Subject: Re: The "puzzle" and "devastating
conclusion" in astro-ph/0607380 v1, p. 2 Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:13:05 +0300 From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net> To: thiemann@aei.mpg.de, tthiemann@perimeterinstitute.ca P.S. I quoted from your paper at http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Brown.html#R2 Would you like some math? D. On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:09:46 +0300, Dimi Chakalov wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > > Instead of "adding appropriate, albeit hypothetical, matter", you should > have let me talk at GR17. But you choose to shut me up and bury my > talk to the poster session, remember? > > Now you wrote: "Hence the scalar matter we consider here might > actually really exist!" > > If you really believe that "the remaining technical tasks to be solved > have been identified", see the links in my preceding email to C. Torre. > > If you wish to get serious about that "scalar matter", please write me > back. > > Regards, > > Dimi
======== Subject:
arXiv:0709.4636v1
[gr-qc]
[12] H. Nicolai, K. Peeters and M. Zamaklar. Loop quantum gravity: an outside view. Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005), R193. [hep-th/0501114] Not only H. Nicolai, K. Peeters and M. Zamaklar
failed to mention Thomas Thiemann's Master Constraint Programme in their
hep-th/0501114, but were also puzzled "what has
been gained in LQG as compared to the old So, their AEI colleague, Prof. Thomas Thiemann, decided to strike back. First, he stated that "what we have in mind is to draw a more optimistic picture than [12] did, to hopefully resolve confusions that may have arisen from gaps in [12] and to give a more complete picture of all the research being done in LQG than [12] did. The discussion will be kept objectively, problems with the present formulation of LQG will not be swept under the rug but rather discussed in great detail together with their possible solutions." My comments (denoted with C) follow the quoted text (denoted with Q): "The relational Ansatz solves the problem of
time of canonical quantum gravity: By this one means that in generally covariant
systems there is no Hamiltonian, there are only Hamiltonian constraints. Since
the observables of the theory are the gauge invariant functions on phase space,
that is, the Dirac observables, "nothing moves in canonical quantum gravity"
because the Poisson brackets between the Hamiltonian constraints and the
Observables vanishes (weakly) by construction. Three brief comments: C.1.1. Had the problem of time of canonical quantum gravity been solved by the "relational Ansatz", we all would have learned about it from CNN Breaking News. C.1.2. I personally am not aware of any confirmation of "Dirac observable" whatsoever, and haven't found any proof of its existence in T. Thiemann's paper either. C.1.3. Q2. p. 31: "a physical inner
product is currently missing" p. 44: "We have indicated why non separable Hilbert spaces are no obstacle in LQG, they may even be welcome! p. 49: "4. Does non-separability of the Hilbert
space prevent the emergence of the continuum in the
semiclassical limit? C2. I've highlighted the important text with red. In my opinion, all these "semiclassical states" and "semiclassical limit" are initially wrong approach toward recovery of the continuum. If you look at a table, you don't see some "semiclassical" table that is in cat states (or in some "self-similar structure (spiderweb) around each vertex", cf. below), some of which are "strongly peaked" around some definite value of the position of the table, say. I can't see how T. Thiemann can recover the
world of tables and chairs from those "semiclassical" approximations, for
reasons explained
[4.4.3 Dirac observables and
physical Hamiltonian (p. 37):] "This holds for the classical theory. In
quantum theory (4.48) should be replaced by p. 44: "...let us make a guess: C3. Please hold your breath, and see C.1.1. and C.1.2 above.
C4. T. Thiemann rightly acknowledges that we haven't yet solved classical General Relativity. We also know very well that haven't solved the clash of QM with STR either, as demonstrated with the measurement problem here. Thus, the first off task of his Master
Constraint Programme should be elucidating the T. Thiemann has chosen an entirely different approach (p. 9) : "Hence, in praxis one will have to develop and rely on approximation schemes." But you cannot solve the initial problems of GR and QM by approximation schemes. That's 'sweeping the garbage under the rug', hoping that it might not show up in your alleged "quantum dynamics" and "physical inner product". "This is what LQG is designed to do, not more and not less" (p. 4). If you wish to build on rocks, solve the dynamics of GR and find the proper math. Thomas Thiemann isn't interested in my math, however. Neither he nor any of his AEI colleagues have responded to my proposals. Obviously, they aren't interested. Meanwhile, "a physical inner product is currently missing" (p. 31). How can you expect to find a physical inner product, ever? Would it point to some approximately semiclassical states? You're surely joking, Mr. Thiemann. Or maybe
you have problems with your neocortex. Or both.
===================
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
Dear Dr. Thiemann, In your recent hep-th/0401172, you stated that "these new representations could solve some of the major puzzles of string theory such as the cosmological constant problem." According to Feynman, the cosmological constant problem tell us that there could be something profound about gravity, which we still don't know, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Schwarz.html#1 http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Sarkar.html Going back to an old debate of 1917, it seems to me that both Levi-Civita and Einstein were undoubtedly right [Ref. 1]. More at http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Montesinos.html#1 http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Loinger.html How could Levi-Civita and Einstein be right? I'm wondering if you or any of your colleagues would agree that there is an incredible puzzle about the nature of gravity. Regards, Dimi Chakalov
Reference [Ref. 1]
Angelo Loinger, Non-existence of gravitational waves. The stages of the theoretical discovery
(1917-2003),
"This result has an unquestionable logical soundness, as it was finally admitted by Einstein himself. Of course, it implies the rejection of the various pseudo (false) energy tensors of the gravitational field proposed by Einstein and by other authors: a false tensor cannot have a true physical meaning! "Einstein objected that in
such a way the total energy-momentum of a closed system would always be
equal to zero -- and this fact would
not imply the further existence of the system under whatever form. However,
from the standpoint of the coherence of the formalism, Levi-Civita -- and
Lorentz [1] -- were undoubtedly right."
Note: If we adopt the solution to the paradox of continuum and the generic quantization of spacetime, we should keep the global mode of spacetime as the 'perennial' (Karel Kuchar) mode of all quantum systems. In this global mode, quantum systems do not work as a physical clock, because their local time, as read by a clock, is frozen. Zero. Just as if you were riding a photon. Instead of exploring the perennial
or global mode of spacetime, as a unique and crucial feature of The problem is known since 1935.
The solution is simple: extend the notion of reality by including the perennial
or global mode of spacetime, in which quantum systems exist in a holistic,
UNspeakable mode. You might get a perfectly
hidden absolute reference frame which cannot
be detected in any inertial frame and by any physical clock, since it is
placed "between" any two successive
points from the Then you might find the answer to the 1917 question above: How could Levi-Civita and Einstein be right?
Also, you might find an answer to
the central mystery of quantum mechanics: the self-interference of quantum
particles (R. Feynman, Only the 4-D
torus intersecting the 3-D space (Ibid.)
has to be immersed in the global mode of spacetime in such a way that the
quantum particle in its Holon state could
be theoretically in However, the task is by no
means trivial. See, for example, Simone
Mercuri and Giovanni Montani,
gr-qc/0312077
and gr-qc/0401127:
an Bingo! We might need a tiny little
piece of "exotic matter" to
explain the so-called dark energy and inflation.
The idea stems from a paper by Sir Hermann
Bondi, published in 1957, and from the atom of Lucterius (Titus Lucretius
Carus, 96 BC - 55 BC, Book I, To sum up, the theory of quantum gravity requires a pre-geometrical formulation. Otherwise we cannot understand the very existence of 3-D space. As eloquently stated by Lee Smolin, "one of the biggest mysteries is that we live in a world in which it is possible to look around, as see as far as we like" (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, p. 205). Needles to say, I will be happy to
elaborate. I would begin with the human brain.
It provides invariant knowledge in any reference
frame and can correlate at least 10 D. Chakalov
=== Subject: It's all about Einstein
Dear Colleagues, Perhaps you may be interested to see http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Kuchar.html http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Thiemann.html#note http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Loinger.html Your feedback will be highly appreciated, and will be kept strictly private. Regards, Dimi Chakalov |