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
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.
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,
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>
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."
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).
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.
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 collaboration^{2} 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.
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?
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.
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!"
"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 h_{x} 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 h_{ab}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.
^{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 10^{96} 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 10^{120}', 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.
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"?
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
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.
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
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>
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
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, ...
"
"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
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
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.
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",
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 ,
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
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,
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',
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',
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
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
[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 t_{n} , 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 t_{n}
, 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 t_{n} ,
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
[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
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 anyset (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".
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 observableeither.
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.
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
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."
"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
"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."
"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)."
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."
"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 stateinterwoven 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 'already'
below (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 (R_{µv} = 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'.
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 intrinsicblue 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'.
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 computingunfeasible.)
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
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), remainsintact 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:
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 PR^{2} 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 GRare 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 (Science161
(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'.
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.
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,
... 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 10^{96}
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.
"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.
"... 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
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
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
PR^{2} 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 - ).
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 undecidablequantum
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 PR^{2} 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.
"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."
"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.
"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,
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,
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
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.
"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,
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
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.
[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>
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, Dialectica14 (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).
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,
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,
========== [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."
---
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
stuffabove, 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.
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,
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" ...
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',
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 10^{14} 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, 10^{11}
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 bindingphenomenon: 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
"... 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
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".
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
----
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.
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).
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.
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.
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."
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."
"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>
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
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.
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.
- 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
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
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."
"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.
>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.
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.
"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."
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".
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 :-)
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... 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.
"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,
"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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
"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
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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
----
[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,
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
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,
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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
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,
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
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").
"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 10^{54}
ergs/pulse, dwarf the corresponding nuclear energy events with their
energy of ~ 10^{22} 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
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]."
"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,
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,
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.
"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 everytwo 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 readJan 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-localglobal
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.
"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 t^{ik }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, t^{ik }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
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
-------------
"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."
"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."
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:
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>
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
"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
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
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,
[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 h_{x(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 h_{x(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 spaceonly,
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."
"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,
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 t_{1}),
then in the other arm (denote this instant with t_{2}), "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 t_{1} to_{ }t_{2}, 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:
t_{1} --> [delta]L/L
= h_{+}
t_{2} --> [delta]L/L
= h_{x}
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 t_{1} to_{
}t_{2}, 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 thewhole 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.
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 h_{x(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 180^{o} 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 90^{o} (as with light) but in
45^{o} (click the image below for reference to Kip Thorne's
course at Caltech).
At instant t_{1} , 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 t_{2 }, 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 45^{o} 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 twodistinct gravitational-wave fields (cf. Kip Thorne
above), then (ii) demonstrate that this "direction" somehow produces
two consecutive effects (denoted with t_{1} and t_{2
}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.
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.
"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."
------------
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."
"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."
> 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
>
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.].
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>
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."
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,
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
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 --
--
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,
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
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
=====================
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,
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>
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,
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."
"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
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
"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.]
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",
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",
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
----
[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 10^{96} 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!
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] hadalready (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.
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).
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 (x_{0},
y_{0}), 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.
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, ... "
"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."
"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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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. NBbelow).
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 objectin
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
"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.
...
"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.
...
"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 g_{ab} is well-defined
on M and, in
particular, on M , while the physical metric
g_{ab} 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 g_{ab} 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 metricg_{ab}cannot
be extended "in a well-defined sense" to this boundary, which
renders the physical metricg_{ab}at the very "boundary" unphysical , and the two metrics
may overlap smoothly at the
"red/black boundary" -- the unphysical
metric g_{ab}
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.
...
"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."
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 10^{105} 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
"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
"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,
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....." ?
"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,
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.
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,
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?
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.
"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
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
"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",
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.
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,
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,
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]
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
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 (effectivelyLorentzian 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 NBbelow. 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."
[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?"
=================
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
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.
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.
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
limitedin 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 180^{o} rotation
("force pattern invariant under 180^{o} 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 180^{o} 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 t_{1}
to t_{2 } -- first in one arm (denote this instant
with t_{1}), then in the other arm (instant t_{2}),
"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 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 the
poor GW "detector", by being simultaneously
stretched and squeezed by the + polarization, and
squeezed and stretched in 45^{o}
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 asource (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 t_{1} , then at t_{2 },
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.
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. (...)
"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 m_{B}
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
> 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"?
Moreover, if you wish to speculate about "direction of propagation" of
GWs, you should first resolve the Gedankenexperiment, from our
discussion last September,
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
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 h_{ab},
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 h_{ab}, 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,
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',
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."
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",
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,
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).
"(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 localmode
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:
"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."
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?
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,
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,
> 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,
> 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,
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.
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
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).
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,
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.
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,
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]).
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.
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.
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,
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,
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',
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."
[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',
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 alreadycompletely
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)
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
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),
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,
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
andRobin 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 connectedonly 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-typeatemporal
"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 havealreadycompletely vanished. Thus, the arrow
of spacetime makes the spacetime manifold
itself an emerging phenomenon.
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 yourlatest 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 todesign a brand
new, still unknown vehicle (=quantum gravity) that canbe
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 ofmaking all efforts to reproduce/recover the
well-known lousy car?
I'm afraid you too are following the "recipe" for the so-called loopquantum gravity,
Even if you succeed with your quest for some *semiclassical* limit[Ref. 1], you will face
the problems from QM and GR discussed at myweb
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,
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
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
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
---
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 2^{500}
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 2^{500}
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 orderedfacts,
+++---+++ , 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.
"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
> 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.
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.
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.
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,
> 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>
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",
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,
"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."
"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
"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 Society113, 34-42 (1953), p. 35
(August 20, 1952)
"... 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>
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?
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
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",
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”,
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.
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
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 .