Subject: Request for paper
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:23:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Licia Verde <>

Dear Dr. Verde,

If possible, please send me a copy from your forthcoming presentation "The implications for cosmology of WMAP data",

I'm particularly interested in (i) your guess about the nature of the so-called cosmic equator,

and (ii) your ideas on a joint solution to the dark matter/energy puzzle. My speculations can be read at


Dimi Chakalov


Subject: Re: astro-ph/0112161
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:43:47 +0200
From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <>
To: Licia Verde <lverde@astro.Princeton.EDU>
BCC: [snip]

Dear Dr. Verde,

May I explain my question from my preceding email (printed below).

In your interview "Rutgers astronomer sheds new light on dark matter", posted on December 11th at

you offered a metaphor to explain how the dark matter might look like: "(...) it is like looking at a Christmas tree at night; you see only the lights, but not the whole tree."

Another metaphor was suggested by Professor Richard Ellis of Caltech, in "Universe Weighed and 'Found Wanting'" at :

"Of the total matter in the universe, most is in the form of 'dark matter', which gives off no radiation," he said. "But it does seem that the visible matter is distributed much like the dark matter. They know about each other."

Let me pin down this latter phrase. I believe that the visible matter and the so-called dark matter do 'know' of each other, in the sense that the "dark" stuff may be residing in a putative global mode of time, a hypothetical poolof virtual matter, which makes the interactions along the *local* mode oftime to proceed as in an interconnected, Machian universe: think globally, act locally. Please see an abstract and outline at

This same hypothetical effect of the global mode of time should be able to explain the absence of the Higgs boson(s) or whatever gives mass to the non-Abelian gauge fields of the standard particle physics model,

"No sign of the Higgs boson", New Scientist, 5 December 2001,

Briefly, the hypothetical global mode of time can be regarded as some preferred reference frame [Ref. 1], which can not be *physically* observed. We observe, in our *past* light cone, only the net effect from the 'dialogue'between the interactions along the two modes of time, local and global.

Perhaps the effect of the latter increases toward micro- and mega scales, and subsequently we are puzzled by some hypothetical Higgs boson(s) and dark matter and dark energy, related perhaps to GRBs. However, the vast majority of physicists believe that, if we spend billions of dollars/ecu for new particle accelerators (Next Linear Collider and Large Hadron Collider) and new telescopes (Mike Turner), we might elucidate the"dark" part of the Christmas tree, as you put it. 

Well, I'm not sure.

Think of your consciousness: it is extended in time. Your subjective world, and your self that perceives it, co-exist in time, which requires a finite duration of subjective 'now'. If there are no ghosts in the brain to producethis effect, and if there is a *physical* correlate of this effect ofextended 'now', then we need two modes of time, local and global. Hence I propose that the effect of the global mode of time can not be 'filtered' through the apexin MInkowski's cone -- a crucial artifact in quantum theory -- and also that one can think about determinism in an intact quantum realm (subject toobservations with the human brain only) and solve the problem of Lorentz invariant nonlocality by suggesting a quantum dynamics similar (not identical!) to that of the human brain (cf. my web site at the URL below).

Regrettably, I'm not a physicist and I do need help with bridging QM and GR.

I sincerely hope to hear from you and from your colleagues. I believe the issues raised above are of utmost importance for all of us. We have to join our efforts. The world is *not* the same after 9/11

Wishing you and all your colleagues the very best for Christmas and the New Year,

Dimi Chakalov

[Ref. 1] George Smoot, email from Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:19:54 -0800:

> 2) There is an empirically established frame of reference -
> the frame in which the Cosmic Background Radiation would
> appear isotropic.
> It is likely that frame is the frame that is the one in which the
> the expansion of the universe is most simple and more importantly
> is the frame in which the net matter-energy is at rest (center of
> momentum).
> One suspects that the link between matter-energy and space-time,
> e.g. along the lines of General Relativity, will be the origin
> of any preferred frame. Some how this system puts inertia in
> every object including each and every brain, neuron and synapse.
> This seems to happen with ease and it provides a frame in which
> undisturbed (not subject to net forces) objects tend to come to rest
> in space and travel only down time on an orthogonal axis to space.


Subject: astro-ph/0112161
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 04:07:11 +0200
From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <>
To: Licia Verde <lverde@astro.Princeton.EDU>
CC: Joseph Blumberg <>, Michael Turner
<>, "Edward W. Kolb" <>,
George Smoot <>

Dear Dr. Verde,

You were quoted on December 11th at

to have said that the dark matter is "about seven times as much as ordinary matter; but only a quarter of what is needed to slow down the expansion of the universe to a halt."

I'm wondering, do you or any colleagues of yours have some clue about the nature of dark matter?

I read your astro-ph/0112161 but didn't find a tentative answer to this tantalizing question.


Dimiter G. Chakalov
I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee ina gaming-house, than a physicist.

A. Einstein, Born-Einstein Letters, 29 April 1924