|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 <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
P.S. I quoted from your paper at
Would you like some math?
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
 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  did, to hopefully resolve confusions that may have arisen from gaps in  and to give a more complete picture of all the research being done in LQG than  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.1.2. 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. Ignotum per ignotius: If T.
Thiemann wishes to solve the problem of time in general relativity and cosmology
with phantoms and k-essence, he should first solve the generic problems of that
"exotic matter", as explained here and
here. First things first.
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
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 here. Which brings us to the next quotation:
[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 pitfalls in LQG, which are produced by our incomplete knowledge of GR and QM. If you're building a house on shaky grounds, make sure you know its limitations. First things first.
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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,
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
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.
Angelo Loinger, Non-existence of gravitational waves. The stages of the theoretical discovery
"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  -- 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 gravity, physicists are frantically trying to eliminate it. See, for example, the 'consistent discrete canonical formulation of general relativity' by Rodolfo Gambini, Rafael Porto, and Jorge Pullin, gr-qc/0302064 and gr-qc/0305098. I very much respect Jorge Pullin and his colleagues, but I'm afraid their efforts are based on the so-called relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, which takes for granted that reality is relational in sense that an object is real only in relation to another object that it is interacting with. By resorting to this highly constrained view on reality, we can never solve the puzzle of relativistic "collapse" of an entangled state.
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 local -- and perfectly continual -- mode of spacetime.
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, QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, New Jersey: Princeton Science Library, 1985, p. 80). They can be "in two places at the same time" (Omar Yepez, physics/0401153), just like the human brain.
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 many places "at the same time". How many places? Infinitely many. I mean, actual infinity. Otherwise we cannot obtain any finite value of any observable, say, the circumference of a circle. That's Quantum Geometry 101.
However, the task is by no means trivial. See, for example, Simone Mercuri and Giovanni Montani, gr-qc/0312077 and gr-qc/0401127: an evolutive canonical quantum gravity dynamics would require a special reference fluid which "never approaches a test system and, in view of the super-Hamiltonian structure (the supermetric has no definite sign), its energy density is not always positive."
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, Character of the Atoms), as explained some 2060 years ago.
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 1014 events per second
(Matthew Donald, quant-ph/0208033).
Perhaps this could be the right way to approach the cosmological constant
problem and the nature of gravity, and to
avoid the tantalizing question of the number of angels
on the head of a pin.
Subject: It's all about Einstein
Perhaps you may be interested to see
Your feedback will be highly appreciated, and will be kept strictly private.