Regrettably, on May 4, 2005, my oral contribution to EPS13 "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century" was bluntly rejected. I take this as an insult to Albert Einstein, for reasons explained on his 126th birthday, 14 March 2005.
It's a shame that science is mixed with money and politics. The so-called gravitational wave astronomy is a huge business involving tons of money - taxpayers' money. I was hoping that will be given a chance to speak and laid out my arguments, but "the Programme Committee" rejected my talk. There is no way I can defend Einstein's belief and explain the whole bundle of issues on a poster. This is more than obvious. Also, the Chairman of the Programme Committee, Prof. Mike Cruise, knew my objections very well. See my email to NASA, CC: Mike Cruise, from April 16, 2005.
To cut the long story short, here's what Steven Weinberg wrote to Leonid Grishchuk (email from 25 February 2003, gr-qc/0305051 v1): "I agree that much of what one reads in the literature is absurd. Often it is a result of bad writing, rather than bad physics. I often find that people who say silly things actually do correct calculations, but are careless in what they say about them."
Any measurement has to answer the following question: With respect to WHAT? If you were a Flatlander, you may be befuddled by some privileged "transverse" axis, which would model the tidal effect imposed on the dynamics of all bodies in your 2+1-D spacetime, as explained eloquently by your fellow Flatlander Bernard Schutz. Then you and another 395 Flatlanders1 decide to detect this tantalizing tidal effect, but how would you filter it and actually measure it? You need to endow all points from your 2-D space with an unique "direction" pointing to that privileged "transverse" axis, but this unique transverse "direction" will inevitably overlap with your 1-D time parameter, and since you're living in a 2+1-D continuum, the tidal effect will be inevitably embedded within that same 2+1-continuum. Hence there will be nothing in your 2+1-D continuum which would remain unaffected by these tidal effects, and you won't have any reference object, any 'unaffected background' with respect to which you can detect a timelike displacement of your measuring device (LIGO, LISA, you name it) caused by the tidal effects of these transverse waves.
"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" (Hans-Jürgen Schmidt, gr-qc/0407095, p. 35). You just don't have such privileged reference frame to single out the tidal effect. Sad but true.
To quote again from Leonid Grishchuk's gr-qc/0305051 v1:
"The next phrase seems to be logically unavoidable: "gravitational waves act tidally, stretching and squeezing any object that they pass through". If this phrase were correct, we would never be able to notice gravitational waves. The device measuring, say, the displacements of free mirrors in an interferometer would be "stretched and squeezed" as well."
The phrase above is indeed correct. Only the transverse axis (Bernard F. Schutz, gr-qc/0003069 v1) springs 'from inside' the infinitesimal timelike displacement: see the red Z axis here. Nothing can physically move along this axis, because we live in a perfect continuum, and the dimensions of physical bodies along this axis are instructed to 'get down to zero', as we know from Leibnitz' differential calculus and Archimedes.
This new transverse axis can be seen in Matthew Frank's gr-qc/0203100 v1, Fig. 1. It is needed to model the whole universe as a human brain, as suggested in the abstract of my oral contribution to EPS13, entitled: "Einstein and Quantum Gravity" (Ref. No. RC-48). It was rejected. Hence I cannot explain how the gravitational waves can exist but cannot be detected in principle. It's a complicated issue, which goes way back to the misfortunate "decomposition" of spacetime in geometrodynamics and the blurring of the crucial, and still unsettled, question of the genuine dynamics of General Relativity. Just recall the so-called dark energy.
So, does gravitational radiation exist? Jain, Herr Dr. Schutz. You can only hope and pray that your linearized approximation of Einstein's GR can help you single out the "tidal" effect. But what if this tidal effect is an artifact of the same linearized approximation? More from Angelo Loinger and Hermann Weyl here.
To sum up, Einstein believes that God does not play dice with the Universe, and I suggested that the whole universe may exist in a holistic ONE state modeled with the transverse axis Z . Thus, we have conflict of interests with Mike Cruise and the LIGO Scientific Collaboration,1 and my talk was rejected, even though it was submitted to the Conference honoring Einstein's Annus Mirabilis, EPS13 "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century".
It's a shame that Einstein's heritage
is contaminated with money and politics.
It is very likely that all these people will celebrate Einstein's General
Relativity in 2015. I have ten more years
 Upper limits on gravitational wave bursts in LIGO's second science run, by LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars). gr-qc/0505029 v1, 6 May 2005. 23 pages, 14 figures, to be submitted to Phys Rev D.
LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395
scholars) wrote: "In this paper we report the results of a search for gravitational
wave bursts using the LIGO S2 data. (...) The triple coincidence requirement
is used to reduce the false alarm rate (background) to much less than one
event over the course of the run, so that even a
single event candidate would have high statistical significance.
(...) Our analysis yielded a single candidate event which was subsequently
determined to be terrestrial in origin and was vetoed retroactively. (...)
gravitational wave signals were detected in 9.98 days of analyzed
Search for gravitational waves from galactic and extra-galactic binary neutron stars, by LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars). gr-qc/0505041 v1.
"We have found no
evidence of a gravitational wave event from binary neutron star
inspiral. Without a detection, the 339 hours of non-playground data were
used to place an upper limit on the rate of binary neutron star coalescence
in the Universe."
Search for Gravitational Waves from Primordial Black Hole Binary Coalescences in the Galactic Halo, by LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars). gr-qc/0505042 v1.
"Gravitational waves from binary inspiral are among the most promising sources for the first generation of gravitational wave interferometers. (...) No inspiral signals were found. (...) Acknowledgments. 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 y Tecnologia, the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the Leverhulme Trust, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation."
EPS13 "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century", 11-15 July 2005,
Bern, Switzerland, Poster presentation
Dear Professor Danzmann,
I learned this morning that my oral presentation to Conference II, Session RC - Quantum Gravity, has been rejected by "the Programme Committee".
I presume you know who made this decision, and I'm respectfully asking you for the names of your colleagues.
Thank you very much in advance.
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:15:22 +0200,
Physical Society wrote:
Note: To read
all my email sent to Prof. Dr. Karsten Danzmann, make a search at my online
search page here,
with the string
I have no idea how she voted, because Prof. Dr. Mike Cruise said that "there are no therefore more details that can be given." I wonder why.
EPS13 "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century", 11-15 July 2005,
Bern, Switzerland, Poster presentation
Dear Professor Cruise,
Thank you for your prompt reply from Wed, 4 May 2005 12:57:58 +0100.
I understand that you had to examine over 200 abstracts, and the selection was by a voting system amongst the organizing committee. I honestly believe your collective judgment was not influenced by any corporate and/or political considerations.
On the other hand, I'm deeply puzzled by your decision to reject my talk. All I wanted was to defend Einstein's dictum "God does not play dice", as explained in my abstract (Ref. No. RC-48). The way I see it, the immediate implication from defending Einstein's belief is denouncing the very possibility for detecting the so-called gravitational waves,
In plain English, we have conflict of interests: If I'm on the right track, the research initiative undertaken by Prof. Karsten Danzmann would have to be reexamined with great scrutiny. There are dozens of papers written by Angelo Loinger and Hermann Weyl, which have not been taken into account, I'm afraid. They were simply ignored.
I think there is a conflict of interests between you and me as well. As a member of the Birmingham Gravitation Group,
you are personally involved in a huge business,
"I don't think any of the engineers have ever worked in this frequency range before," said Cruise. "To design a filter to get the kind of phase stability we need, using components that have the normal kind of thermal tolerances, we have to work very hard indeed."
Yes, we have to work very hard indeed, and I think the implications from your collective decision to 'shut me up' could hardly be overestimated.
I look forward to seeing you and your colleagues in Bern.
4 May 2005 12:57:58 +0100, Mike Cruise wrote:
Dear Professor Vitale,
I just watched your presentation of LISA program at EuroNews, at 18:28 your time, and am wondering if you are aware of the problems of detecting these mythical GWs,
Should you are interested, please
be assured that I will be happy to
and very much hope that Prof. Karsten Danzmann will approve it.
LIGO 'n LISA
Dear Dr. Waldrop,
It is my understanding that you are monitoring the "gravitational wave" research on behalf of NSF, and I thought you might be interested to see
Should you and/or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back.
LISA, and Big Bang Observer
Dear Dr. Newman,
I learned that the Big Bang Observer is presently being investigated by NASA. Perhaps you may wish to see my critical remarks at
Should you and/or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back. I will keep your feedback private and confidential.
Note: LIGO and LISA aren't enough. The next toy is the Big Bang Observer (BBO), which comes in three flavors: BBO-lite, BBO-standard, and BBO-grand [Ref. 1].
This is not a joke, people are serious. All they have to do is to follow three simple rules: (i) ignore all "uncomfortable" questions, (ii) never read A. Loinger and H. Weyl, and (iii) keep quiet, like Kip Thorne. They will certainly get their LIGO, LISA, and The Super-Duper BBO-grand Barbie.
No problem, just keep quiet.
[Ref. 1] Carlo Ungarelli, Pierstefano Corasaniti, R.A. Mercer, and Alberto Vecchio, Gravitational waves, inflation and the cosmic microwave background: towards testing the slow-roll paradigm, astro-ph/0504294 v1.
"Unfortunately, the Laser Interferometer
Space Antenna (LISA)  will not offer an opportunity
to improve (much) beyond the
of ground-based detectors because of the instrument’s limitations (...)
A new mission concept has recently emerged: the Big-Bang-Observer (BBO),
which is presently being investigated by NASA . This consists of a
constellation of four interferometers in a Heliocentric orbit at 1 AU from
"We call the corresponding mission
concept as "BBO-lite", "BBO-standard" and "BBO-grand".
Your abstract submitted for "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century"
Dear Mrs. Fornari,
Thank you for your email from Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:56:09 +0100.
> We would like to thank you to have
submitted your abstract to the
> An email with the acceptance or
refusal of your abstract will be
I'm very much looking forward to it.
> We are looking for your attendance at our conference.
I will be more than happy to attend your conference, and very much hope that will be given the chance to speak, since I cannot possibly explain the whole bundle of issues on a poster.
EPS13 "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century", 11-15 July 2005,
Bern, Switzerland, Poster presentation
Dear Ms. Fornari,
Thank you for your email from Wed, 4 May 2005 11:15:22 +0200.
> Each author is provided with one
bulletin board of A0-size (measuring
Thank you. The topics covered in my A0-size poster are outlined at
I will register on Monday afternoon,
July 11th, at the Registration Desk
Note: These tidal "stretching and squeezing" can be explained with Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian man, from Barry Barish' talk Gravity -- Studying the Fabric of the Universe (AAAS Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 17 February 2003, LIGO-G030020-00-M, slide #13).
If this project were undertaken by Flatlanders, they could say -- hey, see what Bernard Schutz has written: "if the wave propagates in the z-direction then the tidal forces act only in the xy-plane." We have a transverse axis to our 2-D space! WOW!
Now, all we have to do is to carefully filter the impact from the "transverse axis" on our 2-D space, coz we don't want to have it intermingled with our LIGO, LISA, and Big Bang Observer placed in that same 2-D space.
Note added on May 10, 2005: I wrote today to Dr. B. Schutz, one of the prominent advocates of "gravitational astronomy" and a member of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars). I suppose he will argue that there is no need for any privileged reference frame for detecting the tidal effect, as inferred from the quadrupole approximation; see his gr-qc/0003069 v1 here.
I have a lot to say on this quadrupole approximation [Ref. 1], and am eagerly awaiting for his reply. Maybe he will show me some (coordinate?) transformations which could eliminate the tidal effect: a clear indication that the latter is within the realm of GR. You can do all sorts of magic on paper, even "introducing" and "removing" a singularity. Can you removethe tidal effect on paper? If yes, let's see what is the physical situation behind it. If not, why not? Isn't it because of the privileged reference frame needed for its detection?
Furthermore, B. Schutz explained why the quadrupole formula is "analogous to the dipole formula of electromagnetism" and stressed that "there is no energy radiated due to dipole effects in general relativity" (gr-qc/0003069 v1, p. 6). "The existence of only one sign of mass, together with law of conservation of linear momentum, implies that there is no monopole or dipole gravitational radiation." (Jim Hough et al., gr-qc/0501007 v1)
So far so good. But how do we estimate the luminosity of the source? It is proportional to the square of the third time derivative of the quadrupole moment. Ensuing from all these very tricky analogies with electromagnetism, B. Schutz suggested that the energy carried by the gravitational wave "must be proportional to the square of the time-derivative of the wave amplitude, so it will depend on the sum of the squares of the components d3Qjk/dt3." (gr-qc/0003069 v1, p. 7)
The next questions need to be resolved. You start with two cases, monopole and dipole, in which there is no gravitational radiation whatsoever, as confirmed by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) so far. Driven again by some analogies with electromagnetism, B. Schutz obtained an estimate for the energy carried by the gravitational wave from a spatial tensor (matrix), in the quadrupole approximation: "The fundamental quantity is the spatial tensor (matrix) Qjk, the second moment of the mass (or charge) distribution
"A gravitational wave in general relativity is represented by a matrix hjk rather than a single scalar h, and its source (in the quadrupole approximation) is Qjk." (gr-qc/0003069 v1, p. 6).
But hold on: you have not yet eliminated the silent mode of dipole gravitational radiation1. You only believe there is some "polarization" [Fig. 3 in Ref. 1] of gravitational waves (gr-qc/0003069 v1, p. 7, Fig. 1).
NB: Where is the rigorous proof that you are not dragging the silent dipole mode in the quadrupole approximation as well? The spatial tensor (matrix) Qjk should encode the "distortion information" about the "transverse action" of the waves, as well as the silent dipole mode. You can only hope and pray that the "energy" carried by the gravitational wave would "depend on the sum of the squares of the components d3Qjk/dt3."
Where is the the rigorous proof that you are not trying to detect the "energy" of the silent dipole mode of gravitational radiation as well?
NB: In the real world, the longitudinal quadrupolar modes (see the caption of Fig. 3 in [Ref. 1]) should propagate hand-in-hand with the transverse quadrupolar modes in the good old 3-D space -- not in some 2-D x/y plane (gr-qc/0003069 v1, p. 6). None of them have been detected, however. I wonder why. Maybe because these two quadrupolar modes cannot be separated. Or maybe because there are no such quadrupolar modes in Einstein's GR to begin with: the "energy" of geometry is a non-tensorial entity. It's not like electromagnetism, and if you try to approximate the energy of geometry with some spatial tensor (matrix), as B. Schutz stated above, you're pushing your "analogies" from electromagnetism far too hard; it's a bit like modeling the first law of Ohm with water running in a hose, only you don't know the applicable limits of your "analogies". See the non-tensorial mesh here.
We really do not know the nature of 'energy of geometry', because it goes straight to the ubiquitous "dark energy". Yes, it exists but -- no, it cannot be detected. With inanimate instruments, we can detect/measure only things in the past. That was the whole story of my talk. Einstein's GR models time as a 'film reel', and cannot discriminate between things in the past and in the Holon state, hence cannot accommodate all that "dark stuff". See George Orwell below.
See again Hans-Jürgen Schmidt above, and recall Leopold Infeld and Jerzy Plebanski (reference here): "It is hardly possible to connect any physical meaning with the flux of energy and momentum tensor defined with the help of the pseudo-energy-momentum tensor. Indeed, the radiation can be annihilated by a proper choice of the coordinate system. On the other hand, if we use a coordinate system in which the flux of energy may exist, then it can be made whatever we like by the addition of proper harmonic functions (...)."
Watch this space! Maybe some day B. Schutz or any member of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) will put her/his cards on the table. They are wasting hundreds of millions dollars and euro -- taxpayers' money -- for chasing a non-tensorial quantity, and enjoy the support from literally the whole world: USA, UK, Germany, Australia, Canada, India, and Spain.
Nobody is supporting my work, and I am allowed to present just a poster, in a silent "dipole" mode.
To finish this story, let me laid out my predictions for detecting the gravitational "radiation". I hope some day Dr. B. Schutz or any of his 394 colleagues will place his cards on the table, too. The sooner, the better.
1. It is in principle impossible to detect any gravitational wave, because the measuring device (LIGO, LISA, you name it) conforms to the principles of locality and relativistic causality, hence cannot detect "online" the dark energy of spacetime. Just post factum, which explains the two remarks of S. Weinberg above. Specifically:
1.1. The measuring device will have to read a chain of events, t0 , t1, t2, corresponding to 'zero perturbations of spacetime metric' at t0 , then 'start of perturbations of spacetime metric' at t1, and finally 'end of perturbations of spacetime metric' at t2 .
1.2. This finite timelike interval, (t1, t2), as calculated with the cutoff at t0, corresponds to a temporal embedding of the non-tensorial energy of the gravitational field into the Cauchy surface of the measuring device, which is impossible in principle: reductio ad absurdum.
1.3. To detect the energy of gravitational waves or any other non-tensorial quantity, the measuring device has to operate in some 'outside-GR-and-STR reference frame', which is impossible for all inanimate measuring devices. The gravitational waves do not carry any real energy whatsoever, which is why I consider them, along with the quantum waves, as 'empty waves'. These empty waves contact the matter fields "through" the apex of the light cone only. It is the Holon which is the source and the "generator" of these quantum-and-gravitational empty waves, but the physical effects from the Holon are always "dark", since they originate from the global mode of spacetime. Example: the relativistic "collapse".
Thus, we can see, and even "hear", the effects of the gravitational waves post factum only. We cannot, however, measure some finite timelike interval corresponding to the "timing" of the embedding of these effects into our Cauchy surface, because such finite timelike interval does not exist and cannot exist for any inanimate measuring device. The "dark" gravitational effects of the Holon begin to appear at length scales much larger than the Solar system; see, for example, the dark matter galaxy here. Combined with the so-called dark energy, the effect of the Holon at the scale of the observable universe constitutes 94 per cent from the stuff in the universe. Not only the "dark energy" springs 'from inside' each and every infinitesimal "point" of spacetime, but also expands the whole universe with constant acceleration, creates the cosmic equator, and has an intrinsic dynamical nature, as we know from the 'coincidence problem', which is part and parcel of the cosmological constant problem. Try to explain all this on a poster.
Einstein did not mention, not even once, the controversial issue of these gravitational waves in the final revision of his book Relativity: The Special and The General Theory (original title: Über die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, gemeinverständlich, 1917). This is not an accidental omission, he was fully aware of the problems from these "waves", and at his last seminar, on April 14, 1954, he has said the following: "The representation of matter by a tensor was only a fill-in to make it possible to do something temporarily, a wooden nose in a snowman."
We obviously need quantum gravity; see the abstract (RC-48) of my intended talk "Einstein and Quantum Gravity" here. We shall celebrate Einstein's General Relativity in November 2015, and should make all efforts to fulfill his dream of a Final Theory.
Meanwhile, let's not waste time and
money with all these LIGO, LISA, and Big Bang Observer. We can neither
detect these waves nor connect "online" to the quantum realm by "improving
sensitivity" of the inanimate measuring devices. No
[Ref. 1.] Clifford
M. Will, Gravitational Radiation and the Validity of General Relativity.
TODAY 52, 38 (October 1999). Based on a talk given at the April 1998
meeting of the American Institute of Physics,
"Polarization of gravitational waves. A laser-interferometric or resonant bar gravitational-wave detector measures local relative displacements (of mirrors or of mechanical elements), which can be related to a symmetric 3x3 strain tensor. This tensor can in turn be related directly to components of the Riemann curvature tensor of spacetime generated by the wave. The six independent components of the strain tensor 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. The other three are longitudinal, with one an axially symmetric stretching mode in the propagation direction, and the remaining two quadrupolar (see Figure 3).
General relativity predicts only
the first two transverse quadrupolar modes, independently of the
source; this goes hand in hand with the notion that, at a quantum level,
gravitational waves are associated with a spin-two particle, the "graviton"."
"FIG. 3. Six polarization modes for
gravitational waves permitted in any metric theory of gravity. Shown is
the displacement that each mode induces on a ring of test particles at
0o and 180o phase. The wave propagates in the
+z direction. There is no displacement out of the plane of the picture.
the transverse modes, the wave propagates out of the plane; in the longitudinal
modes, the wave propagates in the plane. In
general relativity, only the transverse quadrupolar modes are present;
in scalar-tensor gravity, the transverse breathing mode may also be present."
Re: Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century, 11 - 15 July, Bern,
On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:42:51 +0200,
Ophélia Fornari wrote:
> The deadlines for the pre-registration,
excursions, dinner, reception,
Thank you. I will register on Monday afternoon, July 11th, at the Registration Desk located in the entrance hall of the Main Building of the University.
May I ask a technical question.
I have to compete with the hypotheses adopted by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) regarding the detection of gravitational waves, and particularly the projects undertaken by Prof. Mike Cruise and Prof. Karsten Danzmann. However, I was not given the chance to talk but to present a poster only. Hence I need to demonstrate the successful experimental proof of my hypothesis during the poster session on July 12th.
May I record the experimental confirmation of my hypothesis on video camera during the poster session? I have a digital camcorder, and I am asking for permission to record my demonstration on July 12th, during the poster session. It will take no more than 3 min. More at
Looking forward to hearing from you or from your colleagues,
Note: I am eagerly awaiting to hear from Prof. Christophe Rossel, EPS13 Coordinator, or from Prof. Martin C.E. Huber, EPS President, or from Prof. Mike Cruise, Chair of the Program Committee, Conference II, or from Prof. Karsten Danzmann. My hypothesis deals with the fundamental, and still unresolved, task of describing the reversible transition from quantum to classical worlds. The clash between STR and QM is obvious by recalling the problem of embedding a quantum event into Minkowski spacetime (more here): how can we describe a reversible, bi-directional transition between the two worlds?
The solution to this first task is needed to address the clash between QM and GR: the latter is presumed to be a local theory formulated "in spacetime", whereas the former is formulated in Hilbert spaces whose elements (state vectors or wave functions) have non local properties in spacetime (reference here).
Only let's not forget that everything said above pertains to 4 per cent of the stuff in the universe; the remaining "dark" stuff is unknown. Thus, we need new physics to address the first off task above, the clash between STR and QM. All this started on 30 June 1905, when Albert Einstein filed his seminal paper.
Now, the solution proposed to the first off task requires new physics, which boils down to the conjecture that there is a fundamental asymmetry between the actualized events in the past and the potential/virtual events in the future. With inanimate measuring devices, such as LIGO, LISA, etc., we cannot detect the gravitational waves, but can only observe their pattern post factum. With a human brain, we can do both. Hence my demo, which I need to have it recoded on tape.
I cannot explain all this on a poster, of course. If we care about Einstein's legacy, we should discuss these matters, and not keep quiet. After we discuss the hypothesis, its unique predictions should become clear, hopefully. One of these predictions has been confirmed, as I stated in my email above. That's why I need to tape my demonstration with a digital camcorder, and requested permission to do it at the poster session on July 12, 2005.
Again, all this goes straight to
Miraculous Year. The subject is very serious,
and I will not, in no circumstances, fulfill a request from the audience
to show some "magic tricks", as they usually
Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century, 11 - 15 July, Bern, Switzerland
Dear Professor Cruise,
Thank you for your email from Fri,
27 May 2005 14:02:08 +0100,
> 2. Once your poster is pinned up, you may of course make a video of it.
I take note of your sarcastic remark. It was totally unneeded.
> 3. The invitation to present your
poster does not include any
I cannot keep quiet at the second failure of LIGO Scientific Collaboration to detect gravitational waves,
I'm afraid you and your colleagues are heading toward a third consecutive failure, and hundreds of million Euro would be wasted -- taxpayers' money.
I will certainly refrain from any unscheduled activities on your premises. Instead, I will inform media representatives in Switzerland and other countries about your insurmountable problems, and will offer them to speak on their premises. There might be surprises, too.
Please don't take this personally. I only want to defend Einstein's belief and prevent a terrible loss of time, efforts, and taxpayers' money.
Thank you for your understanding.
Re: Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century, 11 - 15 July, Bern,
On Fri, 27 May 2005 21:35:29 +0300,
Dimi Chakalov wrote:
> I cannot keep quiet at the second
failure of LIGO Scientific
My apologies for this bulk email.
May I offer you some unsolicited clarifications, for your record.
To the best of my knowledge, I am (i) the only person who wishes to defend Einstein's belief at EPS13, honoring his Miraculous Year, and (ii) the only person who is critical about the hypotheses regarding the detection of gravitational waves.
But I was not allowed to talk. Prof. M. Cruise and his colleagues from the Programme Committee bluntly rejected my talk, and "invited" me to present a poster.
The inevitable limitations from poster presentation are, I believe, quite obvious.
I cannot possibly explain on a poster the pitfalls in their hypotheses. Please see the incomplete and very general preliminaries at
Thus, I can only try to elaborate
on point (i) above, that is, to defend
I do believe that will be given a chance to speak *after* the third consecutive failure of LIGO Scientific Collaboration to detect gravitational waves with what they call Advanced LIGO. It's a shame that hundreds of million euro and dollars will be wasted, since these are real money earned with hard labor by millions of people, who are not at all aware of the insurmountable problems in detecting gravitational waves with LIGO. I cannot prevent this with a poster presentation.
Perhaps it cannot be ruled out that Prof. M. Cruise was aware of the limitations ensuing from a poster presentation. Just a wild guess.
I would be deeply honored if you come to see my poster on July 12th. It's all about Einstein's beliefs and his explicit warning to all people who "don't even see what kind of a dangerous game they play with reality."
I am definitely positively sure that the forthcoming effort with the Advanced LIGO will fail, for reasons which I will be happy to explain at the next gravitational physics conference.
Except for Laue, you are the only one who realizes that you cannot avoid accepting reality if you are honest. Most of the others don't even see what kind of a dangerous game they play with reality.
Albert Einstein to Erwin Schrödinger, 1950
(E. Schrödinger, M. Planck, A. Einstein, H.A. Lorentz: Briefe zur Wellenmechanik (hrsg. K. Przibram), Springer Verlag, Wien, 1976)
Note: The proof is complicated but certainly not original. Just a hint: "Energy is localized only in regions, not at points", says B. Schutz, but the Advanced LIGO will actually have to detect the so-called dark energy that comes from the so-called empty space. If the "dark energy" were convertible to any kind of real energy spanned over a finite spacetime region (hence detectable with LIGO, LISA, etc.), we wouldn't be alive. This is yet another catastrophe which hasn't happened in the past 13.7 billion years, just like the ultraviolet catastrophe discovered by Lord (John William Strutt) Rayleigh in 1900. More on this "dark" puzzle here.
Subject: Re: LIGO failed again
According to the rules of ethics adopted in the civilized world, I would like to inform you on the following:
I was not allowed to talk at EPS13 in Bern, and am forced to take action by calling media representatives in Switzerland and other countries. See
Needless to say, the *rigorous proof* that LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) will waste millions of dollars and euro (taxpayers' money) is not posted on my web site. Read H. Weyl and A. Loinger.
Subject: LIGO failed again
Two years ago, on Sun, 23 Feb 2003 02:17:17 +0200, I sent you an email regarding the first failure of LIGO. No reply has reached me so far.
The second failure of LIGO was really spectacular,
Regrettably, I was not allowed to talk at EPS13 in Bern, and am therefore forced to take action by calling media representatives in Switzerland and other countries.
Please be assured that the forthcoming third failure of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) to detect gravitational radiation will have very serious consequences.
Should you wish to avoid such highly embarrassing situation, may I suggest you to read A. Loinger and H. Weyl and check out the pitfalls in your transverse quadrupolar model.
Subject: LSC March
2005 and June 2005 Meetings
Dear Drs. Saulson, Zucker, and Weiss:
I wonder if you or any of your colleagues have discussed the second failure of LIGO to detect gravitational waves,
I'm particularly interested to learn your recommendations (if any) for the Advanced LIGO, presented at LSC Observational Results Meetings (Saturday, June 4th and Sunday, June 5th).
Even today, the U.S. taxpayers can
watch a nice movie, in which Ray
I'm interested in facts, however. That's the key to the whole thing.
Please note Slide 15 in Kip Thorne's
show: "Big Surprises are Likely"
Again, please let me know if you or any of your colleagues have discussed the second failure of LIGO to detect gravitational waves. I wonder what will be your next recommendation for 'noise reduction' and 'improving sensitivity'. Your colleagues have been offering such recommendations for nearly forty years, after the first failure of Joseph Weber to hear his aluminum resonant-mass detector "ringing".
Some people even suggest Advanced Laser Interferometer Antenna in Stereo (ALIAS) and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna in Stereo (LISAS), in addition to the Big Bang Observer [Ref. 4], but have you discussed the second failure of LIGO to detect gravitational waves?
Looking forward to hearing from you or from your colleagues,
[Ref. 1] LSC
White Paper on Detector Research and Development, by E.
"At the sensitivities of LIGO I it
is plausible, but not probable, that
[Ref. 2] Kip
Thorne, LIGO science. Presentation for NSF, 25 October
[Ref. 3] Gravity:
Making Waves (video, 7:38),
Ray Weiss: "The waves can be represented by this object I found on a wine bottle. And it's a mesh that you can see. And the waves cause transverse to the direction in which they're moving. They're moving forward and transverse to that the space gets tugged like this, and collapsed like that. Tugged like this. And if you look carefully at this, and I'll do this a few times, you'll notice that the little squares in this, how they're exercising a motion where along one direction, it's obvious which direction -- I mean, the direction I'm pulling in -- space is getting expanded. But transverse do that, up and down, space is getting contracted.
"And that's the key to the whole
[Ref. 4] Jeff
Crowder and Neil J. Cornish, Beyond LISA: Exploring Future
not only detect the presence of gravitational waves, but also
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:13:17 -0400,
I see that you're quite frustrated. I wonder why.
> Yes we discus ALL our known "failures";
that is what these meetings are
Great. You're obviously doing some progress in the past forty years.
BTW you didn't sign your reply, but it seems to me that you are Dick Gustafson,
LSC March 2005 and June 2005 Meetings
Dear Professor González,
I watched your movie "Gravity:
Making Waves", with Ray Weiss and Mike Zucker, and would like to share
my concerns regarding the "direction" of
It seems to me that we can unambiguously define directions in 3-D space only w.r.t. the background metric of spacetime, which is fine for all classical fields. I don't think we have this luxury in the case of GWs, which somehow "propagate" within themselves, and w.r.t. themselves. I personally cannot consider the gravitational "field" as a bona fideclassical field, but rather some form of 'mental field', because of the striking similarities between the non-linear and self-acting behavior of matter fields and the human brain,
I'm afraid it may be impossible to detect GWs with any inanimate device, such as LIGO, AIGO, TAMA, GEO600, or VIRGO, since they don't have access to GWs at a finite timelike interval, but only at one singular instant from the (gauge-dependent) "time parameter" read by your inanimate wristwatch, as well as LIGO, AIGO, TAMA, GEO600, and VIRGO.
In order to detect GWs "online", we need to uniquely determine a finite timelike interval for the interaction of the energy of GWs with LIGO, AIGO, TAMA, GEO600, or VIRGO. However, such a finite timelike interval can be determined only in some unique reference frame, in which GWs "propagate" within themselves, and w.r.t. themselves.
The explanation of this unique reference frame of GWs can be read at
Perhaps this unique reference frame can also explain my viewpoint on the nature of time, which I shared with your husband five months ago,
Anyway. Please see the whole story of detecting GWs at
Should you find errors or pitfalls in my line of reasoning, please do write me back.
I extend this immodest request also to Jorge and Prof. R. Gambini. I very much hope to benefit from your professional criticism.
Last but not least, please don't take my viewpoint on GWs personally. I could be all wrong. Perhaps 'not even wrong'.
I have great respect for your work, and am deeply impressed by your charming personality and professional perfectionism. Your husband is a *very* lucky person. That's the only thing I can say for sure.
With best regards,
Note: If you look at the quadrupole model [Ref. 1, Fig. 3], you may gather the impression that the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) have zoomed on the silent dipole mode and have discovered some incredibly rich fine structure: you get six brand new modes, which are "independent", according to Prof. Clifford M. Will, the President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation (2004-2007).
Perhaps even more astonishing is the discovery of some "tug 'n collapse" conservation law for the 2-D elastic mesh, as explained by Roy Weiss, one of the founding fathers of LIGO. This new Wine Bottle Elastic Mesh (WBEM) approximation of GR also demonstrates the privileged status of the two transverse quadrupolar modes in 3-D space, as depicted on Fig. 3 from Clifford Will's paper: "In general relativity, only the transverse quadrupolar modes are present" [Ref. 1]. Thus, according to Clifford Will and Roy Weiss' WBEM GR, if you do 'tug 'n collapse' in the longitudinal modes, nothing will happen to the good old 3-D space, which is why they have instructed LIGO to focus on the transverse quadrupolar modes. No jokes, people are serious.
There is, however, a cute little detail in Roy Weiss' Wine Bottle Elastic Mesh (WBEM) approximation of GR. Consider this. We start with a 1-D elastic wine bottle mesh, and try to 'tug 'n collapse' this elastic 1-D rope. To describe the alleged dynamics of the 1-D rope, we introduce a transverse axis to the 1-D rope, then interpret the latter as some "time parameter", and build a 1+1-D WBEM GR. Only this alleged "time parameter" does not, and cannot encode the new degree of freedom which will emerge later, in the 2-D elastic wine bottle mesh: we are 1-D worms, and are still confined within an 1-D elastic rope.
Then we decide to make use of our just-introduced transverse axis, which we have interpreted as some "time parameter" of the 1-D rope, for building a 2-D elastic wine bottle mesh, after Roy Weiss. Now we can 'tug 'n collapse' an elastic 2-D surface/mesh along two spatial directions. Again, to describe the alleged dynamics of the 2-D elastic mesh, we introduce a transverse axis to this 2-D mesh, then interpret the latter as some "time parameter", and finally build a 2+1-D WBEM GR, as explained eloquently in Roy Weiss' video clip. Only this alleged "time parameter" does not, and cannot encode the new degrees of freedom which will again emerge later, in the 3-D elastic wine bottle mesh: we are Flatlanders, and are still confined within an 2-D elastic wine bottle mesh.
But we're smart, and don't give up: we decide to make use of our just-introduced transverse axis, which we have interpreted as some "time parameter" of the 2-D elastic wine bottle mesh. We again use it for building a 3-D elastic wine bottle mesh. Of course, now it looks like a 3-D elastic sponge, and we can try to 'tug 'n collapse' it along three spatial directions.
But at this stage we don't have any additional "bulk" space available, and can only speculate on the "projections" of some brand new (possibly "dark") effects on our 3-D elastic sponge. It is certainly reasonable to expect some brand new effects, as we always have encountered qualitatively new effects, since the initial case of 1-D elastic "rope" space. It is also reasonable to expect that these brand new effects will be manifested in the dynamics of physical bodies confined in our 3-D elastic sponge, by seamless overlapping and embedding into dynamics of bodies in our 3-D Flatland, and by altering the latter in a way which, as hinted above, would be interpreted as 'completely dark'. Thus, we might be haunted by some "dark" stuff, which alters the dynamics of bodies in our 3-D Flatland in a way that strongly suggests some sort of "hidden matter" and "additional energy", constituting up to 96 per cent of our 3-D elastic sponge.
What axis can possibly encode the genuine dynamics of the 3-D elastic sponge? Surely this cannot be the alleged "time parameter" in the 3+1-D WBEM GR, which is why we introduce a brand new degree of freedom, depicted with the red Zaxis here. It will literally merge and overlap with our gauge-dependent "time parameter", producing additional "dark" effects. This new axis is not present in the misfortunate Hamiltonian formulation of Einstein's GR, as suggested by Dirac-ADM, since it is orthogonal to both 3-D space and the gauge-dependent "time parameter".
Neither LIGO nor any other member of the international network of laser-interferometry ground detectors (AIGO, TAMA, GEO600, and VIRGO) can possibly detect the gravitational waves "online", as they propagate along the Z axis. All these devices can detect time-like displacements along the gauge-dependent "time parameter" only. Please consult Angelo Loinger: "In other terms, if we displace a mass, its gravitational field and the related curvature of the interested manifold displace themselves along with the mass." (A. Loinger, On the displacements of Einsteinian fields et cetera, physics/0506024 v2.) See also Steven Weinberg above, and recall the first striking statement in Einstein's GR: the gravitational energy cannot be represented with a tensor, as explained by Hermann Weyl. We can, of course, try to convert the whole non-tensorial mesh into our gauge-dependent "time parameter" and 3-D space, but we cannot keep it there for more than one instant. Not surprisingly, we encounter some generic pathologies as well: causal geodesic incompleteness, closed time curves (CTCs), and spacetime singularities, both hidden and naked. Had any of this catastrophes happened in the past 13.7 billion years, we wouldn't be here to discuss the failures of LIGO to detect gravitational waves.
Thus, we have to acknowledge that we still do not know the genuine dynamics of GR, as revealed by the "dark" effects from the Z axis, and cannot detect the gravitational waves at more than one instant from our gauge-dependent "time parameter" and 3-D space. Sad but true. See again Angelo Loinger above.
Put it differently, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) believes it would be a terrible blow to Einstein's GR if they fail again to detect the gravitational waves. On the contrary, the author of these lines believes it would be a terrible blow to Einstein's GR if they manage to detect the gravitational waves, because LIGO would expose a privileged "direction", depicted with the axis Z , which is privileged and unique, because pertains to the universe as a whole -- just as the "rotation" axis of the cosmic equator. Moreover, it would be a terrible blow to Mother Nature if LIGO manages to hook its wings on the perfectly smooth "dark" tension, known as dark energy.
To sum up, if LIGO drills even a tiny little hole in the "dark" energy "balloon", the whole universe will explode. However, such catastrophe hasn't happened in the past 13.7 billion years, included the past forty years of failures to detect the gravitational waves. The ultimate 'gravitational wave astronomy' would be to detect the dynamic tidal "force" from the cosmic equator: it is distributed uniquely to each and every spacetime "point", correct? Try it, but with your own cash.
Perhaps it will be a good idea to initiate a dialogue with Prof. Clifford M. Will, the current President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation, and his LIGO colleagues (394 scholars).
If Angelo Loinger was here present, he would probably ask: Do you know that the first theoretical proof of the physical non-existence of the gravitational waves was given by Tullio Levi-Civita in 1917, Cliff?
If Hermann Minkowski was here present, he would probably ask: How do you make these six modes "independent" in the 4-D continuum, Cliff? For if they are not independent, you cannot possibly filter only two of them, the 'transverse quadrupolar', and instruct LIGO to detect only these two modes, and nothing else.
If Sir Arthur Eddington was here present, he would probably ask: Have you managed to extend your so-called Hamiltonian formulation of GR, after Dirac [Phys. Rev. 73, 1092 (1948)], to include the other "sign of mass"? For if you haven't done so, you cannot possibly claim that you understand the empirical fact that there is no dipole gravitational radiation, as confirmed by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) so far. By the way, have you read my 1922 article on propagation of gravitational waves? They are not objective, and (like absolute velocity) are not detectable by any conceivable experiment. They are merely sinuosities in the co-ordinate system, and the only speed of propagation relevant to them is "the speed of thought." Can you detect "the speed of thought" with LIGO or LISA, Cliff?
If Fred Cooperstock was here present, he would probably ask: Have you found a localized expression for total angular momentum, including the contribution from gravity, Cliff? For if you haven't, you cannot possibly claim that you understand the gravitational radiation at all. By the way, have you read A. S. Eddington's article on propagation of gravitational waves, from 1922?
If Hans-Jürgen Schmidt was here present, he would probably ask: Have you read Hans Stephani's General Relativity, particularly Sec. 15.3, Cliff? Check out also Adrian Scheidegger and Leopold Infeld & Jerzy Plebanski, Motion and Relativity, Ch. 6.
Since I'm so far the only person present here, may I ask a very simple question about one of "the most promising sources" of gravitational waves, the binary inspiral Galactic Halo, gr-qc/0505042 v1: Are you expecting to receive a "fax" from the Galactic Halo, Cliff? If yes, please note that the "direction" of your communication with the Galactic Halo -- the thought line connecting the Galactic Halo with "the direction of g ", the acceleration due to gravity on Earth -- can be uniquely determined only and exclusively only in the absolute reference frame of 'the universe as a whole', as explained to the readers of Scientific American by your colleagues Robert R. Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski (reference here). In this unique reference frame, you can also see the cosmic equator, as explained by your colleague Mike Turner (reference here). Once you manage to pinpoint this "direction", all you have to do is to instruct LIGO to detect the "sinusoidal amplitude" of some "quadrupole radiation" of some "isolated system" in the asymptotical limit when the system becomes "completely spatially isolated from everything else", as explained eloquently by your colleague Roger Penrose. Then it's easy: "Computation of these variables at a point requires knowledge of the metric perturbation hab everywhere", as stressed by your colleagues Eanna Flanagan and Scott Hughes, in gr-qc/0501041 v1. This should be a minor challenge, since LIGO would be "positioned" in this unique reference frame from the outset, you would know the metric perturbations everywhere on the Cauchy surface, and hence would be able to compute the metric perturbations at any given "point" chosen with LIGO. You are so good in math! No need to hassle with "improving sensitivity" of the Advanced LIGO.
To paraphrase David Mermin (cf. N. Straumann, Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2002), replacing 'EPR and Bell’s Theorem' with 'the Hamiltonian formulation of GR':
Contemporary physicists come in two varieties. Type 1 physicists are bothered by the Hamiltonian formulation of GR. Type 2 (the majority) are not, but one has to distinguish two subvarieties. Type 2a physicists explain why they are not bothered. Their explanations tend either to miss the point entirely (like Ashtekar's loop quantum gravity) or to contain physical assertions that can be shown to be false. Type 2b are not bothered and refuse to explain why.
Enough. I was not allowed to talk at EPS13 in Bern anyway. Perhaps "the Programme Committee" had serious reasons to shut me up. See also my questions above, and please recall that we cannot detect, with inanimate measuring devices, the atemporal hand-shaking negotiation in Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM. The 'end result' from this atemporal hand-shaking can "enter" the local mode of spacetime only "through" the apex of the light cone. Perhaps similar considerations hold for the gravitational waves as well, but we need quantum gravity to sort them out. Currently, we delete 'the other sign of mass' by hand, as explained by Tom Roman. If we use our brain, I believe there is no reason to be afraid of the "negative mass", but Prof. Mike Cruise rejected my request for permission to demonstrate this effect of the human brain. So be it.
As instructed by Prof. Mike Cruise,
I will refrain from any "unscheduled activities" during the poster session
of Conference II (such as belly dancing, singing or firewalking)
but, as I said above, there might be surprises.
We take for granted that Gravitational Waves (GWs) exist, but examine critically the possibility for their direct observation with ground and space-based laser
interferometers. It is argued that the detection of GWs can, at least theoretically, be achieved iff three requirements are met en bloc. Alternatively, a hypothetical case related to the so-called dark energy would render the task impossible in principle. The discussion is kept at conceptual level, to make it accessible to the general
(Some excerpts follow.)
Let us grant LIGO Scientific Collaboration the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that there is indeed a black cat in the dark room, after Confucius.
All measurements and statements are
relative, hence we must supply an answer to the question 'with respect
Needless to say, all three conditions
of the type (Ao --> YES) need to be met en bloc. We will
be happy to help, wholeheartedly.
Subject: Re: Mathematical
Thank you for your reply.
Just a brief note on Sec. 2 (Ao --> YES) from my forthcoming paper,
I fully agree that gravitational waves (GWs) exist, in the sense that the non-tensorial and non-localizable energy of GWs can provide a huge contribution into the *total* energy, momentum, etc. of gravitating systems; the well-known example is the binary pulsar B1913+16, cf. astro-ph/0407149 v1. (I'll elaborate on this in Sec. 3.)
But in order to actually *detect*
GWs, LIGO Scientific Collaboration
To understand the meaning of the term 'strain', the relative deformation dl/l, and the so-called amplitude of GWs denoted with h , please see Fig. 1 in Bernard Schutz' gr-qc/0003069, as well as [Ref. 1, Fig. 22.1, p. 312].
I dare to challenge the very distinction between the alleged *time-dependent* case (i) and the alleged *time-independent* case (ii).
I believe this distinction is false,
Please see also Angelo Loinger [Ref. 2].
Specifically, I disagree with Bernard Schutz, who stated the following:
"The fact that gravitational waves are transverse and do not act like the Moon does on Earth *implies* (emphasis mine - D.) that they are not part of the curvature of time, since that is where the Newtonian forces originate. *They are purely a part of the curvature of space* (emphasis mine - D.). When gravitational waves move through a region they do not induce difference between the rates of nearby clocks. Instead, they deform proper distances according to the pattern in Fig. 22.1" [Ref. 1, p. 312].
May I ask a question.
If I was claiming that something, call it [X], could be "purely a part of the curvature of space", and also that [X] can be detected because it can produce "time-dependent" effect, I bet you'd say that I "do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area."
Q: Do I read your mind correctly?
[Ref. 1] Bernard
Schutz, GRAVITY from the ground up. CUP, Cambridge,
[Ref. 2] A. Loinger,
On the displacements of Einsteinian fields et cetera, physics/0506024
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:56:59 +0100, you wrote:
> As the old proverb has it "The proof of the pudding is in the eating"
The pudding of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 distinguished scholars) is in the quadrupole approximation: you have totally silent longitudinal mode that is totally ignored by GWs, but if you rotate this "installation" on 90 degrees -- WOW. You get the transverse mode, as you might have noticed from the references in my preceding email.
NB: This is the *conditio sine qua non* for detecting GWs with LIGO: the quadrupolar modes, longitudinal and transverse.
More from the President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation (2004-2007), Prof. Dr. Clifford M. Will,
Otherwise you'd have to "detect" GWs from the dipole mode, and of course you'll get nothing, as confirmed by LIGO so far,
So, LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 distinguished scholars) haven't found any GWs in the dipole mode, but they have found a preferred "direction" of GW propagation in the quadrupolar mode -- the transverse mode -- which can be obtained from rotation of the "direction" of the silent, and totally ignored by all GWs, longitudinal mode on 90 degrees.
Which means that LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 distinguished scholars) have discovered an astonishing ANISOTROPY of 3-D space: there is a PREFERRED direction of propagation of GWs, which can be obtained by a simple rotation of the totally ignored by all GWs longitudinal "direction".
Do you like the quadrupolar pudding of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 distinguished scholars)?
I am *seriously* interested in your professional opinion.
If you believe I haven't reproduced their quadrupolar pudding correctly, please do write me back. Prof. Angelo Loinger and I will be more than happy to hear from you.
All this is private, as far as I'm concerned.
P.S. Imagine LIGO Scientific Collaboration orienting their Advanced LIGO in the quadrupolar longitudinal mode, the one that is totally ignored by GWs. The "creative analogies" of your colleagues, derived from electromagnetism, suggest that there will be no GWs in that longitudinal mode, and no "improved sensitivity" would help, so they wouldn't be surprised if they fail.
Now, imagine that same Advanced LIGO being rotated to 90 degrees, to match the transverse quadrupolar mode.
If LIGO Scientific Collaboration believe they can detect GWs in that transverse quadrupolar mode, they have to explain the difference -- if any -- in rotating their two "installations".
This is my graceful suggestion to LIGO Scientific Collaboration, in the format "yes, you can detect GWs provided [A] holds", or (Ao --> YES),
It goes without saying that LIGO Scientific Collaboration will have to be *very* careful in explaining the difference [A] between the two "installations", or else Einstein and Minkowski would spin in their graves like helicopters.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the shift from dipole to quadrupolar mode was not total bullshit. Maybe your colleagues might be able to implant some "creative analogies" from electromagnetism into Einstein's GR.
I am very much interested to learn
your professional opinion on the difference between the transverse quadrupolar
mode, and the longitudinal
Will keep it private.
If you find 1 (one) error in my interpretation, I will not quote from your message, but will simply acknowledge on my web site that I am, in fact, an incredibly stupid person, since I haven't been able in the past 33 years to learn "enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area."
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:49:01 +0100,
Dimi Chakalov wrote:
"I don't know you and wish you out of my face, my computer."
So be it. I will not elaborate more on the next run of The Advanced LIGO; see above. Instead, I will wait until LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars) fail miserably again, for third consecutive time.
There is no need to hang those who are about to drown.
I sent yesterday an email to 277 people, and if I receive the kind of feedback I've been getting in the past two and a half years, I will send the next message to LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) at the end of the first run of the Advanced LIGO at Livingston. It will be operational on 4 March 2009, and since they will again measure the dipole GW radiation, the Advanced LIGO will finish empty handed. But I won't contact LSC by email. I'll tweak the interference pattern by distance, much like what Ingo Swann did in Stanford some 30 years ago. Hope they'll read the message, which will be delivered by Morse Code alphabet. This will be the first and the last real-time observation of GWs by the Advanced LIGO.
And now of course you think I'm joking. Good. I don't mind.
Subject: Re: Are Gravitational Waves Directly
Subject: Support of LIGO Research?