C.)

"More importantly, these points together form a three-dimensional manifold which is smoothly embedded into a larger extended space-time. The physical metric and the metric on the compactified space are conformally related.

"Smoothness of the resulting manifold with boundary translates into asymptotic fall-off conditions for the physical metric and the fields derived from it.

(NB: We don't have anything of the above. R. Penrose has been trying to obtain such "asymptotic behaviour" from some "conformal boundary" since 1965 -- D.C.)

"The boundary emerges here as a geometric concept and not as an artificial construct put in by hand. This is reflected by the fact that it is not possible to impose a "boundary condition" for solutions of the Einstein equations there. In this sense it was (and is) not correct to talk about a "boundary condition at infinity" as we and the early works sometimes did.
...

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2000-4/node6.html

2.4 Example: Minkowski space

"In this subsection we continue our discussion of the prototype of an asymptotically flat space-time, namely Minkowski space-time.
...

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2000-4/node20.html

4.5 What should be done?

"A problem which affects all the work in numerical relativity today is the obscure nature of the gauge conditions. Currently there is not much understanding of the effects of a gauge condition on the resulting nature of the coordinates (frame, conformal factor). Most of the work done on these problems is related to the choice of a lapse function; in particular several proposals have been made for selecting a time coordinate. These are mostly dictated by formal considerations like the need of making a system hyperbolic or of easy implementation. To some extent this is justified because the physics cannot depend on the coordinates which are used.

"But it is also well known that there are "good" and "bad" coordinates. What "good" and "bad" means depends to a large extent on what the goal is."



Abhay Ashtekar, Quantum Space-times, arXiv:0810.0514v2 [gr-qc]

p. 6: "The universe has had some 14 billion years to evolve since the putative big bang and even minutest quantum corrections could accumulate over this huge time period leading to observable departures from dynamics predicted by general relativity. Thus, the challenge to quantum gravity theories is to first create huge quantum effects that are capable of overwhelming the extreme gravitational attraction produced by matter densities of some 10105 gms/cc near the big bang, and then switching them off with extreme rapidity as the matter density falls below this Planck scale. This is a huge burden!
...
p. 16: "To capture the intuitive notion that black hole is a region from which signals can not escape to the asymptotic part of space-time, one needs a precise definition of future infinity. The standard strategy is to use Penrose’s conformal boundary I+ [40].
...
pp. 17-18: "Asymptotic flatness and the notion of I+ is used also in other contexts, in particular to discuss gravitational radiation in full, nonlinear general relativity [40]. (...) If the singularity is resolved due to quantum effects, there may be no longer an EH. What then is a black hole?
---
[40] R. Penrose, Zero rest mass fields including gravitation: asymptotic behaviour, Proc. R. Soc. (London) Ser A, 284 159-203 (1965)

 

=====================


Subject: arXiv:0804.1585v5 [hep-th]
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:49:18 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Itzhak Bars <bars@usc.edu>

Dear Professor Bars,

I wonder if you could shed some light on the "shadow" from the energy-momentum tensor [Ref. 1] in your theory.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----
[Ref. 1] Luke M. Butcher, Anthony Lasenby, Michael Hobson, The physical significance of the Babak-Grishchuk gravitational energy-momentum tensor, arXiv:0807.0112v1 [gr-qc]

"The canonical response to the gravitational energy-momentum problem is to dismiss it as "looking for the right answer to the wrong question"[2]; but while the well-known argument presented by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is certainly compelling, it is far from watertight. (...) Despite these reservations, the argument in [2] remains vindicated as yet by the failure of these escape-routes to yield anything which can be physically interpreted as an energy-momentum tensor."
--
[2] C. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, 1973), p. 466.

 

=======================


Subject: Quantum physics: Illusion or potential reality?
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:25:19 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Alastair I M Rae <alastair@aarae.co.uk>

Dear Dr. Rae,

Given your nearly forty years experience as a teacher and researcher in physics, I searched your book "Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?" (2nd edition, 1994) and latest paper [Ref. 1] for 'Kochen-Specker Theorem', and since I couldn't find any reference to it, may I offer you an essay on QM at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Should you have questions and/or wish to make a comment, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

---

[Ref. 1] Alastair I. M. Rae, Everett and the Born Rule, arXiv:0810.2657v1 [quant-ph]

"The conventional ("Copenhagen") interpretation of quantum mechanics
states that the state of a system following a measurement is one (and
only one
) of the eigenvalues belonging to the operator representing
the measurement and that, as a result of the measurement, the
wavefunction "collapses" to become the corresponding eigenfunction.
(...) An alternative approach to quantum measurement is the Everett
interpretation (also known as the "relative states" or the "many
worlds" interpretation) which was proposed by Everett III (1957). The
essence of this approach is that it assumes no collapse of the
wavefunction associated with a measurement: instead, the time
development of the state is everywhere governed by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. After a "measurement-like" event, this results in a splitting of the wavefunction into a number of branches, which are then incapable of reuniting or communicating with each other in any way. This splitting occurs even when a human observer is part of
the measurement chain: the resulting branches then each contain a copy
of the observer, who is completely unaware of the existence of the
others."
---

Note: The first sentence in [Ref. 1] encapsulates the inherent problems of the textbook ("Copenhagen") version of QM, which Hew Everett tried to fix by taking the linearity conjecture as a "basic" principle, and subsequently all the undenumerable "alternatives" were spread across some "multiverse".

But if you interpret this "multiverse" as 'potential reality', and recall some basic facts stressed by Schrödinger in 1935, a brand new interpretation of Quantum Mechanics seems to be possible.

When will Alastair Rae respond to my email? When pigs fly, I'm afraid.


D. Chakalov
October 16, 2008


================

Subject: How to play macroscopic quantum game, arXiv:0811.3015v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:16:32 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Andrei-grib@mail.ru
Cc: Andrei.Khrennikov@msi.vxu.se, svozil@pop.tuwien.ac.at, apoltorak@gpci.com

Andrei Anatolievich,

Back in December 1983, we had a brief conversation in your office in Leningrad, from which, I believe, one can immediately deduce the answer to the question in the subject line.

People employed by KGB are usually very smart, so I'm sure you will grasp the updated story at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Take care,

D. Chakalov
---

Note: Let's quote from Karl Svozil's arXiv:quant-ph/0609209v3:

"In the quantum case, the Hilbert lattices can formally be thought of as pastings of a continuum of blocks or contexts, but the mere assumption of the physical existence -- albeit inaccessible to an intrisic observer -- of even a finite number of contexts yields a complete contradiction. (...) It has been proposed that in these cases the measurement apparatus “translates” one context into the other at the prize of randomizing the measurement result [82]. This context translation principle could be tested by changing the measurement apparatus’ ability of translation."

Back in the year 2000, while I was living in Vienna, I visited Prof. Dr. Karl Svozil, and tried to explain how one can completely resolve the "complete contradiction" mentioned by him. The so-called 'context translation principle' is demonstrated above, with the Platonic idea of 'corner per se'.

If your brain can surf on the continuum of contexts, Mother Nature may be doing it as well, perhaps even better. All this is widely know since the time of Plato. No need to invent the wheel.
 

D. Chakalov
November 21, 2008


===================

Subject: arXiv:0812.2278v1 [cond-mat.str-el]
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:51:06 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Michael Freedman <michaelf@microsoft.com>

Dear Dr. Freedman,

I wonder if you could find a genuine topological phase in the so-called Buridan donkey paradox,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Buridan

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


===================


Subject: $102,061 -- Quantum Measurement in the Timeless Universe
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:54:36 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Dowling <jdowling@lsu.edu>
Cc: Kavita Rajanna <mail@fqxi.org>, Carlton Caves <caves@info.phys.unm.edu>

Jonathan:

It seems to me that you will waste even more money, this time from
FQXi. Check out some basic facts about QM at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Would you like to learn *exactly* why you will fail, or shall I follow your advice (Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:25:08 -0800, Message-ID:
<3C638B65.88ACE03@earthlink.net>) "Never give oxygen to Morons....." ?

D. Chakalov

----

$102,061 Quantum Measurement in the Timeless Universe
http://fqxi.org/large-grants/awardee/details/2008/dowling

"Our goal is to reconcile this timeless nature of the universe with quantum theory's definite "arrow of time."

"We have proposed a framework for accomplishing this, which identifies quantum measurement in terms of entanglement and information, and appears to solve basic problems of correspondence with established Schroedinger-picture mechanics.'


-------

Subject: Re: $102,061 -- Quantum Measurement in the Timeless Universe
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:11:44 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: FQXi <mail@fqxi.org>
Cc: Jonathan Dowling <jdowling@lsu.edu>,
Carlton Caves <caves@info.phys.unm.edu>

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:49:14 -0500, Message-Id:
<A8EC80E9-DA89-43A9-8102-432F08D0F15D@fqxi.org>, FQXi <mail@fqxi.org> wrote:
>
> Dimi,
> Please stop harassing FQXi via email and posts to the website.
> The FQXi Community Forum is meant to be a space for active
> discussion on foundational questions.

Kavita, I was quoting an insult from Prof. Dr. Jonathan Dowling, which he sent me by email on 8 Feb 2002. This is a fact, and can be verified.

As to scientific facts, they are provided at the link from my preceding email.

It is impossible *in principle* that Prof. Dr. Jonathan Dowling succeed with his project (generously funded by FQXi).

Please keep this email in your records. You may need it.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


===================


Subject: arXiv:0903.3489v1 [gr-qc]: Total ignorance of basic bold facts
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 05:40:42 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Julian <Julian.Barbour@physics.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Kavita Rajanna <mail@fqxi.org>,
B.Z.Foster@phys.uu.nl,
adam@math.missouri.edu

Julian,

I am unable to understand how you managed to get the first prize. You did not reply to *any* of the comments submitted to your web page.

The simple fact that you have a brain proves your speculations wrong -- recall my note from Dec. 2, 2008 @ 05:20 GMT,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Barbour

And email from Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:57:58 +0100,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Julian

I know you will ignore this email as well, but you can't forget it. Never.

Kavita: How come Adam Helfer shared your fourth prize with nine other people, while Julian Barbour won the first prize? It's just unbelievable.

This whole story will be recorded on my DVD as well, as a document of the activity of The Foundational Questions Institute.

Dimi

============
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/360

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 19, 2008 @ 21:20 GMT

Dear colleagues,

I'm afraid there is no sense in posting our comments and questions here, because Julian Barbour lives in a different world, and just doesn't care.

Dimi Chakalov
--------
 


Note: Julian Barbour did not respond to any of the issues raised in my critical note from Dec. 2, 2008 @ 05:20 GMT, but instead tried to obscure them by making the following statement on Jan. 7, 2009 @ 17:55 GMT:

"I freely admit that at the end I must rely on the unknown way in which structure in the brain can lead to conscious experience."

I can easily elaborate (see my email below), but let's switch to his area of professional expertise: he acknowledged that "the universe is the only perfect clock" (arXiv:0903.3489v1 [gr-qc], p. 8), and then argued that the duration of time is not only immeasurable, but is also a concept that is redundant, because it can be derived from a "timeless" Jacobi principle (ibid., Eq. 5). What he failed to realize is that the duration of time, as read by 'the universe as the only perfect clock', should be made of infinitely many increments of time  dt  . The latter is the fundamental increment of time, which must be immeasurable and unobservable in principle (recall Thompson's lamp paradox). Its "value" could very well be 'absolute' in the sense of Newtonian 'absolute time', because it is an infinitesimal quantity that will remain invariant in all reference frames. Also, one can "eliminate" the energy-components of the gravitational field (Hermann Weyl) only "within" the temporal infinitesimal   dt  .

This  dt  has to be hidden, or else the absolute (global) Newtonian time, which pertains to 'the universe as ONE', may become a bona fide Dirac observable (along with its driving force called dynamic dark energy of [you name it]), and we wouldn't have any theory of relativity: the ether, as well as the arrow of spacetime, will be exposed to any clock associated with some sub-system from 'the universe as ONE'.

This inevitable conundrum was recognized by Aristotle, which is why he introduced the unreachable, in the local and teleological time, First Cause and Unmoved Mover.

The whole effort made by Julian Barbour was to "prove" that there is no time in a theory that has no observable duration of time from the outset.

To paraphrase Confucius, it is not at all difficult to prove that there is no black cat in a dark room, provided the cat has always been on the street, as we know since Aristotle.


D.C.
March 23, 2009
Last update: March 25, 2009
----
The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.

Confucius


===================

Subject: Re: arXiv:0903.3489v1 [gr-qc]: Total ignorance of basic bold facts
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:28:27 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Julian Barbour <julian.barbour@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: Kavita Rajanna <mail@fqxi.org>,
B.Z.Foster@phys.uu.nl,
adam@math.missouri.edu


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Julian Barbour <julian.barbour@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In fact, I did respond to postings if you care to look (towards the end)
> at all those for my fqxi essay.

Let's look at the facts. This is what you wrote on Dec. 30, 2008 @
16:48 GMT
: "I would like to assure Dimi Chakalov that I do live in the
same world and do care."

You did not respond to my critical note. I put facts against your hypotheses, while you offered bold statements.

> However, I fear from the nature of your comments

Hold on, please. My "comments", as you put it, are derived from textbooks in brain neurophysiology. I can give you many detailed references. Trust me, I read my first textbook (graduate level) in 1973.

> that little I say will persuade you that I might have a point

No, you cannot have "a point", because you will have to discover some new brain science that can fit your hypotheses.

> so I hope you will understand if I leave it at that.

No, I do not, and cannot understand it.

Now that you got the prize from FQXi, please get professional. It's about time.

More in my note added at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Julian_Kavita

Dimi
 


===================


Subject: Information Gravity (IG) and the Wegtransformierbarkeit of
gravitational energy
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:17:13 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Marco Spaans <spaans@astro.rug.nl>
Cc: Alexander Afriat <afriat@gmail.com>

Dear Marco,

I read your latest manuscript [Ref. 1] with great interest, and wonder how you would apply Information Gravity (IG) and Information Principle (IP) to the Wegtransformierbarkeit of gravitational energy,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Afriat

Alexander Afriat and Ermenegildo Caccese, arXiv:0804.3146v2, p. 27:

"Vanishing is an important criterion: a complex whose components are wegtransformierbar cannot be physically real -- one whose components all
vanish cannot ‘coincide’ with one whose components don’t."

Also, how would you apply IG to the "emergence" of instantaneous inertial reaction forces?

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Woodward

I was never able to understand the Equivalence Principle, because of the apparent freedom to eliminate gravity locally, 'at a point' [Ref. 2]. It reminds me of an old joke: what do you see below?

|-----------------------|

Obviously, it is a wegtransformierbar elephant walking on tightrope, only it has just dropped due to the Equivalence Principle.

Best regards,

Dimi

-----------

[Ref. 1] M. Spaans, The role of information in gravity, arXiv:0903.4315v2 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4315v2

"Note then that a free-falling observer, locally impervious to the force of gravity, requires only non-gravitational information to be described himself, i.e., using information pertaining to non-gravitational interactions. Of course, gravitational information is needed for the energy-momentum induced curvature of the global space-time that an observer occupies. Hence, under the IP, it is the insufficiency of non-gravitational information to define particle dynamics that imposes gravity.

"To formalize and quantify this, one can introduce non-gravitational information on energy-momentum, N, that describes particles in the absence of gravity, and gravitational information, N', that defines the gravity exerted by particles. Interestingly, Einstein gravity is locally flat, so N' = N then.
...
"Finally, the IP should be applicable to quantum information as well."


[Ref. 2] Hermann Weyl, Space-Time-Matter, Fourth Edition, translated
by Henry L. Brose, Dover Publications, New York, 1951, p. 270:

"And yet, physically, it seems devoid of sense to introduce the t_k as energy-components of the gravitational field, for these quantities neither form a tensor nor are they symmetrical. In actual fact, if we choose an appropriate co-ordinate system, we may take all the t_k at one point vanish; it is only necessary to choose a geodesic co-ordinate system."
 


===================


Subject: Re: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Message-ID:
<bed37360901060856u704826f5x59cf1c551cccf965@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:56:29 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Drew Keppel <drew.keppel@ligo.org>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
Peggy L Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>,
oig@nsf.gov,
GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov,
kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu,
lsfinn@psu.edu


Ladies and Gentlemen,

My email from Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:04:16 +0300, followed by a brief outline of the reasons why I accused LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) of aggressive professional negligence, can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#NSF

I will be happy to write up a White Paper, provided it will be reviewed by professional physicists not affiliated with LSC.

Please notice the fifth consecutive failure of LSC to detect event a trace from GWs [Ref. 1].

To the best of my knowledge, the so-called "enhanced" LIGO will try an S6 run in 2009, to probe a volume of space eight times larger the one that produced five consecutive failures of LIGO. Of course they will end up empty handed, but instead will shut down LIGO temporarily in 2011, only to install new, "advanced interferometers".

The insane efforts with the "advanced" LIGO will continue in 2014, with ten times the current "sensitivity", which means screening a volume of space 1000 larger than the one that produced the current five failures of LIGO. They will again fail miserably, because the problem is not related to the alleged "sensitivity" of LIGO. But because LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) don't care -- they have all the taxpayers' money they need -- they will try their last shot: the three LISA satellites in 2018.

And that will cost billions.

We must stop this irresponsible gamble. The sooner, the better.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU, UK

----

[Ref. 1] LIGO Scientific Collaboration (483 members), Search for Gravitational Waves from Low Mass Binary Coalescences in the First Year of LIGO's S5 Data, arXiv:0901.0302v1 [gr-qc], submitted on 5 Jan 2009, http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0302

LIGO Scientific Collaboration (483 members) wrote:

"The result of the search was that no plausible gravitational wave signals were observed above the background.

"We set upper limits on the rate of these types of events that are two orders of magnitude smaller than the previous observational upper limits [11, 13], although they are still several orders of magnitude above the range of astrophysical estimates. [3, 4, 6, 36]

"In the coming years, LIGO and other ground-based detectors will undergo significant upgrades. We expect to be able to significantly improve our sensitivity to gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences and are preparing for the first detections and studies.
...

"The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National Science Foundation for the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory ... "


================

Subject: Re: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Message-ID:
<bed37360901311000h4b12a334x557b22f78da5e5ca@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:00:14 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Drew Keppel <drew.keppel@ligo.org>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
Peggy L Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>,
oig@nsf.gov,
GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov,
kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu,
lsfinn@psu.edu,
STFC Chief Executive Keith Mason <keith.mason@stfc.ac.uk>,
Bernd Brügmann <b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de>,
Stefan Krückeberg <Stefan.Krueckeberg@dfg.de>,
ego@ego-gw.it,
secretariat@ego-gw.it


Ladies and Gentlemen,

Regarding my email from Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:56:29 +0200: I am definitely positively certain that the so-called "enhanced" LIGO will fail to detect any trace from GWs. There is no reason whatsoever to wait until the end of 2009 for the sixth consecutive failure of LIGO.

By this day, I have asked 146 (one hundred forty-six) experts in GR to review my white paper on "GW astronomy",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review

Please check out a brief explanatory note at the link above, right under the quote from Sir Hermann Bondi (you may need to press [PgDn] to read it). I hope you will understand why I am definitely positively certain that the so-called "enhanced" LIGO will fail to detect any trace from GWs.

If, after reading the explanatory note at the link above, you are still a bit optimistic about the fate of LIGO, please write me back and I will elaborate, with utmost pleasure.

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov


On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:56:29 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
> My email from Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:04:16 +0300, followed by a brief
> outline of the reasons why I accused LIGO Scientific Collaboration
> (LSC) of aggressive professional negligence, can be read at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#NSF
>
> I will be happy to write up a White Paper, provided it will be
> reviewed by professional physicists not affiliated with LSC.

[snip]


================

Subject: Re: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:11:58 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>
Cc: Drew Keppel <drew.keppel@ligo.org>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
Peggy L Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>,
oig@nsf.gov


Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:24:24 -0600
Message-Id: <AFF5275D-0906-422B-84B5-081568D7C78B@wuphys.wustl.edu>
From: Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>


Please remove me from your email mailing list.
C. Will
cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu

On Feb 5, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
> P.S. The recipe of LSC for detecting GWs is explained with a "GW lake"
> and "buoy" at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review
> (latest update February 5, 2009)
>
> D.C.


NO WAY.

You are responsible for wasting hundreds of million dollars -- all taxpayers' money -- for chasing your dream, and you will have to respond professionally. The sooner, the better.

D. Chakalov

 


================

Subject: Request for review
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:04:18 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: L P Grishchuk <grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk>
Cc: Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
Peggy L Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>

Dear Leonid,

It is a real pleasure to read your latest arXiv:0810.0756v3 [astro-ph], and I am indeed glad it was accepted for publication by PRD. There should be a pattern left on WMAP from the relic GWs. I cannot think of any objections to your "pump" metaphor and Wheeler's 'engine-driven cosmology' (Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 825 (1974)). With so much "dark energy of [whatever]" around, all smart bets, like yours, are plausible.

The very fact that WMAP can display 'cosmic equator' (cf. Craig J. Copi et al., arXiv:astro-ph/0605135v2) means that we still don't quite understand the quasi-local gravitational energy, and the gauge-dependent GWs (non-linear GR) might show up as well. But this is valid only for the relic GWs IMHO.

I dare to claim that there is a difference in principle between revealing the relic GWs *in the past*, as opposed to detecting GWs "online", as they would supposedly tweak the interference pattern at LIGO, along the proper time of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator.

The former is (or at least might be) possible; the latter isn't. No way. To prove the negative claim, I only need to assume that in classical GR the space is 3-D, which is trivial statement in GR textbooks.

Here comes my request. I am ready to write a White Paper on the alleged GW "astronomy" of LSC,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Keppel_NSF

I wonder if you would agree to review it. The manuscript will be max. 15 pages (I will quote your six preconditions from arXiv:gr-qc/9907027v2, p. 3), and includes a simple Gedankenexperiment with the phase and the dimensionless GW "amplitude", which literally kills the whole enterprise of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC). The conclusions are: yes, GWs exist and *might* be detectable (this is a different thread), but -- no, not with LIGO or LISA. The latter are manifestly blind and deaf to the quasi-local gravitational energy, firstly, and secondly -- the linearized approximation of GR, adopted by LSC for the *specific purposes of detecting GWs*, is inadequate for this specific task from the outset (I suggested in 2006 that LIGO tunnels should be converted to wine cellars).

Would you please agree to review my White Paper? The tentative title is "Gravitational Wave Parapsychology?", but perhaps you can suggest a better one.

Wishing you and your colleagues all the best for 2009,

Kindest regards,

Dimi
----
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU, UK

=================
 

Subject: arXiv:0903.4395v1 [gr-qc]: "More excitment is anticipated."
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:33:51 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk

Hi Leonid,

I believe there is a typo in your manuscript: you wrote "excitment" instead of excitement.

Surely "there does not exist any meaningful gravitational energy-momentum tensor in the geometrical version of general relativity", but the filed theory you're suggesting is 'replacing an old puzzle with a new one'. It is just as incompatible with QM as is GR. I think gravity is neither geometry nor a field, as I tried to explain at my web site.

Pity you didn't bother to reply to my request for review, we could have sorted out a lot of things about the relic GWs and LSC efforts,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

What can you lose if you explain to your LSC colleagues that their LIGO is for the birds? Money? Career? You have everything, but keep quiet. This just isn't fair.

Dimi


=================


Subject: EFDOD (extra force dominated orbital dynamics)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:40:23 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: kahil@aucegypt.edu, harko@hkucc.hku.hk
Cc: [snip]

Dear colleagues,

Regarding your arXiv:0809.1915v2 [gr-qc], I wonder if you can suggest two "tug of war" opposite contributions, to account for CDM vs DDE in galaxy formation, and "dark galaxy" (VIRGOHI 21) vs DDE on larger scales.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--------

Note: One big challenge to EFDOD is "the generic formation of cusps of dark matter in the central regions of galaxies, while the rotation curves seem to favor a constant density profile in the core" (Blanchet and Le Tiec, arXiv:0901.3114v2). On the other hand, the "DDE of X" got to be perfectly uniform, since any irregularities will be detectable, and X won't be "dark" anymore. (Moti Milgrom's claim that MOND may be "part and parcel" of a universe governed by “dark energy” (arXiv:0908.3842v1, Sec. 2 and p. 10) is just a clever guess, as MOND doesn't address the asymptotically flat spacetime as a "tug of war" effect of CDM and DDE on cosmological scales.)

One truly radical approach is to place DDE effect in the potential future of the arrow of spacetime, as 'gravitational presentation of Platonic ideas', since the latter should have zero entropy, being 'not yet physical stuff'. CDM is not directly observable either; the two 'tug of war' effects have purely geometrical origin -- the only thing we can observe is their residial effects cast in the past. There are no restrictions on matter to "expand" along the w-axis (DDE effect), since there is nothing physical there, while in the opposite CDM "direction" of the same w-axis there are already clumps of matter, which cannot be smoothened, hence CDM effect is producing all sorts of custom-made irregularities, in terms of shape, volume, etc., depending on the particular physical stuff experiencing the CDM effect.

My wild guess is that these 'tug of war' effects may be torsion effects (cf. Luca Fabbri), which are "dark" in the sense that cannot show up on a spacetime manifold with postulated Lorentzian metric.

Another wild guess was inspired from a screen saver in Windows 98 (not available in Windows 7, alas), which showed a reversible, and non-smooth transition of sphere to torus. Imagine a 1-D section of 2-D closed surface (constant curvature), like your wristwatch circle. You are placed at a stable point '9', while the points '12' and '6' break the circle at infinite radius. Now, blow up the surface by increasing its radius ("expansion" of the metric, as driven by DDE), approaching the stage at which the radius would be infinite (flat infinite 2-D space). But because at infinite radius the 2-D surface breaks at points '12' and '6' , you won't notice such bifurcation point, but will wind up again in a curved 2-D space, only this time it will be a torus. Perhaps the asymptotically flat spacetime is a dynamical entity living infinitesimally close to the bifurcation point. If you're instead shrinking the radius, you'll also jump from sphere to torus, only the bifurcation point will be "around" a dimensionless point of "singularity". Now, try the same exercise with 3-D sphere/torus, and place the bifurcation point in the global mode of spacetime, that is, ]between[ the points of the local mode. How would you reproduce the global properties of 'asymptotically flat spacetime', such as Large vs Small and left vs right? That's the puzzle of 'space'.

All this is still in the basket of 'things we know that we don't know', so please don't ask me 'what have you been smoking???'. Try to explain the inertial "forces" instead.
 

D. Chakalov
July 21, 2009
Last update: September 1, 2009

 

=================

LIGO: The Schizophrenic Behavior of Gravity
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf
Check out pp. 16-17 and pp. 20-22 (letter size)

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

Subject: arXiv:0902.0381v2 [gr-qc], The path to the enhanced and advanced LIGO gravitational-wave detectors ...
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:05:32 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joshua Smith <jrsmit02@physics.syr.edu>
Cc: john.whelan@ligo.org,
josephb@ligo.caltech.edu,
danielk@uark.edu,
kazuhiro.hayama@ligo.org,
pullin@lsu.edu,
b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de,
Stefan.Krueckeberg@dfg.de


... ends up with wine cellars, for reasons explained at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review

Please don't ever say you knew nothing about it.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
---

Note: An elucidating excerpt from arXiv:0902.0381v2 [gr-qc], "The path to the enhanced and advanced LIGO gravitational-wave detectors", pp. 6-7:

"The first Enhanced LIGO data run, S6, is planned for mid-2009, together with Virgo. (...) The initial LIGO, Enhanced LIGO and Advanced LIGO broadband curves correspond to distances to which the coalescence of a binary system of 1.4M_x neutron stars could be detected by a single detector of roughly 15, 30, and 200Mpc, respectively."

If LSC members had glanced at Robert Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski, The Physics of Cosmic Acceleration, arXiv:0903.0866v1, they should have noticed that Einstein's GR is strictly valid up to the length scale of the Solar system; anything larger than our galaxy will begin to show the two opposite "dark effects" of gravity, currently interpreted as CDM (e.g., extra force dominated orbital dynamics, EFDOD) and DDE.

LSC play a totally irresponsible gamble by tacitly assuming that the problems from these "dark effects" are irrelevant to their GW hypotheses: see above. They frantically hope that the dipole "radiation" would be impossible, and that the forthcoming Enhanced LIGO run S6, planned for mid-2009, would produce at least a hint for GWs.

Until this S6 run and its negative outcomes are digested by LSC "think tank", they will probably keep dead quiet. But if LSC members really hope to get the cash for the Advanced LIGO -- a whole new and terribly expensive upgrade -- they will have to produce some scientific hypothesis for GW detection by LIGO and the like, as well as resolve their utterly obvious problems (see the GW lake below; summary here).

The key issue is this: once we face the possibility for dipole "radiation", the "waves" we hope to detect can be displayed only and exclusively only with the end results from the emergence of mass with positive energy density in the RHS of Einstein field equation, as depicted with the famous Esher drawing below.

The present-day GR (Robert Geroch) says nothing on this fundamental mechanism of emergence of spacetimes (Isham & Butterfield) as a chain (or some kind of 'trajectory') of spacetimes with already actualized positive energy densities. Each 'spacetime' corresponds to a global instant 'now' from the arrow of spacetime, and is also an "instantaneous" universe in its local mode of spacetime. Due to the correlation of all potential spacetimes in the realm of 'potential reality' (notice the Esher drawing below), all the constituents of such "instantaneous" universe will display a wave-like pattern -- the genuine gravitational "waves" -- that (hopefully) can be recorded by an observer inside such "instantaneous" universe, provided the observer has access to the realm of 'potential reality' as well. Think of such "instantaneous" universe as an emerging 'fish from the shoal', which is "surrounded" by infinitely many potential fish from the shoal. It's a whole new ball game.

Also, I have reasons to rule out the canonical quantum gravity as possible path to solving this puzzle. We may need two kinds of time: a global mode of time for the realm of 'potential reality' -- the latter is neutral to the two "signs" of mass -- and a local mode of time for the already actualized mass-energy with positive "sign", placed (as we currently do it by hand) in the RHS of Einstein equation. With today's GR "no shielding is possible" (John Stachel).

To sum up, it is the correlation 'think globally, act locally' that produces these "waves", and if we wish to detect the metric waves of the positive remnant (effectively Lorentzian signature of classical spacetime) from the dipole "radiation", we need access to a new medium -- the reference fluid of GR called 'potential reality' -- which is neutral to both "signs" of mass.

I can easily wait until Christmas 2009. We may end up with seven huge wine cellars all over the world -- see the drawing below.

The fun part is just around the corner!

Meanwhile, I will leave LSC members to ponder on the issues raised by Adam Helfer [Ref. 1]. I have highlighted some of his thoughts regarding 'the idea of an isolated system' (Xiao Zhang), to express my disagreement with the very recipe for "cutting off" a spacetime, namely, by reaching some "limit" at which the system becomes “self-contained” [ibid.] You can't reach any limit whatsoever by moving away from [here-and-now] in null directions [ibid., Fig. 1]. This 'conformal infinity' (Jörg Frauendiener) is a sheer Gedankenexperiment performed in the direction opposite to that of Thompson's lamp Gedankenexperiment.

You need to actually (not just "asymptotically") reach exactly the joint point of spacelike infinity & null-infinity, in order to actually produce the crucial joint (if any) -- see my NB below. Then you'll have to rush back to exactly the same [here-and-now] you started from, in order to deliver the message that the "system" has indeed been "isolated in the sense of Bondi and Sachs", and eventually support LSC project for "GW astronomy" -- in case you believe (as Joshua Goldberg apparently does) that LIGO was build on the basis of BMS group (it isn't; check out Hermann Bondi below).

I suppose LSC members can email Adam Helfer and ask him to express his opinion on their wine cellars. Go ahead, Adam Helfer is a very polite person (notice also his FQXi essay), and will respond with math. Tons of it.

To sum up, there are three approaches to the wegtransformierbar energy in GR: (i) pseudo-tensor formulations, (ii) global definitions of energy (e.g., the Bondi or ADM formulations), and (iii) quasilocal definitions of energy, pertaining to 'extended but finite' domains of spacetime. The first should be abandoned, as it aims at "the right answer to the wrong question" (MTW); the second is as good as is the current effort [Ref. 1] to define 'the entire spacetime' (there are no global existence theorems for the Einstein equations), and the third approach requires a special Aristotelian cutoff placed both at spacelike infinity & null-infinity and at the fundamental increment of time,  dt  (see above). Once the entire spacetime is wrapped by these two (in fact, ONE) cutoff(s), we should be able to define rigorously the wegtransformierbar energy in 'extended but finite' domains (see detailed explanation and drawings here). My guess is that, in order to obtain some finite and cutoff-dependent quantities for 'extended but finite' domains, perhaps some new regularization procedure will have to be introduced, given the fact that the two (in fact, ONE) ultimate cutoff(s) are never physically present.

But of course I could be all wrong. As Chris Isham put it, "You do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area."
 


"just another crank" D.C.
March 13, 2009
Last update: June 4, 2009



[Ref. 1] Adam Helfer, Angular momentum of isolated systems in general relativity, arXiv:0903.3016v1 [gr-qc], submitted on 17 Mar 2009

"(c) General-relativistic angular momentum, in the presence of gravitational radiation, has a qualitatively different character than special-relativistic angular momentum. It is represented not simply by a skew two-index tensor field, but contains other representations of the Lorentz group as well.

"Most remarkably, those “extra” contributions turn out to be precisely a standard measure of the gravitational radiation.
...

"How can we make precise the idea of an isolated system? In some sense, we must say what it means to travel far from the system, and say that in that limit the system becomes “self-contained.” Roughly speaking, this should mean passing to an appropriate asymptotic regime such that all gravitational effects are localized inside of it.
...

NB: "(b) the set I+ has the topology it would for Minkowski space, and can be joined to M as a hypersurface at infinity;
...

"The asymptotic spacelike regime might seem, based on non-relativistic experience, most natural, but it does not allow for a direct treatment of radiation, a phenomenon of central interest; it is also less well understood mathematically at present.

"If we wish to study an isolated system and and account for the radiation which it emits, we are led to consider moving away from it at the speed of that radiation, here the speed of light, that is, in null directions.
...

"The question of how to account for corrections due to the fact that real systems are not perfectly isolated is, however, a very important and hard one. There is no definitive progress on this (neither for energy, momentum nor angular momentum); this is the problem of quasi-local kinematics.
...

"... the BMS group does not represent isometries, but preservation of a weaker asymptotic structure, which has not been linked to a physically compelling conserved quantity. (...) This means too that we have an infinite-dimensional family of “instants of retarded time,” ...
...

"This means that the emission, absorption, or exchange of angular momentum via gravitational waves may be a much more important feature of ordinary (not strongly radiating) general relativistic systems, than the corresponding phenomena for energy–momentum.

"While the treatment of angular momentum suggested here does appear to be satisfactory, in the sense that it is natural and has attractive features, it leads to deeper questions, which at present we do not have answers for: Why should the angular momentum have this form?

"What underlying structure — substituting for the isometries in special relativity — is responsible for the existence of angular momentum in general relativity?"
 



 

=================



LIGO Scientific Collaboration

 

From the beginning I was very suspicious of the value of linearized treatments of the topic. Not only is general relativity by its nature a nonlinear theory, but the question of the "reality" of the waves essentially concerned whether they transported energy. Such transport is a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon.

Sir Hermann Bondi, Gravitational Waves in General Relativity, February 1, 1990

 

A Taxpayer's Perspective On GW Astronomy

(download ExplanatoryNote.pdf, 28 pages)



Explanatory note
 

Three questions and three tentative answers:

Q1. Is it possible, at least in principle, to extract energy from geometry?
A1: Maybe.

Q2. Exactly what is 'fundamentally nonlinear' (cf. Sir Hermann Bondi) in the recipe of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) for detecting GWs?
A2: Nothing. Zilch.

Q3. Can LIGO's L-shaped "antennae" do the job, at least in principle?
A3: No. Not even in principle.



Settling the issue of Gravitational Waves (GWs) could shed light on the dynamics of GR, the Wegtransformierbarkeit of gravitational energy (cf. Afriat & Caccese, p. 27 and p. 32), and the very meaning of 'spacetime' (Alan Rendall) in GR. I have sufficient reasons to suspect that I might -- perhaps accidentally -- have made a discovery, and want to test this unclear situation with the project undertaken by LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC). The important issue to me is not GW astronomy, but the unlimited energy source (cf. A1 above), which some people call "dynamic dark energy". At this point, all I can say is that if LSC were on a wrong track from the outset, I might  -- just might -- be on the right one. There is no third option, as far as the dynamics of GR is concerned. Hence my White Paper. It is just a perfect tool, which I want to use for my purposes (vaguely outlined across this web site). I can't be more frank.

The question now is this: how these NSF officials will react to my proposal to submit a White Paper (reviewed by experts in GR; cf. my email above), entitled "A Taxpayer's Perspective On GW Astronomy". I will comment on research papers (both endorsing and denouncing LSC efforts) and will show the inadequacy of the linearized approximation of GR for the unique task undertaken by LSC. I will also explain my Gedankenexperiment, which refutes the "direction" of propagation of GWs and the "direction" of GW strain. Hence will demonstrate that the L-shape of LIGO tunnels (to match the "invariance angle" from some hypothetical "gravitons") is just ... parapsychology.

The essential part from this paper could have been written in 1981, at the time when Kip Thorne has argued that gravitational waves will be detected by the end of the last century (see below). All arguments are focused on the foundations of GR (the "isolation procedure" included) and the application of its linearized approximation for detecting GWs. This is the starting point for LSC as well, and it is crucially important to their efforts to "enhance the sensitivity" of what could have been a dead turkey from the start.


LIGO Scientific Collaboration

 

There are at least three unresolved issues in the LSC project:

(1) the nature and the origin of the "ripples" of the metric field;
(2) the application of linearized approximation (cf. Angelo Loinger, On Gravitational Motions, arXiv:0804.3991v1) to detect the fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon of transporting energy by these "ripples";  and
(3) the L-shape of LIGO's tunnels. Very briefly:

1.
I cannot agree with Joshua Goldberg that the 1962 paper by Bondi et al. had resolved the crux of the issue: the dynamics of GWs, and the dynamics of GR in general. GWs are 'global properties of spacetime', but what does GR say about the latter? The proof of the existence of some global constraints, which are needed for the global existence theorems for the Einstein equations, has not been found. If these unknown global constraints are to be derived with elliptic equations (Alan Rendall), perhaps they will uncover some quasi-instantaneous global property of spacetime (James Woodward) -- "the whole universe must know about everything instantaneously" (Mike Zucker). Such faculty of spacetime cannot be 'local', as understood in classical physics, so here's a wild guess: if the Wegtransformierbarkeit (Afriat & Caccese) of the gravitational energy-momentum and angular momentum (Laszlo Szabados, 23 Feb 2005) turns out to be a corollary from the (currently unknown) global constraints and quasi-instantaneous global properties of spacetime, we could perhaps learn how to associate the quasi-local variables (Bjoern Schmekel) to extendable domains, from quasi-local "points" to the "boundaries" of spacetime. Then GWs might become comprehensible, or at least we would expect to understand the physical origin or "necessity" that the gravitational energy-momentum has to be wegtransformierbar.

Then we might be able to understand the Equivalence Principle (John L. Synge couldn't grasp it, although he was an expert in the equation of geodesic deviation) and the origin of inertial forces, and perhaps the very essence of GR (Einstein), after which we could perhaps be confident about the exact applicable limits of the "linearized approximation" (Jürgen Ehlers, Ehlers.pdf, Sec. 5).

I mean, all this should be first done on paper, before asking for taxpayers' money. I believe every physicist from LSC can offer her/his 'wild guess' about how GWs may transport their wegtransformierbar energy across the universe, under the condition that "such transport is a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon" (Sir Hermann Bondi), and by taking into account that the gravitational field "is not only nonlinear in its own coupling, but also makes all matter fields self-interacting" (T. Padmanabhan, arXiv:gr-qc/0110046).

The dynamics of GR is inherently non-linear, in the sense that "the metric has a double role: it is a field variable and defines the geometry at the same time" (Laszlo Szabados - emphasis added). John Baez explained it as follows: "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at the same time - D.C.) affected by, the other fields". This double role of the metric field is the essence of the non-linear GR. Its immediate consequence is the problem of time in classical GR (Carlo Rovelli), which is usually omitted in GR textbooks. (BTW if we consider only one kind of time in GR, such as 'the time read by a clock', we face the paradoxical situation in which type I matter fields would "create" their time (and space), and at the same time evolve in that same spacetime.)

We can only speculate whether the proper time of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator reads some linearized "remnant" or "projection" from this utterly non-linear variable (not 'observable') that captures the dynamics of GR. To paraphrase John Wheeler, space acts on matter, telling it how to move, and at the very same instant at which space tells matter how to move, matter reacts "back" on space, telling it how to curve. We don't observe any push-pull negotiation between the two sides of Einstein filed equations. Our poor wristwatch (not brain) cannot by itself "linearize" the talk between matter and geometry, along some "polynomial time". Any other non-linear phenomena can, at least in principle, be modeled with some linearized approximation (weather forecast, for example), provided a fixed spacetime "grid" can be postulated.

Notice that the metric field in GR is dynamical: it changes at each and every instant at which space acts on matter, telling it how to move; and at the very same instant at which space tells matter how to move, matter reacts "back" on space, telling it how to curve; hence the metric field changes literally at each and every instant.

 

(One crucial precondition for deriving dynamics from instantaneous state is a background of Minkowski spacetime. With ADM hypothesis, we wind up with a dead frozen snapshot resembling the "collapse" in QM, and cannot, even in principle, extend the solutions of Einstein field equations arbitrarily far in one direction, to recover the dimensions of 3-D space.)
 

NB: Thanks to this non-linear dynamics of the metric "field", we have its waves. If you want to catch the energy transported by these "waves", keep their non-linear dynamics 'alive and kicking', because "such transport is a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon" (Sir Hermann Bondi).

To elucidate this crucial issue, I asked Kip Thorne five years ago (Sun, 16 May 2004 02:02:03 +0300) the following question: "I wonder how would those gravitational waves propagate within themselves, and with respect to themselves." He failed to reply to this question, and to the rest of my email messages.

Of course we need some kind of 'reference object' to even think of the dynamics of GWs; our thinking is also relational. The issue is, again, very speculative, but at least we can say what this 'reference object' is not:

It is not some background of undisturbed geometry, which is "there before the wave arrives and after it passes" (cf. Bernard Schutz below).

LSC members simply don't understand the dynamics of GWs and the dynamics of GR in general. Notice that the proper time of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator can only read 'tangible forms of energy', as the "non-localizable form of energy is inadmissible" (Hermann Bondi, p. 249). Such clock (not the human brain) can only read the end result from the conversion of the non-tangible form of GW energy into the tangible form of energy recorded by LIGO's interferometer. This 'end result' is like the "collapse" in QM, in the sense that we can't get more that one frozen instant of quantum waves from their dimensionless amplitude either.

Recall that the very definition of 'isolated system' is nothing more and nothing else than a kinematical snapshot of spacetime (Robert Geroch), since it depends "only on the (momentary) state of the system, not on its past or future history" (cf. Dieter R. Brill and Pong Soo Jang below). The very idea of 'isolated system' relies on mathematically unclear (recall the continuum hypothesis and "Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall"), and physically unverifiable, procedure by which the "isolated system" would eventually reach the alleged "asymptotically flat" final state, namely, "in the limit when the system becomes completely spatially isolated from everything else" (Roger Penrose).

There is hardly anything more important in GR than the correct definition of the "boundaries" of spacetime and its global properties, since such 'global properties' are projected on each and every "point" of the spacetime manifold.

Going back to the end result from the conversion of the non-tangible form of GW energy into some tangible, albeit quasi-local, form of energy: If we look at the history of GWs (recall PSR 1913+16), we can observe only a continual chain of such 'end results' in the past (notice my remark about relic GWs above), but not the very conversion of 'non-tangible forms of energy' into the quasi-local 'tangible forms of energy', and back to the 'non-tangible forms of energy'. We are limited in studying the latter by examining their quasi-local or 'tangible forms' only (cf. Lau Loi So et al.), perhaps because in today's GR the positivity of mass and gravitational energy is imposed by hand from the outset.

What we do know about gravitational energy is that defining a local energy density at a point and across its infinitesimally small neighborhood, in order to compute derivatives (cf. Bjoern Schmekel), is impossible. And because there is no well-defined local energy density of the field at a "point", there is no well-defined energy in a finite volume either (cf. Yurij Baryshev).

But this is exactly the "miracle" (see below) produced by LSC with their two approximations, the linearized and quadrupole approximations. In order to detect even a trace of GWs, LIGO's interferometer should detect the extraction of some tangible form of energy (Hermann Bondi, p. 249) from 'pure geometry' (the "ripples" of the metric field), such that this tangible form of energy should have well-defined energy density in both a "point" and a finite volume of 3-D space. Such "miracle" contradicts the essence of General Relativity. Nor surprisingly, it hasn't happened during the five "runs" of LIGO, and can never happen.

I admit that most of these issues fall in the basket of 'things we know that we do not know'; but this 'basket' should be clear to all people studying GWs, Joshua Goldberg included. For example, we can't approach this bundle of unresolved issues with some abstract 'isolated gravitational system' (Jörg Frauendiener), because there are many unresolved tasks from both the conformal recipe for "cutting off" a spacetime and the kinematics of the gravitational field (cf. Adam Helfer below), as well as from the affine connection. I can only offer some very speculative ideas, which won't be discussed in the 'white paper' aimed at examining the alarming situation with LSC project and its perpetual funding by NSF.

2. Any attempt at manufacturing some "undisturbed background metric" with the linearized approximation, to model the propagation of the "ripples" of the metric field (see below), is exactly opposite to the unique task for detecting these "ripples": if you flatten the metric, you kill the very effect you were trying to detect. If LSC members believe that they stand a chance, I will ask them to derive -- reversibly -- the 'weak limit' of GWs, hence prove that the linearized approximation is the correct model. Of course they can't do that (cf. David Garfinkle below). The task is highly non-trivial (not like playing with some mock "data", see below), but the good news is that it requires only blank notebooks and sharp pencils, which I believe LSC members can purchase with their own savings.

3. The third unresolved issue deals with the L-shape of LIGO tunnels, namely, the specific recipe for detecting those weak GWs. I offer a simple Gedankenexperiment, which shows that this task is not feasible in 3-D space in principle. Moreover, there is a brand new argument by Jose Pereira et al., which also denounces the LSC project. Last but not least, check out the articles by Angelo Loinger here, and recall that with GWs  "no shielding is possible" (cf. John Stachel); more above.

As of February 16, 2009, I've asked many prominent experts in GR to review my paper (a partial list is here). Please be assured that the issues raised in the paper are focused on the very foundations of GR. I will not discuss in the paper any technical issues, such as, for example, the Gedankenexperiment by LSC, based on carefully "selected" (with wishful thinking or precognition) mock "data" (arXiv:gr-qc/0701026v1): "The burst “repeater” source was placed at the center of the Galaxy and the performance modulation due to Earth’s rotation has been studied with 24 hours of simulated data."

About the Gedankenexperiment: Notice that the "longitudinal direction" of GW propagation cannot be shown in 3-D space, because the proof that GW were indeed transverse waves (by canceling their "phase", just as we can cancel the phase of a light beam with two Polaroid filters) cannot be performed in 3-D space. It's a package. If LSC members manage to "discover" the direction of GW propagation in 3-D space, call it  z , they will automatically and inevitably "recover" the dimensionality of GW amplitude projected on the "transverse" x/y axes: redictio ad absurdum

Besides, they will need some object that can be mapped onto itself by 180o rotation ("force pattern invariant under 180o rotation", see Kip Thorne's slide 4 at this link), which clearly does not correspond to anything directly observable in 3-D space. As Warren Davis explains, "the values of the components of all tensors, regardless of order, return to their original values under a 360-degree rotation of the coordinate system in which the components are described. By contrast, the components of spinors change sign under a 360-degree rotation, and do not return to their original values until the describing coordinate system has been rotated through two full rotations = 720-degrees!"

Hence spinors are the opposite case of the "force pattern invariant under 180o rotation" (Kip Thorne). LIGO tunnels cannot be "arranged" in 3-D space to detect effects from some stuff described with spinors either. This L-shape is just grotesque. It would have been hilarious, had LSC members been investing their own savings for such exercise.

Notice that the "explanation" offered by Kip Thorne for the mysterious "invariance angle", elevated at the length scale of LIGO, is from 1960s (this is not a joke).

More from Hans-Jürgen Schmidt (gr-qc/0407095, p. 35, Sec. 4.2, Why do all the curvature invariants of a gravitational wave vanish?) and from Hans Stephani (General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1982, Sec. 15.3).

Notice two statements by Hans-Jürgen Schmidt (emphasis added - D.C.): "Global considerations - e.g. by considering the far-field of asymptotically flat spacetimes - soon led to satisfactory answers." I strongly disagree with the adjective "satisfactory", and will explain why, by quoting from both published articles by LSC members and mathematical physicists not affiliated with LSC. The second statement by Hans-Jürgen Schmidt is this: "Local considerations became fruitful if a system of reference is prescribed e.g. by choosing a timelike vector field. If, however, no system of reference is preferred then it is not a priori clear whether one can constructively distinguish flat spacetime from a gravitational wave. This is connected with the generally known fact, that for a pp-wave, see e.g. Stephani [250] especially section 15.3. and [65] all curvature invariants vanish, cf. Hawking and Ellis [107] and Jordan et al. [123], but on the other hand: in the absence of matter or reference systems - only curvature invariants are locally constructively measurable." We should not employ the gauge-like choice for Killing vector field to deal with global features of spacetime such as GWs, since a Killing time vector field is something we can only "hang our boots on." We cannot "discover" some reference system applicable to GWs, and the only thing that matters -- curvature invariants -- is 'gone with the wind': "... it is not a priori clear whether one can constructively distinguish flat spacetime from a gravitational wave." More from Hans Stefani (cf. above).

How do LSC respond? They try to 'sweep the garbage under the rug', by insisting on their "linearized approximation of GR". But if you flatten the metric, you flatten the whole metric. You cannot split it into two "parts" (see below). It is just ridiculous.

To be fair to LSC, I will finally spell out the conditions under which I will accept the feasibility of their project, and will expect the reciprocal courtesy from them, namely, to declare the conditions under which LSC will accept defeat, and dissolve. This is the beauty of science, as opposed to discussions on the number of angels that can fit on the tip of a needle.

With "angels", or with equally unclear "approximations", you can only make bets. To quote Daniel Kennefick (Traveling at the Speed of Thought, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2007, p. 1):

"Kip Thorne had no difficulty in 1981 in finding a taker for a wager that gravitational waves would be detected by the end of the last century. The wager was made with the astronomer Jeremiah Ostriker, one of the better-known critics of the large detectors then being proposed. Thorne was one of the chief movers behind the largest of the new detector projects, the half-billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO. He lost the bet, of course."

In 2009, we don't want more "bets" on "increasing sensitivity". Billions of dollars and euro are at stake, and an enormous scandal may be looming at the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Surely the linearized approximation of GR has many practical applications  (e.g., adjusting the GPS system), all of which tally to the applicable limits of this approximation. An example from Carlo Rovelli (gr-qc/0110003v2, p. 4): "Locally around [X] the metric can be taken to be Minkowskian". But since LSC have adopted the linearized approximation of GR, they flatten the metric from the outset, yet acknowledge that "energy is localized only in regions, not at points" (B. Schutz). Thus, by using the linearized approximation of GR, they throw out the baby with the bathwater, yet hope that GW energy may be some localized-along-a-trajectory animal, completely different to the non-tensorial gravitational energy in the non-linear GR. (I will elaborate in the paper; check out Gravitational Waves (Studies in High Energy Physics, Cosmology and Gravitation), ed. by Ignazio Ciufolini et al., Taylor & Francis, 2001, Sec. 5.2.2, Gravitational-wave action, pp. 52-56, and notice the discussion at p. 56: there is no unique way to calculate GW "action", as you can get the same result even with pseudo-tensors; hence all this math exercise, pp. 52-56, is just fishing in murky waters.)

Recall that we may only compute the apparent localization of the quasi-local gravitational energy (provided some mathematically unclear and physically unverifiable preconditions about the "boundaries" of spacetime were fulfilled), but cannot understand it. All we can say is what this apparent localization is not: it is not like the localization of energy and momentum at each and every "point" from some continual trajectory fixed on flat Minkowski space (e.g., the trajectory of a Frisbee).

Very briefly: Under the conditions of the linearized approximation of GR, the wristwatch of LIGO's operator should not be able to read the very conversion of the non-tangible gravitational energy into some tangible form of energy and, subsequently, into some physically observable effect that is being displayed (present continuous) by LIGO's interferometer "online", from  t1  to  t2  -- first in one arm (denote this instant with t1), then in the other arm (instant t2), "which is arranged at a right angle to the first" (source here). Were the wristwatch of LIGO's operator able to read this conversion as 'proper time of timelike geodesic', the linearized approximation of GR would make the full non-linear GR totally redundant, or at least prove Hermann Weyl and C. G. Torre wrong, by showing some localized-along-a-trajectory time-and-gravitational-energy animal.

Regarding
the wristwatch of LIGO's operator: at instant  t1 , the  +  polarization, which "has its own gravitational-wave field" (Kip Thorne), must be totally shielded from the neighboring gravitational-wave field of the  x  polarization, in such a way that the latter can patiently wait for its turn to wobble the metric field at  t2 , as recorded by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator.
 


 

For if the two "polarizations" interfere in 3-D space, it is completely unclear what can happen to the poor GW "detector", by being simultaneously stretched and squeezed by the  +  polarization, and squeezed and stretched in 45o by the  x  polarization.

If you can understand such schizophrenic behavior of gravity, chances are you can pass Kip Thorne's course Physics 237-2002 at Caltech.

Here's the recipe of LSC for detecting GWs: look at the GW lake below.

 


 


The lake is a lake if it has a source (or "spring") and a shore (boundaries). Now, imagine that at the shore of the lake you have some "asymptotic flatness", and picture LIGO's arms as a buoy (a bead on a stick) fixed near the shore where the lake surface is "flat" (the background or undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes; see Bernard Schutz below, details from Grishchuk & Polnarev and Ehlers). The "wave" would be very weak by the time it reaches the buoy, yet it will wriggle the buoy in a two-step cycle: first at  t1 , then at  t2 , repeating this cycle until it passes the buoy. But in order to observe the "straight path" (geodesic) of the buoy and time its wiggling, you need to take the stand of some absolute (anti-relativistic) observer, who can see the whole lake en bloc (and fix all problems from geodesic incompleteness), and also observe simultaneously all "straight paths" (geodesics) of the buoy (before, during, and after the passage of the wave), as well as the shore and the mountains (the latter must be causally disconnected). Finally, you may need a couple of billion dollars and euro to extract energy from geometry (the grin of the cat without the cat, as observed by Alice) with a very "sensitive" buoy, because the force that wriggles the buoy (the quasi-local gravitational energy) comes from modulating the "straight path" (geodesic) that the buoy is following -- the poor buoy itself has no capacity to find out whether its "straight path" has or has not been altered. And if you manage to explain convincingly the whole story to a blond girl over a glass of wine (or whatever she drinks), chances are she will be deeply impressed.

I really don't know what keeps up the faith of LSC members. It is true that we observe things that are manifestly gauge-dependant, such as the cosmological time (Thomas Thiemann), but to claim that one could detect such 'global properties of spacetime' with LIGO and the like is akin to detecting the amount of "dynamic dark energy" producing the "intrinsic time interval associated to any timelike displacement" (Ted Jacobson) or the spin of Earth in the reference frame of the cosmic equator. Anyway.

The proper GW detectors should be based on strictly non-linear principles (cf. "at the same time"), but will not be discussed in this paper due to their highly speculative nature: the issues raised in the paper are about what the localization of the quasi-local gravitational energy is not. Details from Laszlo Szabados; I suppose he can kill the LSC project with one stroke, but doesn't want to.

As a crude analogy of LSC enterprise, imagine a TV antennae that is specifically designed to detect very weak TV signal, because the "theory" behind it cannot cope with any strong TV signal whatsoever. That would be "TV parapsychology", accordingly.

Here my opponents responded, -- 'but we can ignore effects that are very weak, just as we can work with the notion of effectively flat Earth, at least locally and FAPP.' Sure. But then you should forget about any effects produced by the curvature of Earth, since you've eliminated them from the outset.

To elaborate further on this crude analogy (I am writing this specifically for Dr. Denise S. Henry, Sr. Program Assistant for EIR, GP, and LIGO Project, Division of Physics, U.S. National Science Foundation), recall the shortest path of a plane from LA to London, say. If the Earth were flat, the trajectory of the plane would be entirely different. Now, imagine that the very curvature of the trajectory was somehow influencing the flight of the plane at each and every instant from its 'proper time' during the whole flight from LA to London. If you examine some short interval from this trajectory, it will indeed look to you as 'effectively flat', at least locally and FAPP, yet you know that the trajectory of the plane, at every point, is not "flat". So, you need some weak limit of some theory that describes strong influences on the trajectory from "strong curvature". Namely, the tangent at any point from this "weakly curved" trajectory should not coincide with the trajectory itself. If you decide to model this trajectory -- locally, in the immediate neighborhood of your location at London -- as a dead flat line, you will kill the very effect you wish to measure.

Another crude analogy: you can safely ignore quantum vacuum effects with the Schrödinger equation, but can switch to QFT and prove that Schrödinger equation is indeed a justified approximation for your specific purposes. And of course you cannot "derive" with Schrödinger equation some effect that contradicts, or is incompatible with, quantum vacuum effects in QFT (=full non-linear GR).

In the case of LSC, this analogy will be tantamount to demonstrating the propagation of GWs and the "transverse" localization of their energy for very strong gravitational field, and then derive the appropriate weak (not "linearized") limit (not "approximation"), and be ready to get back to the case of strong gravitational field.

NB:
This should be a smooth and bi-directional transition, without any explicit background whatsoever. (Perhaps this transition can only be defined with respect to the omnipresent "direction" of the expansion of space due to the "dynamic dark energy"; perhaps this "direction" leads to a realm of 'potential reality' that might show up in GR as a pre-geometric 'reference fluid' or "ether" -- the missing 'back bone' of GR, as well as Karel Kuchar's Unmoved Mover. But this is a very speculative thread from 1994, which will not be discussed in the paper.)

As David Garfinkle acknowledged in one of his "pedagogical" (as he put it) papers (arXiv:gr-qc/0511083v1, p. 8, emphasis added - D.C.): "In a strong gravitational field, including those where the gravitational waves of interest are produced, the field equations of general relativity are highly nonlinear and somewhat (notice the poetry - D.C.) complicated."

This poetry shows that the linearized approximation adopted by LSC is just a wild guess, prompted perhaps by its success in addressing tasks that have nothing in common with the specific task of LSC. With such poetry, you can only place bets, as Kip Thorne did in 1981.

In 2009, this poetry costs billions.

To be specific, the recipe for this "linearized approximation" was explained by David Garfinkle as follows (private communication): "... where g_ab-\eta_ab is small where g_ab is the metric of spacetime and \eta_ab is the metric of Minkowski space. You just write down the Einstein field equations for g_ab and notice that certain terms in the equations are very small and can be neglected."

Again, if you "neglect" them, you obliterate the very effect you wish to measure. The latter is rooted on the dimensionless GW "amplitude" which, just like the dimensionless amplitude of quantum waves, may be "pointing" to the realm of 'potential reality'. (Needless to say, the dimensionality of the very entity which fixes a 'meter' cannot be presented with 'meters', hence the "amplitude" of GWs is inevitably dimensionless, and cannot be shown in the non-linear GR either. We can't define the very entity that determines 'the length of a meter' with what it produces -- [meters].)

LSC is seeking some fictional 'referential background' that would somehow emerge from the linearized approximation of GR. As Bernard Schutz eloquently explained (p. 317, emphasis added): "Energy is only conserved in situations where external forces are independent of time. For weak waves, it is possible to define their energy with reference to the "background" or undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes."

I suppose both Bernard Schutz and Sir Hermann (cf. above) would at least agree that the question of the "reality" of the waves is essentially the question of whether they transport energy. Perhaps we all can agree that, if some entity is capable of transporting energy, it should be 'real and detectable' in principle, but there is a glitch: exactly how would GWs transport energy in the non-linear GR? Sir Hermann stressed that such transport is a "fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon."

And on this crucial issue, he and LSC had taken entirely different paths.

Namely, LSC -- over 600 members from over 50 institutions and 11 countries -- have ignored the basic basics from Sir Hermann Bondi, and have postulated some referential background, namely,

"... the "background" or undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes." (Bernard Schutz, p. 317; details from Grishchuk & Polnarev and Ehlers)

To achieve their tantalizing goal, LSC actually split the metric field, originating from the non-linear GR, in two "parts": one that has become (in their imagination) an 'undisturbed background', with respect to which they hope to detect the interferometer disturbances at LIGO, caused by the other "part" from the same metric field, the "disturbed" one.
 


 

Once they achieve this miracle, they install in this "disturbed" sector two "independent polarizations", with their own "gravitational-wave fields" (Kip Thorne). Surely every measurement is relational by its nature, so LSC need a new referential background, but they had made an incredible error of "producing" it from the very stuff they were supposed to measure.

This is one of the many reasons to accuse LSC of aggressive professional negligence. Can't have your cake and eat it. Only Baron Munchausen can perform such self-acting miracles.

In the case of LIGO, the two modes, longitudinal quadrupolar (J.G. Pereira et al.) and transverse quadrupolar, and all "radiating" and "non-radiating" features of GWs, will inevitably conflate and intermingle, like spaghetti bolognese. There is no sense of seeking "increased sensitivity" with the "enhanced" LIGO and the "advanced" LIGO, and to spend billions on LISA.

NB: LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) do not have any nonlinear theory of energy transport by the "ripples" of the metric field. Also, the tacit assumption that there is no difference between (i) inferring the loss of energy due to emission of GWs, as recorded post factum (PSR 1913+16) and (ii) detecting GWs online, along the time read by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator, could be wrong. We just don't know the dynamics of GR.

Moreover, LSC continue to arrogantly ignore the crucial issue of dipole "radiation", which has been brought back on the discussion table since 1998, with the so-called "dark energy".

All financial support for GW "astronomy" should be put on hold, until LSC members sort out their mess, the implications from 'no bans for dipole radiation' included. All they need is blank notebooks and sharp pencils.

NB: Let me stress that if I've hit the right path, I believe one could suggest brand new GW detectors. We should be fully prepared to face the case of LIGO and LISA being totally useless, and then say: le Roi est mort, vive le Roi!

Finally, let me declare the conditions under which I will accept the feasibility of LSC project, as promised above.

I respectfully invite all LSC members and experts in GR to review my paper and prove that GWs are indeed transverse waves, by (i) resolving the problems with their phase and amplitude (cf. my Gedankenexperiment) and (ii) explaining the detection of GWs along the time of the wristwatch of LIGO's operator. Additional remarks on these two tasks -- it's a package -- can be read below (pp. 20-22 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf).

If you wish to use the linearized approximation of GR -- be my guest.

I can say a lot more, but prefer to follow 'the two rules for success':

Rule #1: Never tell them everything you know.



D. Chakalov, a.k.a. "just another crank"
January 9, 2009
Last update: March 24, 2009
 


=======================

Subject: Re: LSC March 2005 and June 2005 Meetings
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:13:17 -0400
Message-ID: <20050607001317.q6tlvjh1c00gsk4c@web.mail.umich.edu>
From: gustafso@umich.edu
To: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>

> I don't know you and wish you out of my face, my computer.
[snip]

Note: This is the sole meaningful feedback I got so far from LSC members. It came from Prof. Dick Gustafson, Research Scientist at the University of Michigan.


D. Chakalov
February 16, 2009
 

=======================





Addendum: I mentioned above that there is a very speculative issue, which will not be discussed in the 'white paper'. It is about a new "torsion" degree of freedom in GR, to account for the hypothetical Aristotelian Connection. But because we cannot attach a non-vanishing torsion to the Christoffel connection, and because I personally do not consider Einstein-Cartan theory a viable alternative to GR, I am trying to speculate on Ted Newman's H-space. Now, that's really tough. The H-space is some sort of "observation space" that "should not to be treated as real in any sense", says Ted Newman. The same is valid for the new kind of reality, called here 'potential reality'.

There might exist new physics associated to torsion, and I want to introduce, right from the outset, two "dark" torsion (?) effects on the spacetime manifold, which means that the Lorentzian signature, which is also postulate from the outset, should be replaced with some sort of "more general" kind of signature. The latter should somehow "encode" the non-linear "talk" of matter and geometry (cf. John Wheeler above), and remove the pitfalls from the Hamiltonian formulation of GR. At the end of the day, all these speculative efforts should introduce two tug-of-war effects: "implosion" (a generic effect of spacetime, called 'cold dark matter') and "expansion" (another generic effect called 'dynamic dark energy'). As in Einstein's GR, I don't want to introduce any 'gravitational force per se', but instead to work out a Machian-type theory in which the holistic or "dark" effects from 'the whole universe as ONE' would be interwoven in the spacetime. In the context of the 'forest metaphor', the "forest" would act on each individual local "tree", but this additional holistic influence will be totally "dark", and completely entangled/interwoven within the dynamics of the local "tree". This additional influence is not like spreading butter on a piece of bread, but rather like the (quasi-local) holomovement of all fish in a shoal, guided by 'the shoal as a whole'. We can see the individual fish only, as they show up only in the RHS of Einstein equation, where their mass has already been made "positive".

There are no GWs from 'positive mass' nor from 'negative mass' -- this is the starting point for addressing the issue of "dipole radiation", as there are no bans for it due to the so-called 'dark energy from empty space'.

All this is very speculative, and I can only quote Lluis Bel's conjecture that "the two connections, Christoffel’s and Weitzenböck’s, do not have to be considered as options of an alternative, but that in the contrary they have to be correlated and used jointly". But HOW? And how does it "happen" that we observe mass with one "charge" only? Positive mass "theorems" presuppose an exact definition of spacetime "boundaries", which is not yet available.

Let me comment on Dieter R. Brill and Pong Soo Jang, Positive mass conjecture, in General Relativity and Gravitation, ed. by A. Held, Vol. 1, Ch. 5, Plenum, New York, 1980, pp. 173-193 (links and emphasis added):

pp. 173-174: "For reasons of stability we expect all reasonable classical (though not quantum!) field theories to have positive energy density, and we expect all (classical and quantum) field theories to have positive total mass-energy. Existence of solutions with negative total mass would have bizarre consequences.

"For example, by a simple scaling one could obtain solutions with arbitrarily large negative total mass, and one could presumably use such configurations to extract an infinite energy from a finite system or from the vacuum. Another example would be a self-accelerating system, consisting of a positive mass object connected with a long rod to an object with negative mass.

"Of course, the total mass defined in terms of the asymptotic structure
can have a negative value if we do not impose any conditions in the interior. Examples would be solutions containing naked singularities or matter fields with negative energy density. However, if the space-time is regular at least initially and the matter fields are physically reasonable, we expect the total mass to be positive. (...)

"2. The Positive Mass Conjecture

"The total mass of an isolated (i.e., asymptotically flat) system is determined by examining the rate of approach of the geometry to the geometry of Minkowski space in the asymptotic region.

"Asymptotic flatness expresses geometrically the physical properties one expects of an isolated system, depending only on the (momentary) state of the system, not on its past or future history; it is defined by the existence of a spacelike surface  E  which approaches flatness in the following sense: ... "
......
p. 176: "A possible Bondi mass conjecture would state that mB is always positive in an asymptotically simple space-time, provided the matter satisfies an appropriate local energy condition (e.g., the dominant energy condition)."

Comment: The positive mass conjecture is an outstanding puzzle, because the Strong Energy Condition (SEC) is "violated on cosmological scales right now!" (Barcelo & Visser, gr-qc/0205066v1), and we have no idea how the "dark energy" is related to the apparent positivity of mass.

Perhaps the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) -- over 600 members from over 50 institutions and 11 countries -- will sort out the whole bundle of issues raised above. With so much "dark stuff" in the universe, we really need new ideas.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the problem of interpreting Einstein field equation is strikingly similar to the mind-body problem: picture the human self in the LHS, and recall that the human mind doesn't possess any intrinsic "mental energy" or "psi field" whatsoever. In order to "guide" the human brain and the rest of the body, the human self should only alter their "geodesic paths", a bit like altering the potential railroad of a train, hence guiding the train/body toward its chosen, by the human self, destination. One crucial prerequisite is that the body should be flexible: examine your tongue or arm, and you will see that they are not predetermined to any particular movement (unlike the arm of a robot), thanks to which the human self can perform any movement with it (cf. Neurophysiology 101).

Going back to GR, we would expect to encounter the same kind of flexibility in the RHS, meaning that there should exist an evolving cosmological "constant" and "dynamic dark energy" from "empty space", the Cauchy problem for Einstein filed equations should not be "well-posed", and the input from 'potential reality' would be camouflaged as "gauge-dependent". Last but not least, the Wegtransformierbarkeit (Afriat & Caccese) of the gravitational energy-momentum and angular momentum (Laszlo Szabados, 23 Feb 2005) could be the ultimate expression of the flexibility of matter: it must not have real, in the sense of 'classical determinism', values at any "point" from the spacetime manifold, or else it cannot be guided by its non-material counterpart -- the grin of the cat without the cat, as noticed by Alice.

There are no pre-determined paths in GR. Paths are made "by walking" (Antonio Machado). Interactions are inherently non-linear, and there is no explicit background or 'reference fluid' or 'back bone' to "hold onto" during the walk. If the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover exists, perhaps it will show up in Quantum Theory as well, perhaps as 'potential reality'. Any other ideas?


D. Chakalov
January 14, 2009
Last update: February 11, 2009




=====================


Subject: Re: On Gravity-Waves detection
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:42:29 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: christian.corda@ego-gw.it

Hi Christian,

> if you will send me a paper where, WITH THE AID OF SCIENTIFIC
> FORMULAS AND EQUATIONS AND NOT ONLY WITH PHRASES AND
> SENTENCES

Please don't behave like a Russian.

> you will show that the detection of Gravity-Waves is impossible

Hermann Weyl and Angelo Loinger already did it, in the framework of the linearized approximation. No need to invent the wheel. Do you know what is 'white paper'? I have no creative contribution, just wish to remind people like you that you can't detect GWs with LIGO and the like, because the linearized approximation you use is not applicable. Which is why I suggested in 2006 that LIGO tunnels may be converted to wine cellars.

I'm afraid you can do nothing to revive the project of your LSC colleagues, even if you write all along with capital letters.

> Regarding the overlapping of the two polarizations, kindly see my paper
> Astropart.Phys. 27: 539-549,2007, available also on arXiv:0806.3397.

You discuss a solution of linearized Einstein field equations in vacuum (Eq. 77, p. 16), and speculate about some "tidal forces" that act along the direction orthogonal to the "direction of propagation" of GWs (p. 2). You talk (p. 9) about "a variation of the proper distance in the x direction (transversal effect of the GW), while there is not a variation of the proper distance in the z direction (no longitudinal effect)", and compute "the proper duration" of the round-trip of a photon (Eq. 48, p. 11) along the x arm of the interferometer.

But notice the puzzle about the wristwatch of LIGO's operator in my email below: how would you separate the two gravitational-wave fields pertaining to the two "polarizations"?

Do you understand such schizophrenic behavior of gravity?

Moreover, if you wish to speculate about "direction of propagation" of GWs, you should first resolve the Gedankenexperiment, from our discussion last September,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#spaghetti_bolognese

You will have to recover the dimensionality of the amplitude of these transverse waves. Notice that my Gedankenexperiment is leading you and the whole LSC to a dead end. The approach I use is 'reductio ad absurdum'. Capiche?

As Steven Weinberg noticed (email to Leonid Grishchuk, 25 Feb 2003), "I often find that people who say silly things actually do correct calculations, but are careless in what they say about them."

More from Sir Hermann Bondi at the link below.

Regards,

Dimi

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Please check out an explanatory note (21 pages, 17.02.2009) at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf
>
> Regarding the wristwatch of LIGO's operator (p. 9 therein): at an
> instant t_1 , the + polarization, which "has its own
> gravitational-wave field" (Kip Thorne), must be totally shielded from
> the neighboring gravitational-wave field of the x polarization, in
> such a way that the latter can patiently wait for its turn to wobble
> the metric field at t_2 , as recorded by the wristwatch of LIGO's
> operator.
>
> For if the two "polarizations" interfere in 3-D space, it is completely
> unclear what can happen to LIGO's arms, as being simultaneously
> stretched and squeezed by the + polarization, and squeezed and
> stretched in 45o by the x polarization.
>
> Can you understand such schizophrenic behavior of gravity? If you can,
> please do not reply to this email.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dimi Chakalov
>

=====================

Subject: Re: On Gravity-Waves detection
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:36 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: christian.corda@ego-gw.it

Hi Christian,

> in my paper Astropart.Phys. 27: 539-549,2007 I have also computed
> the response functions of an interferometers for the "plus" and the
> "cross" polarization, see equations (98) and (104).
> Then, if you will use the "overlapping principle", I recall that, as we
> are in the linearized theory, we can use such a principle, you will see
> that the sum of equations (98) and (104) is not equal to zero for
> various directions of the incoming gravitational wave. This shows that
> it does not exist a schizophrenic behavior of gravity in the case of
> gravitational waves.

Sorry, all this does not resolve the schizophrenic behavior of gravity in the case of GWs.

You have to prove that *the sequence* of effects from the two "polarizations" is indeed present along the time read by the wristwatch of LIGO's operator. Otherwise you get nothing but spaghetti bolognese.

> However, I would like to further discuss this point with you, thus, I
> invite you to write a review of the work of Hermann Weyl and Angelo
> Loinger and to present it at my Conference in Greece.

I will first wait patiently for your proof, as explained above. If possible, please include the Gedankenexperiment we discussed last September: if you believe can demonstrate the "direction" of propagation of GWs, you will automatically and inevitably "recover" the dimensionality of its "amplitude" (and will be nominated for a Nobel Prize).

Please drop me a line when your proof is posted on ArXiv.org server. Then I will be more than happy to attend your Conference in Greece.

Best regards,

Dimi
 

 

=====================

Subject: Re: Request for review
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:11:46 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joshua Goldberg <goldberg@physics.syr.edu>
In-Reply-To: <496E34AA.2090703@phy.syr.edu>

Dear Professor Goldberg,

You said that don't agree with my objections against GW "astronomy", but decided to "make no comment" on my work.

I'm afraid you simply cannot afford to do that. You started this whole mess with GW "astronomy" back in 1957, and you have the moral obligation to sort it out -- one way or another.

Billions of US Dollars -- all taxpayers' money -- are at stake. BILLIONS.

NB: It is utterly illogical to claim that my theory is wrong because it contradicts what is rejected by it *from the outset*. Of course I reject Bondi et al paper published in '62. You've been on the wrong track *from the outset*.

Please read carefully my arguments at the link from my preceding email, and respond to my specific objections.

I am respectfully urging you to get professional. The sooner, the better.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov


On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:53:30 -0500, Message-ID: <496E34AA.2090703@phy.syr.edu>, Joshua Goldberg <goldberg@physics.syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Chakalov:
>
> I have read most of your comments and don't agree with them. I no
> longer have the energy to detail my opinion. Apart from my own work
> in the '50's, for me the definitive paper on gravitational waves is that
> by Bondi et al written in 1960, but published in '62. Therefore, I make
> no comment on your work.
>
> Josh Goldberg
>
>
> Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
> Dear Professor Goldberg,

[snip]

> I believe you are at the bottom of "GW astronomy". You were
> responsible for US Air Force support of research in GR, based at the
> Aeronautical Research Lab at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio,
> and managed to support the 1957 Chapel Hill conference "Conference
> on the Role of Gravitation in Physics", organized by Bryce De Witt in
> January 1957, with US Air Force money.

[snip]

> No need to comment on any "current research". My objections to GW
> astronomy are based on GR and its linearized approximation. The
> problems are known since 1922, if not earlier. Recall what Hermann
> Bondi said at your Conference in January 1957 (I have the quote in my
> files).
>
> Please check out an explanatory note (11 January 2009) at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review

[snip]


Note: Back in 1962 (cf. Bondi et al.), the Bondi-Metzner-Sachs (BMS) group was introduced. (It was initially hoped that BMS group would play an important role in particle physics or in quantized GR, either through its representation theory or via possible reduction to the Poincare group, but it didn't work out at all.) However, the seemingly convincing conjecture (attributed to Hermann Bondi) that GWs can "carry away" positive mass is derived under the crucial presumption of some "isolated system" in GR, which supposedly falls off "toward infinity" to eventually produce a geometry that could be modeled as asymptotically Minkowskian. Which reminds me of Murphy's Law #15: Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers. With so much "dark stuff" around, there is no way we could be certain about the global properties of spacetime, such as its topology.

Perhaps Joshua Goldberg should read Adam D. Helfer, The Kinematics of the Gravitational Field, in: Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, ed. by R. Greene and S.-T. Yau, Vol. 54 (1993), Part 2, American Mathematical Society, 1993, pp. 297-316; particularly the discussion of kinematics at null infinity (p. 311).

Moreover, where is the dynamic dark energy in all these papers? How do you define 'isolated, from the dark energy, gravitational system'? This problem has not been recognized until 1998. In 1993 (cf. Adam Helfer's paper written in 1991), the cosmological "constant" problems weren't acknowledged, and in 1962 Joshua Goldberg would have probably said that "the definitive paper on gravitational waves is that by Bondi et al written in 1960, but published in '62." Read my mind.


D.C.
January 15, 2009


================

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:48:57 +0000
Subject: Re: Request for review
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joshua Goldberg <goldberg@physics.syr.edu>
Cc: kip@tapir.caltech.edu


P.S. I can kill LIGO with a little help from Sir Hermann Bondi: check out his statement quoted at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review

Can you save LIGO?

I'm afraid you just can't afford to keep quiet. Neither you nor Kip Thorne and the like.

D.C.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Professor Goldberg,
>
> You said that don't agree with my objections against GW "astronomy",
> but decided to "make no comment" on my work.
>
> I'm afraid you simply cannot afford to do that. You started this whole
> mess with GW "astronomy" back in 1957, and you have the moral
> obligation to sort it out -- one way or another.
>
> Billions of US Dollars -- all taxpayers' money -- are at stake. BILLIONS.
>
> NB: It is utterly illogical to claim that my theory is wrong because
> it contradicts what is rejected by it *from the outset*. Of course I
> reject Bondi et al paper published in '62. You've been on the wrong
> track *from the outset*.
>
> Please read carefully my arguments at the link from my preceding
> email, and respond to my specific objections.
>
> I am respectfully urging you to get professional. The sooner, the better.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> D. Chakalov


================

Subject: Re: Request for review
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:16:23 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joshua Goldberg <goldberg@physics.syr.edu>
Cc: kip@tapir.caltech.edu

Do you have a recipe for GW energy with well-defined *energy density* in both a "point" and a finite volume of 3-D space?

I think only Kip can produce such miracle, contrary to his textbook (MTW Ch. 20).

D.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> P.S. I can kill LIGO with a little help from Sir Hermann Bondi: check
> out his statement quoted at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review
>
> Can you save LIGO?
>
> I'm afraid you just can't afford to keep quiet. Neither you nor Kip
> Thorne and the like.
>
> D.C.


Note: To explain why I am expecting to hear from Joshua Goldberg, let me first quote from his article "Invariant Transformations, Conservation Laws, and Energy-Momentum", in General Relativity and Gravitation, ed. by A. Held, Vol. 1, Ch. 15, Plenum, New York, 1980 (emphasis added):

pp. 487-488: "In this review the relationship between invariance of the Lagrangian and conservation laws was discussed. It was shown that one cannot define a unique expression for the energy-momentum.
...
"Only the Einstein complex is derivable from the invariance of the Lagrangian and gives the correct physical results at both spatial and null infinity. One can expect that with careful handling it will also give the correct results in situations that are yet to be uncovered."

Comment: This was written by Joshua N. Goldberg in 1979. My wild guess is that the "situations that are yet to be uncovered" may turn out to be those related to the contribution, or perhaps determination, of 'positive mass' with/by the "dark energy of empty space". As of today, however, all this is 'the unknown unknown', since we impose the positivity of mass in Einstein equations from the outset.

pp. 469-470: "In general relativity the space-time itself is the physical system under study. The symmetry transformations of the theory are the allowed diffeomorphisms of the four-dimensional manifold. These diffeomorphisms may be used to set the metric tensor equal to the Minkowski metric and the affine connection to zero at any point of the
manifold.

"Indeed, these conditions may be satisfied along an arbitrary geodesic of the space-time. It is in this way that the principle of equivalence, the equality of inertial and gravitational mass, is described in general relativity: to first order in their separation, all bodies moving on parallel geodesies move at the same rate.

"Just this property is also responsible for the inability to define a local energy density for the gravitational field. Minkowski space describes a
space-time with no gravitational field. Therefore, in Minkowski space any
meaningful energy density should be zero. But a general space-time can be made to appear Minkowskian along an arbitrary geodesic.

"As a result, any nontensorial "energy density" can be made to be zero along an arbitrary geodesic and, therefore, has no invariant meaning."

Q1: Can you make the local energy density of GWs to be zero, in both a "point" and a finite volume of 3-D space ? (Hint: consult Angelo Loinger.)

Further, LSC believe that, in the case of weak GWs, they can be viewed as small perturbations of a background metric, namely, their influence on the background spacetime is quadratic in hab, hence this influence is "small" and can be neglected. In this case, the background metric is a solution to the so-called "unperturbed Einstein's equations" (Eq. 4.1 in L. P. Grishchuk and A. G. Polnarev, Gravitational Waves and Their Interaction with Matter and Fields, in General Relativity and Gravitation, ed. by A. Held, Vol. 2, Ch. 10, Plenum, New York, 1980, p. 416).

Regarding the interaction of GWs with the background curvature, L. P. Grishchuk and A. G. Polnarev also wrote (op. cit., p. 427): "Due to the nonlinearity of gravitation a weak gravitational wave can interact with a smooth background gravitational field. This interaction may result in dispersion of the gravitational waves, their amplification, etc."

Q2: How "small" is this particular influence that may cause dispersion of GWs, as compared to the "small" perturbations of the background metric that is quadratic in hab, hence can also be neglected?

Q3: Can you, Joshua Goldberg, derive the above "small" influences from the strong influences of strong gravitational fields and strong GWs?

If you can't, let me tell you an old joke. Do you know how one can catch planes? All you need is a plastic bag and tweezers. Just go to your local airport and watch for the planes to take off, and when they become very "small", pick them with your tweezers and drop them in your bag. Voila.


D. Chakalov
February 2, 2009
 



 

================


Subject: Happy New Year!
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:08:27 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Lau Loi So <s0242010@cc.ncu.edu.tw>
Cc: Hwei-Jang Yo <hjyo@phys.ncku.edu.tw>,
James M. Nester <nester@phy.ncu.edu.tw>,
Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

Dear Dr. So,

Happy New Year to you and to your colleagues.

I read with great interest your recent paper [Ref. 1], and am concerned about "the explicit use of the Minkowski metric as a reference in the pseudotensor".

I have some alternative ideas about a new quasi-local formulation, which start from the so-called 'potential reality' in QM,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Namely, the "boundary terms" [Ref. 1] are fixed by 'the whole universe as ONE'. No need for any positive energy proofs for 'potential reality', since the latter is neutral to both "charges". The crux of the issue is the dipole radiation, and of course the efforts of some people to detect 'GWs from positive matter',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review

I wonder if you or your colleagues may be interested.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

------

[Ref. 1] Lau Loi So, James M. Nester, Hsin Chen, Energy-momentum density in small regions: the classical pseudotensors, arXiv:0901.3884v1 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3884

"One quasi-local formulation is in terms of the Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian for evolving a (generally finite) spacetime region includes a boundary term. Quasi-local quantities are associated with this Hamiltonian boundary term. There are many possible quasi-local expressions simply because there are many possible boundary terms. They are all physically meaningful, for each distinct boundary term is associated with a distinct physical boundary condition (which is given by what must be held fixed in the Hamiltonian variation)."
...

"Now there is another case where there is a natural and unambiguous reference: namely in a small region, where one can use the flat tangent space at some interior point to determine a Minkowski coordinate system. Here we shall test the classical pseudotensors in this limit.
...

"No entirely satisfactory expression has yet been identified. One of the most restrictive requirements is positivity.

"It is generally accepted that gravitational energy should be positive; indeed positive energy proofs have been heralded (e.g., [21, 22, 20]). Positivity is difficult to prove in general. One can regard positivity as an important test for quasi-local energy expressions. One limit that is not so difficult, and which has not been systematically investigated for all the classical pseudotensor expressions, is the small region limit. The small region requirements have not yet been applied to many energy-momentum expressions. We found that they afford both interesting restrictions and unexpected freedom."
 


================


Subject: Request for review
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:57:00 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Bernd Brügmann <b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de>,
Stefan Krückeberg <Stefan.Krueckeberg@dfg.de>,
IMPRS-GW <imprs-gw@aei.mpg.de>,
SFB/TR7 Principal Investigator <zumbusch@math.uni-jena.de>,
werner@astro.uni-tuebingen.de,
wolfgang.vodel@uni-jena.de,
tuennermann@iap.uni-jena.de,
paul.seidel@uni-jena.de,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
roman.schnabel@aei.mpg.de,
gos@tpi.uni-jena.de,
luciano.rezzolla@aei.mpg.de,
maria.alessandra.papa@aei.mpg.de,
rne@astro.uni-jena.de,
emueller@mpa-garching.mpg.de,
meinel@tpi.uni-jena.de,
harald.lueck@aei.mpg.de,
lubich@na.uni-tuebingen.de,
kostas.kokkotas@uni-tuebingen.de,
thj@mpa-garching.mpg.de,
sascha.husa@aei.mpg.de,
karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de,
bernd.bruegmann@uni-jena.de,
mans@aei.mpg.de,
bruce.allen@aei.mpg.de,
harrydee@mpa-garching.mpg.de,
Isabel.Cordero@uv.es,
cerda@mpa-garching.mpg.de,
jarama@iaa.es,
Jerome.Novak@obspm.fr,
eric.gourgoulhon@obspm.fr,
damour@ihes.fr,
Stanislav.Babak@aei.mpg.de


Dear Colleagues,

Sorry for this bulk email.

I wonder if you would agree to review my paper on "GW astronomy",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review

I've written a brief explanatory note at the link above, right under the quote from Sir Hermann Bondi (you may need to press [PgDn] to read it).

If you don't agree to review the paper due to "conflict of interests", please pass this email to some colleague who cares about wasting taxpayers' money.

Wishing you all the best for 2009,

Dimi Chakalov


===============


Subject: Request for review
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 04:16:23 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: John M Stewart <j.m.stewart@damtp.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Edvin Deadman <e.deadman@damtp.cam.ac.uk>

Dear John,

I wonder if you would agree to review my paper on "GW astronomy",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#review

Please notice a brief explanatory note at the link above, right under the quote from Hermann Bondi (you may need to press [PgDn] to read it). All this seems to confront your belief that "the space-time outside an isolated source is asymptotically Minkowskian", as well as your "reliable estimates" of the frame-dependent Bondi mass (arXiv:0902.0481v1 [gr-qc], footnote 2).

If you can't review the paper due to 'conflict of interests', please let me know.

Regards,

Dimi

P.S. I wonder if you or Edvin can think of interpreting the 'retarded time' and 'advanced time' (arXiv:0902.0481v1 [gr-qc], p. 8) along the lines suggested for Event Horizon Finders,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Cohen

D.

--------

Note: Regarding the P.S. above, Michael I. Cohen et al. didn't use any advanced/retarded "waves" resembling Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory, so I don't think my suggestion would be fruitful. But since there is no observational proof of the so-called black hole Event Horizon (EH) (Marek Abramowicz et al., astro-ph/0207270) nor time-like naked singularity (Pankaj Joshi et al., gr-qc/0410041), maybe we should try to be creative.

If EH does indeed live "nonlocally in time", being a "global property of the entire spacetime" (Jonathan Thornburg), perhaps one can explore new ideas for "detecting" EH, at least on paper, as the locus of cancellation of two "waves" traveling on null-geodesics in 'retarded time' and 'advanced time' (called atemporal "handshaking" medium in John Cramer's TI). If such approach turns out to be feasible, I suppose we will end up with brand new objects, which are neither strictly EH nor strictly naked "singularity", but will be related to the two hypothetical generic effects of spacetime mentioned above. In general, I don't believe in any genuine "holes", nor in their time-reversible color, and instead hope that there could exist some phenomenon that compensates or even "runs against" the Second Law of thermodynamics, introducing negentropy in the universe. (If you just lower the entropy of a system, you don't get automatically negentropy, since the latter is a measure of holistic organization, as exhibited in living systems.) Otherwise we face an initial cosmological state with incredibly low geometric entropy only. I am not aware of some precise definition of 'low geometric entropy', but if we trust the well-known calculations by R. Penrose, it seems to me that the initial geometric entropy also had to be as low as possible, which in turn means that we cannot begin by assuming any geometric structure, such as FRW form for the metric -- at some stage it also will be destroyed by lowering the entropy of 'the initial state'. Something has to "halt" the lowering of entropy, so we may need a new mechanism of producing negentropy, down the road toward [John 1:1].

The first obvious task is to define some "boundaries" of spacetime. Let me quote from Alan Rendall's review article which reminds us that, in the case of the Einstein equations, "there are no physically motivated boundary conditions. (For instance, we do not know how to build a mirror for gravitational waves.)"

There is no "mirror" in James Woodward's hypothesis nor in John Cramer's interpretation of QM (quant-ph/0507089v1). There could be an emerging boundary of spacetime acting as mirror for GWs in the interpretation of QM suggested above, but the GWs in question correspond to the dipole radiation. In the local mode of spacetime, the velocity of these standing "gravitational waves" matches the speed of thought (Arthur S. Eddington).

I am grateful to Bjoern Schmekel for this hint (0708.4388v1 [gr-qc], p. 2):

"(T)he size of a finite region depends on the observer, so obviously such an energy will depend on the chosen coordinate system. It is therefore maybe not surprising that the first useful notions of energy were defined at infinity, i.e. they enclosed the whole system (cf. ADM mass [4], Bondi mass [5])."

If we follow the Bootstrap Principle of Geoffrey Chew and work out the physics of 'the whole universe as ONE' (global mode of spacetime), there can be no ambiguities whatsoever in the gravitational energy, since it will be fixed dynamically by The Aristotelian Connection -- one-at-a-time, along the arrow of spacetime. Notice that, from the perspective of the local mode of spacetime, the Holon state of 'the whole universe as ONE' is both infinitely close to any point from the spacetime manifold and infinitely away from it, hence these "two" (in fact, one) boundaries provide the wrapping of spacetime by ...  well, by itself. In other words, being confined within the teleological time of the local mode of spacetime, we can't reach the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover (see above) that provides the self-acting faculty of 'the universe as ONE'.

You may get more hints from the self-acting faculty of your own brain. The only idea which may turn out to be new is the hypothetical scale relativity principle. If we wish to think as proper relativists, we should abandon the absolute structure of 3-D space and work out new symmetry presentations of The Large and The Small.


D. Chakalov
February 4, 2009
Last update: February 6, 2009
----

In the first place, we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception.

Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1920

 


===================

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:09:05 +0200
Subject: Re: Some news from Ile de la Reunion...
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jeanne Mallet <jeanne.mallet@wanadoo.fr>

Dear Jeanne,

> But it seem to have some cyclic phenomenon, with mathematical basis ?

Well, I think the "breathing" of the Universe has to be based on some cyclic phenomenon, but here's the first challenge: the topology. It can be neither along a line nor along a circle, so if you ask how the Dragon is chasing its tale, I really don't know! See:

Fourth dimension: Visual scope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension#Visual_scope

"Being three-dimensional, we are only able to see the world with our eyes in two dimensions. A four-dimensional being would be able to see the world in three dimensions. For example, it would be able to see all six sides of an opaque box simultaneously, and in fact, what is inside the box at the same time. It would be able to see all points in 3-dimensional space simultaneously, including the inner structure of solid objects and things obscured from our three-dimensional viewpoint."

Perhaps with your training you may access 'the four-dimensional being' ...

Best wishes,

Dimi


=================


Subject: The dynamical effects of [omega][mu]
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:20:55 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ying-Qiu Gu <yqgu@fudan.edu.cn>
Cc: Mike Turner <mturner@uchicago.edu>,
Josh Frieman <frieman@fnal.gov>,
Dragan Huterer <huterer@umich.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>

Dear Professor Gu,

May I ask a question regarding the intriguing dynamical effects of [omega][mu], in your latest arXiv:gr-qc/0610001v3.

In spacetime with intrinsically nondiagonal metric, the spinor particles do not move strictly along geodesics, so the principle of equivalence is broken by the spinors moving at *high speed* (the validity of such representation depends on the quaternion structure of spacetime), yet spinors get totally hidden in the limiting case (?) of the metric being transformed into the diagonal one (Eq 4.1).

Is it conceivable that spinors cold be effects from some mirror world with "inverted" spacetime basis?

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html

I'm trying to explore all possibilities for some mirror world, which interacts with gravity via spinor "particles" and creates the observable "dark" effects cast on the 4-D spacetime manifold from GR textbooks,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Trodden

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#addendum

Thank you very much for your time.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


=====================

Subject: Re: The dynamical effects of [omega][mu]
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:35:12 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ying-Qiu Gu <yqgu@fudan.edu.cn>
Cc: Mike Turner <mturner@uchicago.edu>,
Josh Frieman <frieman@fnal.gov>,
Dragan Huterer <huterer@umich.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
George F R Ellis <George.Ellis@uct.ac.za>,
Max Tegmark <tegmark@mit.edu>,
Don Marolf <marolf@physics.ucsb.edu>,
Matt Visser <matt.visser@mcs.vuw.ac.nz>,
Paul Ginsparg <ginsparg@cornell.edu>,


Dear Professor Gu,

Thank you for your reply from Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:50:04 +0800.

> I do not well understand what the definition of your mirror world is.

I have no contribution to the hypothesis of mirror world; check out Max Tegmark's article at the first link from my preceding email,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Gu

Notice that we have three kinds of mass, as explained by Yakov Terletsky,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Xiao.html#C2

> In my opinion, no matter whether the dark energy or dark matter, they
> are definitely described by some dynamical equations.

Check out the second link from my preceding email (Eric Linder's explanation of DDE).

> The real world is much complicated to be studied, why are you
> interesting to study the imaginary mirror worlds?

I believe have explained it at the third link from my preceding email. In a nutshell, I think we need to incorporate the three forms of mass in quantum gravity, and to "recover" the Lorentzian metric as an effective (not exact) metric valid for object up to the scale of our Solar system; for larger objects check out EFDOD,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#EFDOD

> The arxiv.org has canceled my right to upload new papers without any
> explanation. I feel very disgusted with such treatment.

Join the club! My manuscript, with critical remarks against "GW astronomy", was accepted on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:59:24 GMT, but then
disappeared next Monday,

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

I believe this was communist censorship, executed by Paul Ginsparg's
talibans (a.k.a. "moderators"),

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/arXiv.html#Marolf

The scandal with LIGO will be enormous,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

I don't know who deleted my manuscript on Monday, 18 July 2005, but to
the best of my knowledge the two "moderators" were Don Marolf and Matt
Visser.

Once the scandal with LIGO reaches its climax, I will raise this issue of communist censorship again.

À la guerre comme à la guerre.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU

 

===========================


Subject: Manuscript deleted by ArXiv.org "moderators" on Monday, 18 July 2005
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:01:43 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Paul Ginsparg <ginsparg@cornell.edu>
Cc: Don Marolf <marolf@physics.ucsb.edu>,
Matt Visser <matt.visser@mcs.vuw.ac.nz>

Dear Dr. Ginsparg,

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:59:24 GMT, my manuscript "Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?" was accepted as physics/0507133. It was supposed to appear in the mailing scheduled to begin on Monday, 18 July 2005, at 20:00 US Eastern time.

However, your "moderators" decided to delete it -- without any explanation whatsoever.

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#arxiv

I wonder if you can recall the name of your "moderator" who deleted my manuscript.

Was this person Don Marolf? Or Matt Visser? Or maybe you did it?

I am respectfully urging you to take this email *very* seriously. Your "moderators" prevented a discussion on the errors in the design of LIGO, which could have probably saved hundreds of millions U.S. dollars from being wasted by LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC): check out

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#wine_cellars

Looking forward to hearing from you and from your moderators,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU

 

==================


Subject: arXiv:0904.4184v1 [gr-qc], Eq 1.1.1
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:54:34 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Müller <Thomas.Mueller@vis.uni-stuttgart.de>
Cc: Frank.Grave@vis.uni-stuttgart.de

Dear Professor Müller,

I think you and your colleagues have done an outstanding 'Catalogue of
Spacetimes'.

May I ask two questions.

According to Roger Penrose, "any non-constancy in [lambda] would have to be accompanied by a compensating non-conservation of the mass-energy of the matter." (R. Penrose, The Road to Reality, Jonathan Cape, London, 2004, p. 777)

Do you agree with such "compensating" mechanism?

And if you do, how would you alter the energy-momentum tensor (Eq 1.1.1) due to the evolving [lambda]?

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
---

Note: If the cosmological "constant" [lambda] were indeed constant, we could speculate about "twice-contracted Bianchi identities" that would guarantee the conservation of total energy-momentum (Ellis and van Elst).

I hope Thomas Müller will soon update his 'Catalogue of Spacetimes' with the visual presentation of the omnipresent -- hence "dark" -- direction of the expansion of 3-D space; more from Matthew Frank.


D. Chakalov
April 29, 2009

 

================


Subject: The flow of time
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 04:37:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Paul Wesson <psw.papers@yahoo.ca>
Cc: Vesselin Petkov <vpetkov@alcor.concordia.ca>

Paul,

The flow/arrow of time and the phenomenon of transience are associated with the change of 3-D space itself, hence we're dealing with 'arrow of spacetime'. The "direction" of the latter is omnipresent -- it matches the "direction" of expansion of 3-D space due to the "dynamic dark energy". The theory of relativity cannot in principle pinpoint such "direction" of elementary step of transience dt & ds, because the reference object w.r.t.w. it unfolds is the whole 3-D space en bloc,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Julian_note

Stated differently, the current theory of relativity is blind to the arrow of spacetime from the outset. Not surprisingly, it will look like an illusion to you [Ref. 1] and people like your Bulgarian colleague.

I suppose you'll treat this email as an illusion and won't reply. But if you do, I'll be happy to elaborate.

Dimi

---------

[Ref. 1] Paul S. Wesson, Time as an Illusion, arXiv:0905.0119v1 [physics.gen-ph] http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0119

p. 5: "We will in this section examine briefly the three ways in which
the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical
processes, and argue that they are all deficient. Quite apart from
technical arguments, a little thought will show that a statement such
as the “flow of time”, despite being everyday usage, is close to
nonsensical. For the phrase implies that time itself can be measured
with respect to another quantity of the same kind."
--

Note: Here's a simple exercise in GR. Consider a curved line segment such as the upper part from your wristwatch circle, from 9 to 3. Draw three tangential lines at the points 10, 12, and 2. They intersect outside your wristwatch, making angles less than 180 degrees. But notice that you've taken the stand of some absolute observer, who can see all possible tangential lines attached to all possible "points", hence you can claim that, during the time elapsed from 10 to 2, the 1-D space was indeed "curved". And because your wristwatch reads all points from the timeline [9, 3], you can check out all tangential lines at all points, and prove the curvature was indeed constant. Or think of a plane flying from LA to London: the shortest path will be curved, following the curved surface of Earth, yet at all points from your journey you can draw such tangential lines, and also claim that in some "infinitesimally small neighborhood" of any point from your trajectory you've been enjoying a dead flat space (you can't verify your claim -- check out Bob Wald's textbook, p. 4 -- and you will have to deeply believe in it in order to eventually "understand" the Equivalence Principle and the torsion-free "geodesic deviation" equation).

Trouble is, GR says nothing about the gravitational energy-momentum density at the "points" that the tangential lines/tangent spaces belong to, so you should ask your GR teacher (i) what these tangential lines and "ground state of the gravitational field" [Ref. 2] actually mean, (ii) where do they fit in the non-linear, bi-directional "talk" of matter and space (John Wheeler) -- before, during, or after the negotiation between the two sides of Einstein equation is being completed -- and (iii) which instant from this non-linear "talk" can be read by your wristwatch. Surely we can use tensor calculus which handles these concepts "intrinsically" (John Baez), yet there is no answer to the question of how is gravitational energy attached to the "points" from this "curved" (with respect to what?) space.

We cannot define the "curvature" of space unless we know the boundary conditions that could define an 'isolated system' in that 3-D space, hence define a 'world line' that is "deemed to be a geodesic only if its length is a extremum" (Héctor Calderón). Thus, we cannot prove the fundamental conjecture in GR that particle trajectories are indeed 'geodesics' (and unravel the Christoffel symbols), because we need, from the outset, to make presumptions about what we're planning to "prove". What a mess. More from Alan Rendall.

And because you've taken the stand of an absolute observer, you can see the center point of your wristwatch, and can introduce some "dark energy" to the "curved" 1-D space, like in the balloon metaphor from Ned Wright. Again, ask your GR teacher what does "dark energy" actually mean (Steven Weinberg), given the lack of understanding of its "ordinary" counterpart. Contrary to what you may have read from John Baez, the vacuum can take the preferred state of 'rest', but without the need to possess any stress-energy tensor in the local mode of spacetime -- just ask your physics professor to explain the KS Theorem.

For if you don't ask such questions, chances are you may wind up in the situation of Paul Wesson and his Bulgarian colleague. Even worse, you may be tempted to publish general-audience articles with drawings like this:


 

D. Chakalov
May 8, 2009
Last update: May 26, 2009


[Ref. 2] M.D. Maia, A.J.S. Capistrano, E.M. Monte, On the Nature of the Cosmological Constant Problem, arXiv:0905.3655v1 [gr-qc]

"The ground state of the gravitational field in general relativity is the Minkowski tangent space-time, taken as the flat-plane standard of curvature, in which particles, quantum fields, their vacuum sates and energy are conceived."


 

============================


Subject: "In fact, I met Hugh Everett the other day ... "
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 05:15:15 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Kent <a.p.a.kent@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Simon Saunders <simon.saunders@linacre.ox.ac.uk>,
J Barrett <jabarret@uci.edu>,
J.Barrett@bristol.ac.uk,
david.wallace@balliol.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Max Tegmark <tegmark@mit.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

Dear colleagues,

I think the treatment of "decoherence" in the latest paper by Max Tegmark (cf. below) is a joke -- check out the discussion of Nevill Mott's paper by Alessandro Teta, arXiv:0905.1467v1 [math-ph], pp. 9-10,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Would you really endorse publishing such "decoherence" jokes by Oxford University Press ?

On the positive side, I have to admit that Max Tegmark's wife is absolutely gorgeous, so perhaps you may replace Max's paper with one of her photos.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

--------
Max Tegmark, arXiv:0905.2182v1 [quant-ph]; to appear in "Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality", S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent & D. Wallace (eds), Oxford Univ. Press

p. 10:
"5. Decoherence makes most macrosuperpositions for all practical
purposes unobservable.
"6. Decoherence calculations can determine which quantities appear
approximately classical.
...
p. 15:
"In fact, I met Hugh Everett the other day and he told me that he agrees -- but alas not in this particular universe."

-------------

Note: Ten years ago, I emailed Max Tegmark regarding his efforts to speculate on the physics of the human brain (arXiv:quant-ph/9907009), by suggesting some "decoherence" which "picks out a preferred basis in the quantum-mechanical Hilbert space, termed the “pointer basis” by Zurek [36], in which superpositions are rapidly destroyed and classical behavior is approached." The human brain, with its nearly 60 trillion synapses (cf. the binding phenomenon), is far more complex system than the
paths in the Wilson cloud chambers, yet the alleged "decoherence" cannot explain the latter: you have just probabilities for transition along a path, but in order to actually derive this path with some decoherence mechanism, Max Tegmark will have to explain what could possibly drive the particle toward its yet-to-be actualized next step from its "decohered" trajectory. Were the transition probabilities between two consecutive "decohered" states exactly unity, the "decohered" particle would be flying in Wilson cloud chambers like a Frisbee, and Wojciech Zurek would have discovered some brand new time operators in "decohered" QM. More from Stephen Adler, Schlosshauer & Camilleri, and Alessandro Teta.

There is a long list of unsolved problem with the alleged "decoherence" (for a brief list of published objections, see p. 718 from Wojciech Zurek and Henry Stapp), and it is indeed sad that Max Tegmark decided to ignore all my email sent in the past ten years.

Briefly, if your brain were some semiclassical decohered IGUS, you wouldn't be reading these lines. If an IGUS measures a quantum system, the very first thing that will happen is that its brain and the quantum system will be entangled, and nothing would possibly have any definite state whatsoever, 'the rest of the universe' included. Hence IGUS' brain will break down and could never recover from the lethal "macrosuperpositions", to recall that there is such thing as Process I or 'projection postulate', not to mention the Born rule. You'll be damn dead.

Also, recall that the estimated duration of the "instant" of decoherence is about 10-19 s, and ponder on what could be the implications for quantum gravity from semiclassical spacetime with such immensely huge "points", as compared to the Planck time.

It seems to me that it won't be possible to maintain the metric structure in GR with the Equivalence Principle, because quantum field effects may leak through such huge "decohered point", roughly 10-19 s, viewed as 'elementary duration of classical event'. A theory that can only offer some "strongly peaked" (J.J. Halliwell) stuff around a geometrical point is just a FAPP calculation tool (Maximilian Schlosshauer, arXiv:quant-ph/0312059v4, Sec. 4.E.3, p. 30), hence cannot address the question of how the quantum universe became classical (Daniel Sudarsky, arXiv:0906.0315v1 [gr-qc]).

So much on the so-called "semiclassical spacetime". More on QM here.

D.C.
May 15, 2009
Last update: June 2, 2009
 

=============================


Subject: Torsional degrees of freedom, arXiv:0905.2541v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 04:02:50 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>
Cc: Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>

Dear Dr. Fabbri,

I read your latest manuscript with great interest, and wonder what is your guess about the physical implications from the Cartan torsion tensor being not zero. The opinion of your colleague will be highly appreciated, too.

My guess can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#flexibility

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


===========

Subject: Re: Torsional degrees of freedom, arXiv:0905.2541v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:41:07 +0200
From: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
CC: Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>

Dimi Chakalov a écrit :
>
> Dear Dr. Fabbri,
>
> I read your latest manuscript with great interest, and wonder what is
> your guess about the physical implications from the Cartan torsion
> tensor being not zero.

Dear Dr. Chakalov,

thank you for your kind email; I will answer to your question starting from the beginning, and I hope it will not go too far.

In a geometry endowed with differential structures, the notion of covariant derivative is essential, and among all the possible covariant differentiations (External or Antisymmetric derivative, Lie derivative, etc.) the one that is defined through the connection is the most general; and connections are non-symmetric in the two lower indices in general: after all from the point of view geometry the two lower indices of the connection play two different roles in the definition of the derivative, and there is no reason form them to be exchangeable a priori. Thus said, the question that seems more natural to me is not "why is torsion there?" but rather "why should torsion be zero?".

There is another object that comes from the connection and which is a tensor, and it is the covariant derivative of the metric tensor Dg; this and torsion are two tensors coming from the connection in its most general form. However (although there are theories in which Dg is present) in my (very) humble opinion there are reasons for Dg to be zero (if Dg were to be non-zero we would have that the Principle of Equivalence would fail due to the fact that it would not be possible to have only one reference  system in free fall, the empty space characterized by vanishing connection would fail to be metrically flat, the Principle of Causality would fail due to the fact that there would be no way to transport vectors maintaining them light-like, there would be no mean to define metric concepts for tensors that are derivative of some other tensor or otherwise said there would be no way to define raising/lowering indices procedure in a unique way, etc.); on the other hand, so far as I am concerned, I see no reason for torsion to be zero, although there are reasons for it to be completely
antisymmetric (Principle of Equivalence, Dg=0 for any connection and in particular between one connection and its transposed, unambiguous definition of some physical quantities, etc.).

The fact for which torsion has always supposed to be zero according to the Principle of Equivalence is too strong: for the Principle of Equivalence in the form we know it is a macroscopic statement about the free fall of macroscopic particles subject to Newton's (generally covariant) Law, or Autoparallel Equation of Motion, which always select the symmetric part of the connection; and using it together with Weyl theorem to work out some consequences, it always results in involving not the whole connection, but its symmetric part only. So the Principle of Equivalence tells us something about the symmetric part of the connection alone; now, clearly if torsion is zero then the symmetric part becomes the entire connection, but this is not needed.

A connection that is metric and which possesses a completely antisymmetric torsion has a non-zero torsion indeed, but it is such that its symmetric part is uniquely defined, and hence the unique reference system in which it vanishes exists and is unique; yet, we can say nothing about the antisymmetric part, and so at least one bit of torsion will always remain safe.

This is from differential geometry with the Principle of Equivalence. Now coming to physics, the non-vanishing of torsion allows for matter written in terms of spinorial fields to be present and naturally coupled to the background; further, with a completely antisymmetric torsion the only spinorial field allowed is Dirac field, which is also the only one having causal propagation, and unconstrained field equations - with no torsion, such a coupling between matter and gravity would be rather unnatural, for it would result in coupling only some spinorial bilinears and only some irreducible parts of them, whereas with torsion, and in its completely antisymmetric form, all the spinorial bilinears take place in the coupling with geometric quantities (as far as this coupling is at the least-order derivative).

Now, after this (long) preface, I come to your question about the physical implications of Cartan torsion tensor: the most important of which is the fact that Dirac Equation becomes non-linear; I believe that this point is the most fundamental one, because non-linearity of the matter field equation would certainly result in a new behaviour at extremely high energies that, I guess, deserves to be studied.

So to summarize: there is no geometrical reason to think that torsion should be zero; and there are physical hopes to believe that torsion could give some interesting and intriguing effect in those energy scales that seem problematic.

Finally, I am aware of the fact that my answer might seem unsatisfactory, because at present there is no exact solution of that equation, nor observation pointing toward a preferred path that should be followed to solve it. However, if we think that some theory with difficult mathematics and yet no experimental evidence should be discarded, then we should also discard other theories, such as Non-Commutative Geometry, Conformal Gravity, Kaluza-Klein Multidimensional, Supersymmetry or String
Theories as well...

I hope my answer was clear, and not too long.

With my best regards

Luca Fabbri

 

===================

Subject: Re: Torsional degrees of freedom, arXiv:0905.2541v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 18:08:55 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>
Cc: Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>,
François Englert <fenglert@ulb.ac.be>,
Christian G Böhmer <c.boehmer@ucl.ac.uk>,
Adam D Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Alex <afriat@gmail.com>,
Marco Spaans <spaans@astro.rug.nl>,
Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

Dear Dr. Fabbri,

Thank you very much for your detailed reply to my question about possible physical implications from Cartan torsion tensor being not zero.

May I offer you some brief comments. Please correct me if I got GR wrong or 'not even wrong' (it happens).

I extend this immodest request to your colleagues as well.

Regarding the the Equivalence Principle (EP),

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Spaans

Look at the drawing below: what do you see?

|-----------------------|

Obviously, this is a wegtransformierbar elephant walking on tightrope, only it has just dropped off due to the Equivalence Principle. John L. Synge couldn't grasp it either, but for reasons quite different than mine.

I haven't been able to understand these wegtransformierbar "tensors" in the past 37 years (I'm 57 now), firstly because EP is applicable "within" an infinitesimal "point" only,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Wesson

So, let me zoom on this infinitesimal "point", to eventually understand what is meant by 'geometry endowed with differential structures', from your email from Tue, 19 May 2009 11:41:07 +0200,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Fabbri

Look at the Zeno paradox in Slide 4 from [Ref. 1],

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Englert_slide_4.jpg

and compare it with the Thompson Lamp paradox,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hung

The ultimate cutoff that produces _finite_ things placed in 3-D space is missing in the mathematical structure of GR; hence the ongoing debate, since 1918, of what is 'gravitational energy of isolated system',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#extended

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Wang_Yau

Perhaps this ultimate cutoff is due to a hypothetical state of the whole universe as ONE,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Blaylock

If true, it could be "a quantum effect, and it naturally disappears at macroscopic scales" [Ref. 2].

According to Einstein, GR is "essentially not anything more than a theory of the gravitational field, which was somewhat artificially isolated from a total field of as yet unknown structure."

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

Perhaps the torsional degrees of freedom are precisely this "yet unknown structure",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#flexibility

... without any "multidimensional superstitions" (Sheldon Glashow).

Finally, my LHC predictions can be read at

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

Qui vivra verra.

Best wishes,

Dimi Chakalov

------

[Ref. 1] F. Englert, Gravity, geometry and group theory (colloquium),
http://web.me.com/fenglert/Site/Talks_files/geometry.pdf


[Ref. 2] Luca Fabbri, On a Completely Antisymmetric Cartan Torsion Tensor, arXiv:gr-qc/0608090v2, Sec 2, 'Physical Models with a Completely Antisymmetric Torsion Tensor', pp. 7-8:

"Thus said, it is clear how only fundamental fields of matter whose spin is equal to 0 or 1/2 can find place in this geometry, that is scalar fields and Dirac fields are the sole fundamental matter fields we can consider in our physical description of nature, according to the ESK theory.
...
"The fact that the autoparallel equation is not distinguishable from the geodesic equation is equivalent to the fact that torsion has no influence in the motion of macroscopic test bodies, and since torsion is spin, this means that spin does not affect the motion of test bodies in macroscopic situations; this is not surprising, for spin is a quantum effect, and it naturally disappears at macroscopic scales."

 

====================


Subject: Re: Torsional degrees of freedom, arXiv:0905.2541v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 23:04:41 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>

Dear Luca,

Thank you for your prompt reply from Tue, 19 May 2009 18:15:07 +0200.

> in my last paper I simply discuss the fact that if torsion is not
> completely antisymmetric and/or there is not metricity, than you do not
> have one but many symmetric parts of the same connection, and hence,
> when you apply Weyl theorem to find the frame in which the symmetric
> part of the connection vanishes, you end up in having many different
> frames in which different symmetric parts of the same connection
> vanish, and every is messed up;

That I noticed.

> since nothing can be said about the completely antisymmetric part of
> torsion, it will be untouched by this critics: so if the Principle of
> Equivalence is true than you can not have more than the completely
> antisymmetric part of torsion in the connection. But this does not mean
> that the PE must be true, at least at quantum scales; the only problem
> would be that if the PE were not true, than you would not get the
> vanishing of the entire torsion, on the contrary you would get the whole
> torsion plus some parts of the Dg.

But perhaps "vanishing" of all torsion degrees of freedom goes exclusively at quantum scales. If true, that would be a whole new ball game, with 'torsion degrees of freedom' being interpreted as 'potential reality',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Best wishes,

Dimi

--------

Note: Regarding EP and QM, see Jose G. Pereira et al., The Equivalence Principle Revisited, gr-qc/0212034 v1 (emphasis added):

"Concerning the Quantum Mechanics of a system immersed in a gravitational background, an ideal observer -- a point in 3-space -- is indeterminate. Quantum Mechanics in 3-space will always probe a 3-dimensional domain, intersecting a bunch of curves in spacetime and, consequently, will always be aware of a gravitational field, however small its effect may be."

In the light of the interpretation of QM suggested above, an ideal observer is not "indeterminate" but 'undecidable potential reality', meaning that in the local mode of time (the one that can be read by your wristwatch; not in the global mode of time presented in GR as "the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories", see Carlo Rovelli, gr-qc/0604045v2, p. 4) the physically observable 'ideal observer' will be an already explicated projection from the quantum-gravitational potential reality -- the torsion degrees of freedom have already done their job, making this quantum-gravitational "point" physically observable, and have already completely vanished, being not 'physically real' (Butterfield & Isham) but vanish-able, wegtransformierbar quality of gravity (Afriat and Caccese, p. 27).

Notice that the adverb 'already' (compare it with "in a sense atemporally", John Gribbin) comes from the postulated global mode of time with which the universe is modeled as a brain. From the perspective of Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem (FWT) mentioned above, free decisions are taken "in a sense atemporally" and "on the fly" (cf. the slide below, from John Conway's Lecture on April 27, 2009).
 




 

Hence the non-linear "negotiations" in the postulated global mode (recall the Buridan donkey paradox) are  'already'  completely absent in the local mode, rendering the latter a perfect continuum of already-correlated physical reality (local mode of spacetime). Attached to every "point" from this so-called local mode of spacetime there is a pocket of infinitely many quantum-gravitational propensity states readily available for the next step of negotiating the next physical state with 'everything else in the universe' in the global mode, in line with the rule 'think globally, act locally'.

Thus, the quantum realm is not just "aware of a gravitational field" (Jose G. Pereira et al.). It provides the inherent flexibility of the gravitational field, and fixes an instantaneous snapshot of already-correlated quantum-gravitational physical reality -- one-at-a-spacetime, along the arrow of spacetime.

It's a whole new ball game with the dual nature of 'an ideal observer/point in the quantum-gravitational realm': viewed as 'potential reality', it keeps the torsion degrees of freedom, and currently "nothing can be said about the completely antisymmetric part of torsion", as Luca Fabbri said above.

He stressed that the most important physical implications of Cartan torsion tensor being not zero is that Dirac Equation becomes non-linear, but it is not clear to me how this fact is related to 'space rotation symmetry' (cf. Milo Wolff): 3-D space "rotates" continually around a "point" and returns to its initial state after two turns, but there is no fixed axis like in cylindrical rotation of a wheel, which suggests that this could be some "point-like" quantum phenomenon. Notice that this "happens" only "within" the same infinitesimal "point" used in Equivalence Principle to eliminate gravity as a physical field.

 


If we interpret this omnipresent 'axis of rotation' as the absolute reference frame of 'the universe as ONE', it will never be exposed as 'physical reality' (local mode of the spacetime): The ONE is an unbroken ring with no circumference, for the circumference is nowhere (hence no ether in the local mode) and the center is everywhere.

 

D. Chakalov
May 20, 2009
Last update: May 28, 2009

 

======================


Subject: Is Hilbert space an emergent concept ?
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:13:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Tommaso Toffoli <tt@bu.edu>, Lev Levitin <levitin@enga.bu.edu>
Cc: Dorje Brody <d.brody@imperial.ac.uk>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>

Dear colleagues,

May I ask a question.

Since only orthogonal states can be unambiguously distinguished (arXiv:0905.3417v1[quant-ph]), I wonder how you would define the "transition" from undecidable quantum states (KS Theorem)

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

to orthogonal ones.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


======================


Subject: The Thomson lamp and KS Theorem
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:51:49 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Karl <svozil@tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: Cristian Calude <cscalude@gmail.com>,
Martin Ziegler <ziegler@uni-freiburg.de>,
Andrei Khrennikov <Andrei.Khrennikov@vxu.se>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@aei.mpg.de>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Jeremy Butterfield <jb56@cus.cam.ac.uk>,
William G Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca>,
John Conway <jhorcon@yahoo.com>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

Hi Karl,

Since you acknowledged that the so-called "quantum information" is not bound by two classically contradictory states [Ref. 1], check out

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Toffoli

Notice that the so-called "fifty-fifty mixture of the “on” and “off” states" [Ref. 1] *cannot* be extended to the case of Hilbert space dimension of KS Theorem (nonexistence of two-valued probability measures),

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

The fundamental 'quantum state' could be the *generalized case* of UNdecidable Thompson lamp (=quantum presentation of Platonic ideas, cf. the link above). In the case of Ernst Specker's tripod and KS Theorem, it becomes an UNdecidable Onta (Henry Margenau) and quantum noumenon, because it may possess not just two but infinite (uncountably infinite) degrees of freedom.

It cannot be modeled with probabilistic calculus and "unitary dynamics", nor can reside in any Hilbert space whatsoever.

Stated differently, the popular belief about some "time parameter" in the Schrödinger equation, and the usual mantra "the background Newtonian time appears explicitly in the time-dependent Schroedinger equation" (Chris Isham), are false.

If you disagree with this interpretation of QM, please explain your objections. I extend this request to your colleagues.

I believe you have at least three options.

One is to take these matters professionally: please reply to this email, then try to resolve the task at the first link above, and finally post your new, upgraded arXiv:0904.1649 v3 at ArXiv.org server.

The second one is to trust Chris Isham that I am "just another crank" (Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:14:09 +0100) and "do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area" (Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:24:15 +0100). If so, please don't bother to reply. Instead, try to resolve the task at the first link above, and post your new, upgraded arXiv:0904.1649 v3 at ArXiv.org server.

The third option is to take the stand of those people persistently ignoring my work; they didn't even acknowledge my invitation sent last year,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Talk.txt

A typical example is Claus Kiefer, who knows my web site for at least seven years, yet is totally ignoring it: check out his second edition of "Quantum Gravity" (22 February 2007), which was supposed to contain "some pedagogical extensions", but failed to comment on the KS Theorem and the opinion of Schrödinger from 18 November 1950 (cf. the second link above). If you choose this third option, please don't bother to reply and try to forget everything we discussed in your office in Vienna nine years ago.

Kindest regards,

Dimi

----

[Ref. 1] Karl Svozil, On the brightness of the Thomson lamp, arXiv:0904.1649v2 [quant-ph], http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1649

"Suppose further that all measurements are finite in the sense that the temporal resolution [X] of the observation of the Thomson lamp cannot be made “infinitely small;” i.e., the observation time is finitely limited from below by some arbitrary but non-vanishing time interval.
...
"3 Quantum state of the Thomson lamp

"The quantum mechanical formalization of the Thomson lamp presents an intriguing possibility: as quantum information is not bound by two classically contradictory states, the quantum state of the Thomson lamp can be in a superposition thereof.
...
Eq. 6: "These are the two states which can be expected to emerge as the quantum state of the Thomson lamp in the limit of infinity switching processes. Note that, as for the classical case and for the formal Abel sum, they represent a fifty-fifty mixture of the “on” and “off” states."
-----
 

Note: When dealing with metaphysical issues, our thinking goes along three consecutive stages, reflecting (i) our initial expectations and prejudices about the phenomenon in question, (ii) the degree to which it may in principle be accessible to our cognition, and (iii) the nature of the phenomenon itself. The second and third points present us with the daunting task for discriminating between epistemology and ontology, so it is vital to make at least the initial point as clear as possible. I suggest to consider the teleological and holistic thinking as complementary ways of addressing the Thompson lamp paradox. It encapsulates the atom of geometry (see explanation and drawings here) and the mystery of 'the infinitesimal' in differential calculus -- why are we able to get finite things from an uncountably infinite "number" of infinitesimal "points"?

The teleological pathway and its inevitable conundrums are perhaps best described by Stephen Leacock and Robin Le Poidevin, while the holistic approach can be intuitively grasped by pondering on the notion of 'actual infinity' and Georg Cantor's definition of 'set' ("... into a whole."). Briefly, the proposed answer to the question of 'why' is this: we observe finite things in 3-D space due to the Aristotelian First Cause acting as the ultimate cutoff (global mode of spacetime) placed simultaneously at the two "edges" of 3-D space, towards the Small and the Large. The First Cause cannot be reached from/within the teleological "part" of the universe (local mode of spacetime), hence the two approaches or 'ways of thinking' are considered complementary.

Now let's see how this ultimate cutoff of 'the universe as ONE' shows up in QM and in GR.

In his latest quant-ph/0206076v6, p. 4, Karl Svozil raised the issue whether one could "either measure or counterfactually infer all required entities simultaneously", and stressed:

"This ambiguity gets worse as the number of particles increases."

Namely, in the case of KS Theorem, the '101 property' doesn't hold for all possible cases, which in turn does not allow you anymore to claim that the probabilities for observing the spin-1 particle will always -- in all possible cases -- sum up to unity: you face an "ambiguity" from 'the UNdecidable quantum state' being outside the Hilbert space.

Hence the two processes from Schrödinger evolution (the unitary wave-like propagation) and localized detection (either "collapse" or its effective equivalent in collapse-free interpretations of QM) do not provide an exhaustive account of all observable phenomena. Forget about "unitary dynamics" in the not-yet-collapsed Schrödinger equation: the UNdecidable quantum state is not there. Therefore, the "collapse" (Process I) or any of its effective equivalents cannot affect it either: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter. This is the first motto of my web site. Perhaps it provoked the bold statement of Prof. Chris Isham from 23 Oct 2002 (see above), which he hasn't yet backed with any evidence whatsoever. It's just a plain insult.

Nine years ago, Karl Svozil and I discussed precisely this "ambiguity" from KS Theorem in his office in Vienna. I argued that Margenau's Onta shows up even in the Schrödinger's cat paradox. The example I quoted was posted on September 4, 1998. If your brain (not mind!) can hold Platonic ideas, Mother Nature should be capable of doing it as well. Simple, no?

Prof. Karl Svozil said nothing. He just kindly walked me out to the elevator, as every polite Austrian would do with some intrusive Scheißausländer.

Anyway. If one wishes to apply the interpretation of QM suggested above to GR, the first step is to ponder on the text from Bob Wald (Teaching General Relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/0511073v1, pp. 4-5; emphasis and comments added):

"A much better idea is to work infinitesimally, using the idea that, on sufficiently small scales (this notion certainly needs clarification in the context of Thompson lamp - D.C.), a curved geometry looks very nearly flat (notice the poetry - D.C.). These departures from flatness can then be described via differential calculus. To do so, one begins by introducing the notion of a tangent vector to describe an infinitesimal displacement about a point  p . (However, 'point particles' do not make sense in GR, nor does it make mathematical sense to consider solutions of Einstein’s equation with a distributional stress-energy tensor supported on a worldline, as explained elsewhere by Bob Geroch,
arXiv:0907.0412v1, p. 3 - D.C.) This notion of differentiation allows one to define the notion of a geodesic (as a curve that is “as straight as possible”) and curvature -- which can be defined in terms of the failure of initially parallel geodesics to remain parallel, or, more directly, in terms of the failure of successive derivatives of tensor fields to commute."

The notion of 'differentiation' comes from postulating a differentiable structure on the manifold of "points". Once you zoom in this differentiable structure (see detailed explanation and drawings here), you will notice that the "points" from the underlying manifold cannot be connected only and exclusively only by their physical content that is invariant under "active" diffeomorphisms. We need an additional, pre-geometric binding agent called The Aristotelian Connection. It comes from 'the universe as ONE' -- the UNdecidable quantum-gravitational state that lives happily "outside" the spacetime manifold (the so-called global mode of spacetime) and provides the intrinsic cutoff for 'isolated system', with an already explicated positive mass.

Perhaps I should repeat here that the adverb  already  comes from the Machian-type atemporal "handshake" in the global mode of spacetime; see Kevin Brown, John Gribbin, and the interpretation of Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem (FWT) above. The "end" result (local mode) from such atemporal non-linear correlation is a quantum-gravitational "wave" with dimensionless amplitude (which makes LIGO project unfeasible in principle). This "wave" evolves in the local mode of spacetime continuously, from any given "point" to the nearest "point", via the "dark gaps" of 'potential reality' residing  ]between[  any two "points" (the so-called Aristotelian Connection). I hope this can explain (i) the origin of 'quantum waves' and (ii) the verdammte Quantenspringerei (Erwin Schrödinger). The latter are artifacts from the 'dead matter' of measuring devices; check out the four brain-like correlated quantum dice here.

The UNdecidable quantum-gravitational state, called 'potential reality' (global mode of spacetime), is an exclusive feature of the arrow of spacetime. Notice that the potential reality is not observable in the local mode of spacetime. The latter is a re-created Phoenix Universe: a perfect continuum of already-explicated physical stuff, in which all "dark" effects from the global mode, as well as all non-linear negotiations between every "point" and 'the rest of the universe' (think globally, act locally), are completed, and have already completely vanished. Thus, the arrow of spacetime makes the spacetime manifold itself an emerging phenomenon.

Panta rei conditio sine qua non est.

 

"just another crank" D.C.
June 1, 2009
Last update: July 10, 2009

 

===========================


Subject: Getting rid of "ideal elements": The manifold as an emergent concept
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:13:45 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>
Cc: owinkler@perimeterinstitute.ca,
corichi@matmor.unam.mx,
bojowald@gravity.psu.edu,
Jerzy.Lewandowski@fuw.edu.pl,
kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de,
ashtekar@gravity.psu.edu

Dear Luca,

May I ask a question.

Regarding my email from Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:50:38 +0200 and your latest paper [Ref. 1]: Imagine a well-known car that can run only on dry asphalt and with maximum speed of 10 km/h, while we all need to design a brand new, still unknown vehicle (=quantum gravity) that can be a perfect car, and can also fly in the sky and dive in the ocean.

Why not trying to design such new vehicle from the outset, instead of making all efforts to reproduce/recover the well-known lousy car?

I'm afraid you too are following the "recipe" for the so-called loop quantum gravity,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Bojowald_note

Even if you succeed with your quest for some *semiclassical* limit [Ref. 1], you will face the problems from QM and GR discussed at my web site.

The classical spacetime itself, which we take to be endowed with both metric (Equivalence Principle) and differential structures, is a formidable challenge from the outset,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Fabbri

We also have an incredibly difficult challenge with the Hilbert space in QM,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

With these two extra challenges in mind, I made the metaphor above. My
personal viewpoint is that if we try to design a new vehicle that can fly in the sky and dive in the ocean, it may turn out to be a perfect car as well.

If you or some of your colleagues reply professionally, I promise to elaborate in details.

That's all business; nothing personal.

Best regards,

Dimi

---------

[Ref. 1] Luca Bombelli, Alejandro Corichi, Oliver Winkler, Semiclassical Quantum Gravity: Obtaining Manifolds from Graphs, arXiv:0905.3492v1 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3492

"One of the most important trends in the development of our current understanding of spacetime and gravity has been the decrease in the number of background, non-dynamical structures used in formulating the theory. For example, in the canonical approach to quantum gravity [1,2,3] one starts just with a background differentiable manifold, interpreted as space, and builds a diffeomorphism-invariant theory without any additional structures, such as a preferred metric or coordinate system, on it. A further step in the direction of getting rid of "ideal elements" would be to formulate the theory without using a manifold as part of the background structure [4]. In addition to a greater conceptual simplicity, we would then have a more flexible theory in which even topological properties of spacetime could be seen as dynamically determined. The replacement of the notion of manifold points by a different basic structure should set in at a characteristic length scale representing the fuzziness of quantum spacetime, and help eliminate the divergence problems that appear in classical spacetime.
....
"One can envision however a version in which abstract graphs and states on them are the fundamental objects, while the manifold is an emergent concept; ... .
...
"If the manifold is not present from the beginning, however, the question of deciding whether a given quantum gravity state is semiclassical, i.e., whether it approximately describes a classical geometry, acquires a new aspect with respect to other approaches. The issue now is not just whether observables defined on the underlying space are peaked around values of the corresponding classical quantities, but whether the underlying structure itself resembles a classical space.
...
"We hope that the construction here outlined will be useful in the quest for a semiclassical limit of loop quantum gravity."


==============

Subject: Re: Getting rid of "ideal elements": The manifold as an emergent concept
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 16:50:08 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: luca@phy.olemiss.edu
Cc: owinkler@perimeterinstitute.ca,
corichi@matmor.unam.mx,
bojowald@gravity.psu.edu,
Jerzy.Lewandowski@fuw.edu.pl,
kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de,
ashtekar@gravity.psu.edu

Dear Luca,

> as you say, this is a very challenging task.

In precise form:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Toffoli

> In this situation, it makes sense to rely on known technology

But of course. The "technology" is known since Plato,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Blaylock

If you and/or some of your colleagues cannot understand the text at the links above, it will be entirely my fault.

Please feel free to write me back with questions and, most importantly, counterarguments. For if you are on the right track, I am definitely on a wrong one, and vice versa.

Best -- Dimi

 

=============================

Subject: Is "quantum information processing" (QIP) an unfeasible dream ?
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:37:43 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: m.plenio@imperial.ac.uk, p.knight@imperial.ac.uk, s.scheel@imperial.ac.uk, s.buhmann@imperial.ac.uk, sougato@theory.phys.ucl.ac.uk, t.monteiro@theory.phys.ucl.ac.uk, d.browne@ucl.ac.uk, a.serafini@ucl.ac.uk, a.olaya@ucl.ac.uk, e.campbell@ucl.ac.uk, Dieter.Jaksch@physics.ox.ac.uk, admin@qunat.org, s.benjamin@qubit.org, david.deutsch@qubit.org

Dear colleagues,

I respectfully invite you to examine an interpretation of QM at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Your questions, critical comments, and professional (not emotional)
objections will be highly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU

===================

Subject: Quantum computing ?
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:29:26 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: divince@us.ibm.com, bennetc@us.ibm.com, chaitin@us.ibm.com,
imai@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, J.Oppenheim@damtp.cam.ac.uk, jb56@cam.ac.uk,
hugo.zbinden@unige.ch, Robert.Thew@unige.ch, quantumoptics-blatt@uibk.ac.at, schwender@physik.uni-erlangen.de, veronica.cerletti@unibas.ch, s.popescu@bristol.ac.uk, bruss@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de, jense@qipc.org

Dear all,

In case you still believe in some "quantum computing", check out

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#QIP

Have a nice summer.

Dimi Chakalov
 

===================

Subject: The meta-qubit state (never in plural)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:52 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Abner Shimony <abner.shimony@gmail.com>,
Elisabeth Rieper <elisabeth.rieper@quantumlah.org>,
John Morton <john.morton@sjc.ox.ac.uk>,
Andrew Steane <a.steane1@physics.ox.ac.uk>,
Lov Grover <lkgrover@bell-labs.com>,
Isaac Chuang <ichuang@mit.edu>,
Peter Shor <shor@math.mit.edu>,
Seth Lloyd <slloyd@mit.edu>,
Andrew N Jordan <jordan@pas.rochester.edu>,
Alvaro Feito <ab1805@imperial.ac.uk>,
mn@michaelnielsen.org, artur.ekert@qubit.org, a.s.kay@damtp.cam.ac.uk, vlatko.vedral@qubit.org, preskill@theory.caltech.edu, r.thompson@imperial.ac.uk, m.plenio@imperial.ac.uk, adler@ias.edu, d.brody@imperial.ac.uk, c.isham@imperial.ac.uk


Dear colleagues,

Some ideas and opinions on "quantum computing" can be read at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#QIP

Explanation at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

Historical notes (October 2002) at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/points.html#addendum

Have a nice summer.

Dimi

---


Note: 
Unperformed (=counterfactual) "measurements" yield no successive results. You cannot force any quantum system to produce a sequence of some well-defined and counterfactual -- unobserved at macro scale -- quantum states. You can't employ a quantum system to perform "quantum computing" during its unobserved, non-relativistic, Macaviti cat states.

The mythical "quantum computing" presupposes some well-ordered sequence of such cat states, endowed with domino-like causal order, (from Alice to Zelma; see below), which would run along the time variable read by your wristwatch, which in turn presupposes that the same wristwatch can read the non-relativistic "time" of the "U" process. No way. Read Schrödinger.

On March 4, 2000, I offered a counterfactual Gedankenexperiment called 'loop quantum teleportation'. A few moths later, I had a private discussion with Karl Svozil, arguing that Margenau's Onta (the UNdecidable quantum state; cf. Quantum Mechanics 101 above) shows up even in Schrödinger's cat paradox. Briefly, I suppose we could learn to manipulate entanglement locally (e.g., Virmani and Plenio, quant-ph/9911119) only if we know how to manipulate it "quasi-locally" (resembling the human brain).

Let me try to explain why I believe QIP is an unfeasible dream. First, let's compare the idea of "quantum computing" to some real computing machine. Suppose you have a domino-like thread of people capable of performing classical computations. Pick up their names by the letters of English alphabet: Alice, Bob, Carol, etc., up to Zelma. You give a task to Alice, then she performs a classical computation and produces an intermediate result -- a fact -- and passes it to Bob, who takes this fact, makes his computation to produce the second intermediate result -- also a fact -- and then passes it to Carol. At the end of the day, Zelma shows the final fact from her computation, and you're done.

With "quantum computing", however, there are no intermediate facts, yet people deeply believe that the "computing" will nevertheless be carried out by some sequence of well-defined intermediate counterfactual quantum states. Say, 500 qubits would perform 2500 calculations in a single step -- a true "parallel processing", in one go.

Which in turn means that these QC people can't tell apart an actual fact, as produced by non-unitary quantum measurements, from some 2500 intermediate counterfactual quantum computations  'if A then B' , that can only work when/during 'no one is looking at them', like the mysterious cat Macavity.

Stated differently, we may believe in "quantum computing"  iff  one could, at least in principle, force a quantum system to produce a distinctive pattern of unobserved/counterfactual quantum states when 'no one is looking at them' (say,  ---+++---  ) by successive non-unitary quantum measurements (or rather actions) performed on its entangled "red part". (The green pattern must match the unique end result by Alice-Zelma from particular "quantum computation", because a unique result cannot be produced by an arbitrary permutation of unobserved/counterfactual "qubit" states). Obviously, the non-unitary quantum measurements performed on the entangled "red part", which should literally force the emergence of the green pattern above, should somehow produce a chain of entangled ordered facts, +++---+++ , as explained above.

It is agonizingly clear that this ground conjecture, or zeroth hypothesis of QIP is unfeasible, by reductio ad absurdum. People from the "quantum computing" community (e.g., Jens Eisert) can only keep quiet and pretend they've never heard about this argument.

But how does the unobserved/counterfactual quantum state exist in its Macaviti cat state? Consider the crucial speculation about some "qubit":



The UNdecidable quantum state (quantum presentation of Platonic ideas; see above) is depicted with the blue "hedgehog". It can't be some "qubit", because "a qubit is a quantum system in which the Boolean states 0 and 1 are represented by a prescribed pair of normalised and mutually orthogonal quantum states labeled as {|0> ,|1>}" (reference here), while the blue "hedgehog" does not have any Boolean states nor classical truth values (definitely either true or false) whatsoever (cf. Ghirardi and Marinatto, p. 2, footnote 1).

It is exactly opposite to what Boolean states and classical/binary truth values stand for. As Chris Isham put it (11/22/2005): "My goodness, things can partly exist as well! That's certainly how quantum theory is like!"

Namely, quantum states  both  'partly exist' as context-evoked (KS Theorem) latent observables  and  'partly do not exist', being UNdecidable quantum state (never in plural) as well. It's an indivisible bundle of 'both ONE and many', hence the format 'both  ...  and'. If you're getting a headache, ask Chris Isham for details; he is very good in math.

If you insist on QIP terminology, you may call this UNdecidable blue hedgehog 'the meta-qubit state' (never in plural).

Even if you manage to initiate a quantum computation at "one" qubit, there will be no instantaneous domino-like computations across the whole "quantum register", due to its 'ONE meta-qubit state'. Once triggered from Alice, the "computation" will instantaneously vanish at Bob and will kill/decohere the whole "neighbouring" UNdedcidable quibit/meta-qubit state (the blue hedgehog): counterfactual measurements yield no successive results.

Another wishful speculation needed to define "qubits" (reference here) is this: "We shall assume that information is stored in the registers in binary form." In the case of measurement-based "quantum computation", Michael Nielsen (arXiv:quant-ph/0504097) acknowledged that "the basic dynamical operations are non-unitary quantum measurements", so how can you demonstrate the alleged binary form of quantum "information" that is stored (presumably) in the "registers" with non-unitary measurements?

The entangled "qubits" don't possess any individual properties whatsoever (Ghirardi and Marinatto), so the assumption that "information is stored in the registers in binary form" is nothing but a product of your wild imagination. Same holds for Lov Grover's claim that "all the paths leading to the desired results interfere constructively."

Besides, as stated above, every "quantum computer" is suicidal by its design due to the nonunitary “R” process (historical notes from October 2002 here). I don't mean the daunting task of avoiding "environment-induced decoherence", but the fundamental rule known as Feynman's uncertainty principle, according to which "any determination of the alternative taken by a process capable of following more than one alternative destroys the interference between alternatives." Hence a "quantum computer" can run only "one step" (from Alice to Bob, say), after which it can never resurrect its UNdecidable, blue "hedgehog", ONE meta-qubit state.

If you intend to solicit additional financial support from your military institutions, by claiming that you (the good guys) will crack all coded messages of the bad guys with some "quantum computer", think again.

You continue to produce thousands of speculative papers by following the old Tanzanian saying: "How do we know that Father Christmas has a beard? We know it, because snow falls when he shakes his beard." Just replace 'beard' with 'classical/binary truth values'. While it may be true that you're wasting far less taxpayers' money than your "GW astronomy" colleagues, the approach is the same: nobody has declared the conditions under which the underlying speculations about some "qubits" may be wrong.

Please put your cards on the table. Don't behave like Jehovah's Witnesses.

It is very likely that I won't hear from any of the people above. As Chris Isham predicted on March 2, 2007:

"They either tell you to get lost, or they ignore you completely."

Maybe because they already got the money.


"just another crank" D.C.
June 16, 2009
Last update: September 19, 2009
--
We haven't the money, so we've got to think!
Lord Rutherford, 1962 Brunel Lecture, 14 February 1962

 

=============================


Note: On 24 June 2009, Prof. Jens Eisert (Visiting Academic at Imperial College London and full professor at the University of Potsdam) vaguely promised to respond as a physicist:

--------
Subject: Re: Quantum computing ?
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:32:40 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jens <jense@semele.quantum.physik.uni-potsdam.de>

>> But first, please try to respond as a physicist. I know you can do it :-)
>
> Thanks. I most definitely do so. :)

Please put your cards on the table. The updated (24.06.2009) note is at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#QIP

> Yes, but this is the problem, I rather want to deal with science

Science? Great. Please check out the arguments at the link above, and declare the conditions under which you will accept that the underlying speculations about some "qubits" could be wrong. I'll take it from there. It will be a very brief exercise.

I promise that if you write something that has *not* been published, I will never, in no circumstances tell anyone about it.

This is just business; nothing personal.

MfG D.
--------
 

Note: Jens Eisert choose to respond today (15 Jul 2009) with an insult: see his last email printed below. Notice that the full professor at the University of Potsdam didn't even put his name at the end of his email. Even Mongolian shepherds sign their emails. But not Jens Eisert.
 

-------------
Subject: Re: The matter that dances, arXiv:0907.1968v1 [physics.gen-ph]
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:18:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: Jens <jense@semele.quantum.physik.uni-potsdam.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907151016130.5047
@semele.quantum.physik.uni-potsdam.de>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>


>> can you do me a favour? Can you just cut me from your mailing list?
>
> 1. If you are going to retire from everything related to "quantum
> computing", you won't hear from me anymore.
>
> 2. If you plan to work on anything related to "quantum computing",
> please get professional and defend your dreams,
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#QIP
>
> Which do you choose?

It is most definitely neither my job nor my moral responsibility to discuss with everybody who thinks is in the position to say something on a field.

In fact, I think it is a moral responsibility to be quite on a subject where one has no scientific impact or contribution or visible knowledge whatsoever.

So, cut me off, and stop writing such ridiculous things, you make a fool of yourself.
--------

Note: You can bring a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. Obviously, Jens Eisert loves his Barbie (like Julian Barbour), and nothing can convince him to get professional and dismiss his beloved toy.

I wish Jens Eisert, and all his colleagues from the "quantum computing" community, a nice a quiet retirement.


D. Chakalov
July 15, 2009


=============================

Subject: Re: QIP
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:58:37 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Michel Dyakonov <Michel.DYAKONOV@lpta.univ-montp2.fr>

Dear Michel,

Thank you for your feedback. It's a real pleasure to hear from you.

Congratulations upon your APS Beller Lectureship Award. You're such a smart guy. And what is "Professeur 1ere cl"? Does it mean that you've learned French ? I can never learn those 9999 irregular verbs, nor to write 'ez kil i'ya kelkonne?' I mean, only Chinese language has more irregular verbs, but on the other hand the spelling is just straightforward ... :-)

> The QC people say: suppose that one can impose a prescribed evolution
> of a quantum system to some desired final state. Then they show, the if
> one measures all the qbits in this final state, this will give the solution
> of our problem with a probability > 0.5.
>
> I don't see anything criminal in this particular idea, except that it will
> never be possible to impose a prescribed evolution of a large enough
> system on a microscopic level.

I believe you've explain this in your articles

Quantum computing: a view from the enemy camp
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0110326

Is fault-tolerant quantum computation really possible?
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610117

I agree with you, but my arguments are quite different, since I address what appears to be 'the zeroth hypothesis of quantum computing'. By 'intermediate counterfactual quantum states' I imply 'unobserved at macro-scale states'. Such "states" may exist only like the mysterious cat Macavity (T.S. Eliot, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats), which supposedly shows up *only* when no-one is looking at it. Hence 'the zeroth hypothesis' is that one can *force* and *control* the appearance of well-defined sequence of such Macavity cat states (cf. the green pattern). How? Only by a sequence of non-unitary quantum measurements performed on its entangled "part" (cf. the red pattern), which is of course absurd. Q.E.D.

> I must say that being a practical person, I don't understand, nor like,
> generalities.

Me neither, but in this case it's a matter of principles,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

> I am attaching slides of my recent talk in Argonne, that may be of
> interest to you

Yes; thank you very much. You wrote (Slide 5): "IF there is no noise (spin relaxation), IF the gates are ideal, and IF measurements are perfect, THEN it is proven that after applying ~10^10 gates, one can use Shor's algorithm to factorize numbers like ~ 10^130 faster than any classical computer"

See, you're still leaving some vague hope for these QC people :-) I tend to be more radical.

You also wrote (Slide 22): "... decoherence-free subspaces do not exist, except in some imaginary world". Well, I believe this "world" is not at all imaginary; it may be just "outside" the Hilbert space (cf. 'quantum presentation of Platonic ideas' at the link above).

> Tell me something about yourself. Where are you? What are you doing?
> What is your life like?

I'm 57 already, still located in Sofia; life here is quite ugly, as in a post-communist country, but I have a lovely family, and work in England, so I'm fine.

Wishing you a nice summer,

All the best,

Dimi


=====================

Subject: Re: QIP
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:13:45 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Michel Dyakonov <Michel.DYAKONOV@lpta.univ-montp2.fr>

Dear Michel,

> Let's see if I understand you correctly.
>
> Indeed, the proposed error correction procedures for quantum
> computing entirely rely on the following trick.

Sorry, I never said anything on the error correction recipe. The zeroth hypothesis of QC is aimed at verifying the tacit assumption that the UNseen/UNobserved _at classical level_ sequence of intermediate "qubit" states (the "green pattern", ---+++--- ) can indeed exist. I offer a Gedankenexperiment with two entangled "parts", green and red, such that we can perform non-unitary quantum measurements on the entangled "red part" only ("red pattern" +++---+++), to induce an opposite, and well-ordered sequence of UNseen/UNobserved intermediate quantum states (the "green pattern", ---+++--- ).

That's the zeroth hypothesis of QC. It assumes a 'well-ordered sequence' (the "green pattern"), because a unique computational result cannot be achieved by arbitrary permutations of  "+"  and  "-"  intermediate quantum states. Please check out the link from my preceding email below.

If there is anything you were unable to understand, it will be entirely my fault.

Best regards,

Dimi


On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:32:14 +0100, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
[snip]

> The crux of the zeroth hypothesis of QC is that a *well-defined
> sequence* of such intermediate states can indeed be
> produced/triggered by somehow *forcing* its entangled partner to
> display "the red pattern" by a sequence of non-unitary quantum
> measurements:
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#QIP
>
> So, if QC proponents can induce "red pattern" (RED +++---+++ ) by
> successive non-unitary quantum measurements (or rather actions)
> performed on its entangled "red part", then one could believe that
> some "green pattern" (GREEN ---+++--- ) should have been established
> at the entangled "green part". If that were possible, then QC might be
> theoretically possible, at least at the most primitive level, such as
> 'zeroth hypothesis'.
>
> NB: Please tell me what you were unable to understand. It will be
> entirely my fault.


================

Subject: Re: QIP
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:21:31 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Michel Dyakonov <Michel.DYAKONOV@lpta.univ-montp2.fr>

[snip]

1. A unique computational result cannot be achieved by arbitrary permutations of "+" and "-" intermediate qubit states.

2. The zeroth hypothesis of QC is a tacit presumption that such well-ordered sequence of intermediate qubit states (the "green pattern") can indeed exist _in principle_.

That's why I called it 'the zeroth hypothesis'.

3. Let's try to reproduce just some 'well-ordered sequence of intermediate qubit states' (the "green pattern"), to test 'the zeroth hypothesis' itself. How can we do that?

3.1. By some example of QC: none available.

3.2. By simulating some *well-ordered sequence* of UNobserved quantum (not qubit) states: take as Gedankenexperiment two EPR-like entangled "parts", called 'red' and 'green', and try to produce a well-ordered sequence of OBSERVED red states, say, +++---+++, in order to induce an opposite, and well-ordered sequence of UNseen/UNobserved quantum states (the green pattern), ---+++--- .

But of course you can't produce/force any *well-ordered sequence* of
OBSERVED red states in the first place.

Please tell me what you were not able to understand.

Best - Dimi

[snip]
-------




Note: The main difference between the hypothetical "quantum computing" (QC) and the Gedankenexperiment (cf. 3.2 above) is that QC is based on some mythical unitary transformations  'if A then B'  from Alice to Zelma (see above), while in the Gedankenexperiment the UNobserved quantum states, the green pattern ---+++--- , is forced to appear from individual "collapsed" red states, +++---+++ . The latter is, however, impossible.

Perhaps QC people may wish to say that this difference renders the Gedankenexperiment irrelevant, hence they can actually employ a quantum system to perform "quantum computing" during its unobserved, Macaviti cat states. But they certainly know the answer, so I bet they will keep quiet, like Jens Eisert.

"No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon." (John Wheeler, p. 184)

None of those 500 intermediate "qubit" states (see above) is a 'phenomenon', yet QC people deeply believe that these "qubits" have the same causal efficacy as a registered (observed) phenomenon, and speculate that one can trigger an "instantaneous" domino-like cascade of causal effects, in one "step" from Alice to Zelma, with instantaneous "duration" that can be read by the wristwatch of these QC people.

Has anyone proved that the "duration" of the U-process, either finite or "instantaneous", can me mapped to the time variable used in STR? Does anyone know what kind of "time" is implied in the Schrödinger equation?


D.C.
August 24, 2009
Last update: September 19, 2009


=============================


Subject: The vacuum energy problem, arXiv:0906.5562v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:30:43 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Viqar Husain <vhusain@unb.ca>
Cc: Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>

Dear Dr. Husain,

I read your latest arXiv:0906.5562v1 [gr-qc] with great interest. May I ask a question.

You wrote: "What is apparent from these observations is that if one starts from a background independent gravity-matter theory, (...) the problem of time must be solved (...) before one can even ask if there is a vacuum energy problem."

I wonder if you see the crux of the problem in classical GR, given the problems with the localization of energy. There should be a problem of time in classical GR due to the relation of time & energy. In STR, "the principle of conservation of energy is a consequence of invariance under time translations",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_1:_Conservation_of_energy

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html

Q: Do you see a problem of time in GR from the "quasi-local" gravitational energy? It may be one of these catastrophes that have never happened ... :-)

I will appreciate the opinion of Dr. Zhang as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov


==============

Subject: Re: The vacuum energy problem, arXiv:0906.5562v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:15:08 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>
Cc: Viqar Husain <vhusain@unb.ca>,
Lau Loi So <s0242010@cc.ncu.edu.tw>,
James M Nester <nester@phy.ncu.edu.tw>,
Mu-Tao Wang <mtwang@math.columbia.edu>,
Pengzi Miao <Pengzi.Miao@sci.monash.edu.au>,
Chiang-Mei Chen <cmchen@phy.ncu.edu.tw>,
Chiu-Chu Melissa Liu <ccliu@math.columbia.edu>,
Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Adam D Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Niall O'Murchadha <n.omurchadha@ucc.ie>,
Charles G Torre <torre@cc.usu.edu>

Dear Xiao,

Thank you for your prompt reply. It's a pleasure to hear from you.

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:34:57 +0800 (CST), you wrote:

>> Q: Do you see a problem of time in GR from the "quasi-local"
>> gravitational energy? It may be one of these catastrophes that have
>> never happened ... :-)
>
> In classical GR, the reasonable energy or quasi-local energy is only
> well-defined in a spacelike hypersurface. The conservation of the
> energy requires the spacetime is foliated by the spacelike hypersurfaces
> and the energy of these hypersurfaces are the same.
>
> I think certain time function exists implicitly if a spacetime is foliated
> by the spacelike hypersurfaces.

I wonder what kind of time is implied in the phrase "the energy of these hypersurfaces are the same". Is it the so-called proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories [Ref. 1]?

As to the second part from your reply, suppose that some time function may exist *implicitly* if a spacetime is foliated by spacelike hypersurfaces.

Can you prove Charles G. Torre wrong by demonstrating that GR is indeed a parametrized field theory [Ref. 2]?

Also, suppose that some day you, or some of your colleagues, manages to offer a rigorous definition of 'isolated gravitational system' by clarifying some new asymptotic regime -- in both spacelike and null directions -- such that (i) all gravitational effects are localized inside of it, and (ii) the mass is strictly positive. Then you will be able to define a 'clock' with strictly positive mass, which can indeed read its quasi-local energy states and your 'time function'.

How could you prove that your have achieved this formidable task? By explaining the origin and the mechanism of generating the inertial reaction "forces" pertaining to objects with 'strictly positive mass'.

NB: Can you, or any of your colleagues, offer some alternative to the idea suggested by James F. Woodward [Ref. 3], such that it would be applicable to some "membrane", namely, a closed spacelike 2-surface,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Wang_Yau ?

I was never able to understand the (Machian-type?) origin of inertial reaction "forces", and hope you and your colleagues can help.

Best regards,

Dimi

--------

[Ref. 1] Carlo Rovelli, Unfinished revolution, gr-qc/0604045 v2.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604045

"In general relativity, when we describe the dynamics of the gravitational field (not to be confused with the dynamics of matter in a given gravitational field), there is no external time variable that can play the role of observable independent evolution variable. The field equations are written in terms of an evolution parameter, which is the time coordinate x_0, but this coordinate does not correspond to anything directly observable. The proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself.

"Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable.
...
"This weakening of the notion of time in classical GR is rarely emphasized: After all, in classical GR we may disregard the full dynamical structure of the theory and consider only individual solutions of its equations of motion. A single solution of the GR equations of motion determines "a spacetime", where a notion of proper time is associated to each timelike worldline."


[Ref. 2] C. G. Torre, The Problems of Time and Observables: Some Recent Mathematical Results, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9404029

"To summarize, we have ruled out the simplest putative resolutions of the problems of time and observables. We cannot use parametrized field theory to solve the problem of time because, strictly speaking, general relativity is not a parametrized field theory."

C. G. Torre, Is general relativity an ‘already parametrized’ theory?
Phys. Rev. D 46 (1993) 3231-3234


[Ref. 3] James F. Woodward, Gravitation: The Origin of Inertia,
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

"The act of pushing on something causes a disturbance in the gravitational field to go propagating off into the future. It makes stuff (the "absorber") out there wiggle. When the stuff wiggles it sends disturbances backward (and forward) in time. All the backward traveling disturbances converge on what we're pushing and generate the inertial reaction force we feel. No physical law is violated in any of this. And nothing moves faster than the speed of light. It only seems so because of the advanced waves traveling at the speed of light in the backward time direction."
------
 

Note:  If the mechanism of inertial reaction "forces" can be explained with some Machian-type phenomenon, I suppose the solution of CDM puzzle by EFDOD (extra force dominated orbital dynamics) might become feasible. Stipulations like "localised concentration of mass equivalent to tens of thousands of Milky Ways" (reference here), or "90 percent of the baryons in VIRGOHI 21 appear to be missing" sound very primitive, to say the least.

I wish the great Dennis Sciama [Ref. 4] was here to help. What if "the gravitational influence of the whole universe" (ibid.) acts on every point quasi-locally, in line with the rule 'think globally, act locally' ? I highlighted the phrase 'locally indistinguishable' in [Ref. 4] to stress that inertia could be both an intrinsic (albeit quasi-local) property of matter and the result of the quasi-local interaction of matter with 'the rest of the matter' in the universe. The key words 'quasi-local interaction' encode the Bootstrap Principle of Geoffrey Chew, expressed with the saying 'think globally, act locally'. In other words, the Machian-type determination of inertial mass "happen" inside the same infinitesimal "point" (cf. explanation and drawings here) that we use to eliminate gravity locally, in line with the Equivalence Principle, since the gravitational and inertial "forces" originate from 'pure geometry' -- the grin of the cat without the cat, as observed by Alice. Back in August 1952, Dennis Sciama wouldn't dare to guess that this 'pure geometry' may be the most powerful, albeit "dark", entity in the universe: CDM & DDE.

If we model the whole universe as a brain, it must know about everything instantaneously [Ref. 5], but without any 'action at a distance' [Ref. 3].

But how is this speculation related to the wegtransformierbar elephant above?

Can we unravel two "waves" (global mode of spacetime), for the positive and negative charges, and their atemporal "handshaking" mechanism, such that we experience and measure the quasi-local property of matter called inertia [Ref. 6]?

This is a multi-billion dollar question, which cannot be answered at CERN.
 

D. Chakalov
July 20, 2009
Last update: July 22, 2009
 


[Ref. 4] D. W. Sciama, On the origin of inertia, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 113, 34-42 (1953), p. 35 (August 20, 1952)

 


[Ref. 5] Mike Zucker, in 'Gravity: Making Waves':

"... the change of the mass distribution (...) has to somehow be communicated throughout the whole universe. And in Newton's picture there is a problems with that, because there isn't any way for that information to take some finite amount of time. Somehow the whole universe must know about everything instantaneously. It's called the problem of action at a distance. So going back to Einstein's picture, if you think of it in terms of massive bodies affecting the space-time, you can immediately think of a way to communicate information about those bodies from place to place, through ripples in space-time."



[Ref. 6] Hermann Weyl, How Far Can One Get With a Linear Field Theory of Gravitation in Flat Space-Time? American Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 1944), pp. 591-604

 

 

=============================


Subject: The space of point-coincidences & the absolute object(s)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:42:22 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Hans Westman <hwestman@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Sebastiano Sonego <sebastiano.sonego@uniud.it>
Cc: Domenico Giulini <giulini@zarm.uni-bremen.de>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>,
M Iftime <miftime@bu.edu>

Dear colleagues,

It is a pleasure to read your two papers, arXiv:0708.1825v2 [gr-qc] and arXiv:0711.2651v2 [gr-qc].

You acknowledged that "in a quantum theory of gravity it could be that no spacetime model is specified, so the local observables now introduced are ill-defined and therefore not suitable for being turned into operators", and stressed that "the notion of absolute objects appears somewhat problematic" (arXiv:0711.2651v2 [gr-qc], p. 10, footnote 10), and "points of M are not empirically observable, in contrast with events".

Can you think of the 'points of M' and 'absolute objects' as the UNdecidable (not empirically observable) quantum state, after KS
Theorem?

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#QIP

Hope such approach can help you avoid the jungle of some “fuzzy spacetime” or “fractal spacetime”.

I will appreciate the opinion of your colleagues as well.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov


=============================


Subject: The final challenge
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:58:48 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Luca Lusanna <lusanna@fi.infn.it>
Cc: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>, Horace W Crater <hcrater@utsi.edu>, David Alba <ALBA@FI.INFN.IT>

Dear Luca,

I believe you have produced the best article [Ref. 1] I've read from you. I will study it thoroughly over the weekend, and will certainly learn a lot from you, as it always happens with your articles. Thank you so very much!

My efforts at 'the final challenge' can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Westman

Best regards,

Dimi
---

[Ref. 1] Luca Lusanna, Relativistic Atomic Physics: from Atomic Clock
Synchronization towards Relativistic Entanglement, arXiv:0810.5241v1
[gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5241

"Let us remark that both the 1+3 and the 3+1 points of view are *non
factual*; in both of them one must know an entire world-line from [tau] = [-inf] to [tau] = [+inf] and in the 3+1 one also a whole instantaneous 3-space.
...
"However, in general relativity every solution of Einstein equations dynamically selects its preferred instantaneous 3-spaces (modulo coordinate transformations) [9]: since the whole chrono-geometrical structure, described by the 4-metric and the associated line element, is now dynamical, also the clock synchronization convention acquire a dynamical character. The gravitational field, i.e. the 4-metric, is not only the potential of the gravitational interaction but it also teaches relativistic causality to the other fields (it says to each massless particle which are the allowed trajectories in each point). This geometrical property is lost when the 4-metric is split in a background plus a perturbation (like in quantum field theory and string theory for being able to define a Fock space), ... .
...
"The final challenge will be a consistent inclusion of the gravitational field, at least at the post-Newtonian level!"


 

=============================


Subject: "The positivity for interior two-surfaces is still an open question."
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 13:14:25 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Niall 'O Murchadha <niall@ucc.ie>
Cc: tung@shnu.edu.cn,
nqxie@fudan.edu.cn,
mtwang@math.columbia.edu,
Lau Loi So <s0242010@cc.ncu.edu.tw>,
Hwei-Jang Yo <hjyo@phys.ncku.edu.tw>,
Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>

Dear Dr. Murchadha,

I would like to make a prediction regarding your arXiv:0905.0647v1 [gr-qc] and forthcoming calculations: you will fail to produce an unambiguous proof of the alleged positivity for interior two-surfaces.

The gravitational energy should be positive, but you will have to produce some cancellation mechanism for the "negative mass",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#So

Please send me your forthcoming paper, when available, and I will
elaborate in details.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


=========================

Subject: Re: "The positivity for interior two-surfaces is still an open question."
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 20:23:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: O'Murchadha, Niall <n.omurchadha@ucc.ie>
Cc: tung@shnu.edu.cn,
nqxie@fudan.edu.cn,
mtwang@cpw.math.columbia.edu,
Lau Loi So <s0242010@cc.ncu.edu.tw>,
Hwei-Jang Yo <hjyo@phys.ncku.edu.tw>,
Szabados Laszlo <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>,
Adam D Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>


On Wed, 6 May 2009 12:05:18 +0100, O'Murchadha, Niall <n.omurchadha@ucc.ie> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Dimi,
> The positivity proof of Wang and Yau still stands. However, the object
> that they can prove positive for any 2-surface (modulo technical things
> to do with the Jang equation, read their CMP article) we would interpret
> as `energy'. To find the `mass' we need to subtract off the momentum,
> and we can say nothing about that.
> One of the properties that people dislike about the Brown-York energy
> (and which both Jimmy and I like!) (the same holds for the Liu-Yau
> energy and the Wang-Yau energy) is how it increases as one goes
> inward on the moment-of-time-symmetry slice of Schwarzschild. Since
> `energy = mass' on this slice, I see this as a hint that the mass may be
> positive in general.
> However, proving anything is going to be a real challenge.
> Niall

Dear Niall,

Thank you for your prompt reply; I was under the impression that your forthcoming paper (ref. [7] in arXiv:0905.0647v1 [gr-qc]) will be far more ambitious.

Regarding the positivity mass conjecture of Wang and Yau: in my view, there is something deeply suspicious and unclear in the very idea of wrapping a system with some sort of "membrane, namely a closed spacelike 2-surface" [Ref. 1], such that "one looks for an integral which somehow quantifies the energy (or mass) contained within it", as you put it in arXiv:0706.1166v1 [gr-qc].

This whole two-surface business seems to be an effort to bypass the inherent problems of 'isolated system in GR', namely, the definition of some *exact limit* at which the system would (eventually and hopefully) become “self-contained”,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#extended

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Brill_Jang

No matter how you play, it seems to me that you will have to make the quasi-local mass *wegtransformierbar* (do you know the Chinese word ?), such that it will both vanish *exactly* to zero "when the ambient spacetime of the surface is the flat Minkowski spacetime" [Ref. 1], and be always available for resurrection as strictly non-negative quasi-local mass.

NB: Notice the 'both ... and' format of the task: can you have your cake and eat it?

On top of everything, ADM mass is of no help in the case of an evolving [lambda],

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Mueller

More at the link from my preceding email,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#So

I was never able to understand why we see mass with one "charge" only, and wish you and your colleagues best of luck with making the mass
positive in general.

Dimi



[Ref. 1] Mu-Tao Wang and Shing-Tung Yau, Quasilocal mass in general
relativity, arXiv:0804.1174v3 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1174

"As is well known, by the equivalence principle there is no well-defined concept of energy density in general relativity. On the other hand, when there is asymptotic symmetry, concepts of total energy and momentum can be defined. This is called the ADM energy-momentum and the Bondi energy-momentum when the system is viewed from spatial infinity and null infinity, respectively. (...) However, there are limitations to such definitions if the physical system is not isolated and cannot quite be viewed from infinity where asymptotic symmetry exists.
...
"It was proposed more than 40 years ago to measure the energy of a system by enclosing it with a membrane, namely a closed spacelike 2-surface, and then attach to it an energy-momentum 4-vector. It is natural to expect that the 4-vector will depend only on the induced metric, the second fundamental form, and the connection on the normal bundle of the surface embedded in spacetime. This is the idea behind the definition of quasilocal mass of this surface. (...) Thirdly and most importantly, quasilocal mass must be nonnegative in general and zero when the ambient spacetime of the surface is the flat Minkowski spacetime."
------------
 


Note: I believe the exact limit at which the system would have no choice but to become “self-contained” (see above) should be based on a very powerful idea from Lucretius suggested 2060 years ago, and also on the Aristotelian First Cause acting as the ultimate cutoff.

The fact that we observe finite objects in 3-D space, with spatial attributes such as inside vs. outside and left vs. right, constitutes the ultimate puzzle in GR, called "space". We should not allow any fixed background structure in GR. I tried to explain my arguments to Chris Isham in his Office at the Imperial College London on Tuesday, 25 January 2005; he mumbled something about the topology of space, but hasn't yet (18 August 2009) produced any clear counterproposal. Surely the infamous 3+1-split of spacetime "captures only part of general relativity, since it forbids topology change", as stressed by Jeremy Butterfield (footnote 21) and Ken Koehler, so perhaps Chris Isham could suggest some 'topology change' to resolve the problem. If so, I wish him luck with curing the current "dynamics" of GR and resolving the staggering pathologies of the non-dynamical spacetime manifold; check out Ioannis Raptis.

I suggest an arrow of spacetime, which does involve topology changes between two so-called 'modes of spacetime', local and global. The kinematical part from the arrow of spacetime is based on (but not limited to) the following conjecture about the origin of time: to explain the local mode of spacetime, consider 1-D space, denoted with an axis called  x , and think of two "consecutive points" on  x  , A and B, such that there is already absolutely nothing ]between[ these "consecutive points" (just as there is no water in-between two adjacent molecules of water). You may be tempted to introduce 2-D spacetime, by suggesting a second "temporal" axis  y  (hence x and y would belong to the surface of your PC screen), but please notice that 'time' does not originate from 'change in space' but from 'change of space'. Only if you have the latter (global mode), you may introduce the former, as 'time read by a clock' (local mode).

To explain the omnipresent "direction" of the global mode of spacetime, along which 3-D space evolves, imagine a "vertical" (to your PC screen) axis  w  (recall the GW lake), and picture the points A, B on  x  (local mode) as two (Photoshop) layers stacked on the "skewer"  w . These layers are connected by The Aristotelian Connection (notice the sliding cutoff needed to define the infinitesimal "distance" from A to B), but due to the "speed" of light, any time we look around we see an already explicated physical world in its local mode, i.e., some 4-D spacetime with Lorentzian metric introduced by hand. But this is just a time-symmetric snapshot which brings insurmountable problems to the dynamics of GR. To recover the genuine dynamics of spacetime and the reference fluid of GR, the first off challenge is to seek two gravitational waves (for the positive and negative "charges") running in the global mode of spacetime, with suitable cutoff or "mirror" (Alan Rendall), and also a "handshaking" cancellation mechanism, as suggested above.

We should never ever split the local mode spacetime, and "evolve" one "part" from it with respect to the other "part". Forget about the Hamiltonian formulation of GR. The most important things "happen" on null hypersurfaces, which act as 'entry points' to the ether (John Bell).

Again, if we wish to think as proper relativists, we should abandon the absolute structure of 3-D space in today's GR and work out new symmetry presentations of The Large and The Small.

As to the hypothetical Aristotelian Connection, it was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz who suggested in Acta Eruditorum (1695) that physical bodies possess some faculty (aliquid) prior to "extension" (3-D space) itself: "In rebus corporeis esse aliquid praeter extensionem, imo extensione prius, alibi admonuimus." I call this faculty (aliquid) The Aristotelian Connection.

There are none so blind as those who will not think.

Have a nice day.


D. Chakalov
May 7, 2009
Last update: August 18, 2009


 

 

Feel free to download the web site (PHI_info.zip, app. 11MB) from

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/PHI_info.zip

By unzipping PHI_info.zip, a new folder, !Einstein_PHI , will be created on your hard drive. Navigate to the sub-folder 'WebSite' and open Szabados.html .

D. Chakalov