Subject: arXiv:0803.0982v1 [astro-ph], Sec. 5.1.1, 10.1.4, and 10.2.1
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:19:21 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Michael S Turner <mturner@uchicago.edu>
Cc: Joshua A Frieman <frieman@fnal.gov>,
Dragan Huterer <huterer@umich.edu>

Mike:

You've been systematically ignoring my email sent in the past four years, although it was you who stated back on 2 April 2001 that the dark energy "may be something entirely new and unexpected",

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

Regarding my email from Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:47:26 +0300 and your latest article, see "something entirely new and unexpected" at

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

I hope you will never claim that you knew nothing about it.

Take care,

Dimi
 

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

Subject: The dark energy: telescopes and brains, not accelerators
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:47:26 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Michael Turner <mturner@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
CC: Lawrence M Krauss <lmk9@cwru.edu>,
     David L Meier <david.l.meier@jpl.nasa.gov>

"The source of the repulsive gravity may be something akin to Einstein's cosmological constant, referred to as the energy of the "quantum vacuum," a subatomic netherworld pervading space that provides a source of energy, or it may be something entirely new and unexpected. "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," said astrophysicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago."

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

Dear Mike,

I think the nature of dark energy, as explained beautifully by Larry Kraus,

http://God-does-not-play-dice.net/Will.html#4

could be 'something entirely new and unexpected'.

The notion of quintessence/ether is not limited to quantum vacuum in QFT and empty space in GR, as we know from Einstein's hole argument,

http://God-does-not-play-dice.net/Stachel.html#PS

It could be 'something entirely new and unexpected' that is right above our neck,

http://God-does-not-play-dice.net/Azbel.html#self

It is the "holder" of the human self. It does not change in time, as read by your wristwatch. It can contain *absolutely everything* that you can perceive, and thus its intrinsic nature is 'pure void', plain and simple.

This is really unique *geometrical* object. Can't find it in numerical GR, I'm afraid,

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

If you're interested, see the beginning of the story at

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

We need telescopes and brains, not accelerators,

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

Please feel free to pass this email to 'whomever is concerned', if any.

Or just the URL at

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

Best wishes,

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

Note: In a letter to Paul Ehrenfest dated 4 February 1917, Albert Einstein wrote about his attempt at introducing the cosmological constant: "I have again perpetrated something relating to the theory of gravitation that might endanger me of being committed to a madhouse." Just by following his instinct, Einstein added an extra term, [lambda], to model a steady-state universe (see here the article by Lawrence Krauss mentioned above, in the January 1999 issue of Scientific American). After the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe, the puzzle of the so-called dark energy was established, and physicists revived the idea of Einstein: something very mysterious, resembling "anti-gravity", was needed to keep up the universe 'on its feet'. We call it 'dark energy'. Combined with the so-called dark matter, the two "dark" components of the universe comprise up to 96 per cent of the world around us.

It's just too much "vacuum" and "empty space" around us and inside us. If we try to compare the predictions from Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and GR, the discrepancy is astonishing, as stressed by Richard Feynman, suggesting that "we're missing something in our formulation of the theory of gravity."

But aren't we missing something in our formulation of the QFT as well? Recall that in quantum electrodynamics we have a mysterious exact cancellation of emitted and absorbed virtual photons, due to which we cannot extract free energy from the quantum vacuum. Unless, of course, we tweak the cancellation of the two flows of virtual photons, as in the Casimir effect, creating a negligible but observable net effect. What we need is to discover the law of nature, which is responsible for the perfect cancellation of the two "flows" of virtual particles. It is wrong to assume that these two flows are just T-invariant, and take place in 'the same 3-D space'. We need a new Quantum Cancellation Theory, QCT.

Next, what is 'empty space' in GR? This is something that should not exist in GR by definition, since we cannot define geometry of something that simply 'isn't there'. Think of geometry as an adjective, say 'a blue car'. If there is no car, there is no geometry either, and we wind up in 'empty space'. It sounds like asking what is the geometry of 'no bananas', correct? Not quite, actually. It's more subtle. The empty space/vacuum is not the end result of some cancellation of the type below,

[+bananas] + [-bananas] = 0 [bananas]

The math is not terribly advanced (sorry, I'm just a psychologist), but if you ask some French mathematician about the definition of 'zero', you may not quite understand it, it is a complicated story. Note that in our very special case we refer to something that is Pure Void ab initio. It has always been Pure Void, and will always remain Pure Void. Its quantum-mechanical presentation is 'no net amplitudes of quantum waves'. A flat line of completely cancelled phases of infinitely many (actual infinity) quantum waves. We just call it quantum vacuum, but that doesn't mean we understand it, since it contains absolutely everything, the 'unknown unknown' included.

Perhaps we can think of the Pure Void as the source of absolutely everything, provided we manage to separate [+bananas] from [-bananas] as two mirror worlds, material and tachyonic, and allow them to interact on a null surface only, namely, in some atemporal medium.

We certainly need to "leave" the spacetime in GR in order to think of the dark energy. It's not very difficult, since we can understand the mechanism by which the notion of Pure Void is being defined; it is the same algorithm by which we define 'actual infinity'. Besides, we carry the Pure Void always with us, right above our neck. It is 'pure geometry' in the sense that it facilitates the mind-brain bi-directional "talk". It's really something entirely new and unexpected.

Enjoy your Pure Void! I'll have to squeeze mine on a tiny little poster, which is really difficult. I'm not at all sure it's worth the efforts. Given the experience I have collected since February 1987, it too "might endanger me of being committed to a madhouse."

In summary, the problem of the so-called dark energy and [lambda] is as follows.

In the local mode of spacetime, [lambda] can be considered zero, since we can safely ignore the phenomenon of transience: the Gap of Zen needed for the atemporal transition between two "successive" states and the elementary increment of time can and should be considered zero. At this level of "objective" physical reality, we can safely ignore the quantum of action (cf. A. Sommerfeld quoted by L. Foschini in quant-ph/9901013), set the elementary increment of time to approach zero at any given "point", and obtain a classical trajectory and "instantaneous" velocity at any "point" from this trajectory.

In the global mode of spacetime, [lambda] must be non-zero. Its value is indecisive and UNspeakable, since the topology of the universe is in a cat state of |open> & |closed>. However, any physical observation we can perform (apart from direct observation of the global mode of spacetime with the human brain) inevitably complies with the laws of Special Theory of Relativity (STR). It's like trying to show the darkness of a room with a torch. The "dark" side of the universe shows clearly by including gravity: the cosmological constant problems. We have the cancellation problem and the coincidence problem. The latter has forced some physicists to embrace the so-called anthropic principle. I believe we can do much better, by modeling the universe as a human brain.

This whole story started after a talk with John Wheeler on May 22, 1989. He utterly refused to comment. Well, read my mind.
 
 

D. Chakalov
Saturday, June 5, 2004, 16:35:12 GMT