The forthcoming third failure of the Advanced LIGO is beyond any reasonable doubt.

Download paper.zip here.
 

 

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 to fight.
 

D. Chakalov
Thursday, May 5, 2005
Last update: May 13, 2005

[1] 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. (...) No gravitational wave signals were detected in 9.98 days of analyzed data."
--

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."

================
P.S. Recall George Orwell's 1984: What was one of the mottos of Big Brother? "Ignorance is strength."

D.C.
May 10, 2005
==========
 
 

Subject: Re: EPS13 "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century", 11-15 July 2005, Bern, Switzerland, Poster presentation
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:09:22 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>
CC: Alvaro Gimenez <alvaro.gimenez@esa.int>, "Rüdeger Reinhard" <reinhard@so.estec.esa.nl>, Mike Cruise <amc@star.sr.bham.ac.uk>, Christophe Rossel <rsl@zurich.ibm.com>, Martin Huber <mceh@bluewin.ch>

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.

Sincerely yours,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:15:22 +0200, European Physical Society wrote:
>
> Dimi Chakalov
>  Private
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
>  28 Al. Stambolijski Blvd
> BG- BG-1000 Sofia
>
> Dear  Dimi Chakalov,
>
> On behalf of the Programme Committee, we are pleased to advise you
> that your abstract has been accepted as a poster presentation  in the
> topic ( Quantum Gravity) of the EPS13 Conference. The meeting will be
> held 11-15 July 2005 in the Main Building of the University of Bern and in
> the adjacent Institute of Exact Sciences.
>
> Title of your paper:   Einstein and Quantum Gravity
> Date of presentation:  TUE 12/07/2005
> Session Title:  Poster Session
> Session Time:  15:20:00 To 16:40:00
> *Location:
> Your paper session code: RC-1-TUE

[snip]
--

Note: To read all my email sent to Prof. Dr. Karsten Danzmann, make a search at my online search page here, with the string
"office-hannover@aei.mpg.de" .

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.

D. Chakalov
May 4, 2005

===========

Subject: Re: EPS13 "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century", 11-15 July 2005, Bern, Switzerland, Poster presentation
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 19:14:13 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Mike Cruise <a.m.cruise@bham.ac.uk>
CC: Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>, Alvaro Gimenez <alvaro.gimenez@esa.int>, "Rüdeger Reinhard" <reinhard@so.estec.esa.nl>, Mike Cruise <amc@star.sr.bham.ac.uk>, Christophe Rossel <rsl@zurich.ibm.com>, Martin Huber <mceh@bluewin.ch>, Eileen Jackson <jacksoee@adf.bham.ac.uk>, Elizabeth Winstanley <E.Winstanley@sheffield.ac.uk>

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,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Chakrabarty.html#note_2

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,

http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/research/gravity

you are personally involved in a huge business,

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Article39200.htm

"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.

Sincerely yours,

D. Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

On Wed, 4 May 2005 12:57:58 +0100, Mike Cruise wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Chakalov,
> I am responding to your request to Prof Danzmann, in my capacity as
> chairman of the organising committee. The selection of papers was a
> difficult task as only a small number of papers could be presented and
> we had over 200 abstracts. Many papers were therefore rejected. In
> addition the selection was by a voting system amongst the organising
> committee. There are no therefore more details that can be given.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> A.M.Cruise

===========

Subject: LISA
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:01:39 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Stefano Vitale <vitale@science.unitn.it>
CC: Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>,
     Giovanni Bignami <bignami@CESR.fr>

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,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Chakrabarty.html#note

Should you are interested, please be assured that I will be happy to
elaborate at "Beyond Einstein – Physics for the 21st Century", EPS13. I filed the abstract of my *oral* contribution to Conference II,

http://www.eps13.org/authors/conference2.html

and very much hope that Prof. Karsten Danzmann will approve it.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

=======

Subject: LIGO 'n LISA
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:20:05 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: M Mitchell Waldrop <mwaldrop@nsf.gov>
CC: Stefano Vitale <vitale@science.unitn.it>,
     Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>,
     Giovanni Bignami <bignami@CESR.fr>,
     Deepto Chakrabarty <deepto@space.mit.edu>,
     Richard H Price <rprice@physics.utah.edu>

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

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

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

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

Should you and/or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

=======

Subject: LIGO, LISA, and Big Bang Observer
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:16:41 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Phil Newman <newman@lheamail.gsfc.nasa.gov>
CC: E Sterl Phinney <esp@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Kip Thorne <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>, ungarel@star.sr.bham.ac.uk,
A.M.Cruise@bham.ac.uk, j.hough@physics.gla.ac.uk,
s.marcuccio@cpr.it, touboul@onera.fr, h.ward@physics.gla.ac.uk,
John.W.Armstrong@jpl.nasa.gov, shoemaker_d@ligo.mit.edu,
Massimo.Tinto@jpl.nasa.gov, William.M.Folkner@jpl.nasa.gov,
Frank.B.Estabrook@jpl.nasa.gov, vitale@science.unitn.it,
Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de
 

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

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#LIGO_LISA

Should you and/or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back. I will keep your feedback private and confidential.

Sincerely yours,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

=======

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.

D. Chakalov
April 15, 2005
 

[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) [7] will not offer an opportunity to improve (much) beyond the sensitivity 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 [11]. This consists of a constellation of four interferometers in a Heliocentric orbit at 1 AU from the Sun.
...

"We call the corresponding mission concept as "BBO-lite", "BBO-standard" and "BBO-grand".
--
[11] S. Phinney et al, The Big Bang Observer: Direct detection of gravitational waves from the birth of the Universe to the Present, NASA Mission Concept Study.
 

=======
 

Subject: Re: Your abstract submitted for "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century" (EPS13)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:15:14 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Ophélia Fornari <soria.amri@europhysnet.org>

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
> conference "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century"
> (EPS13).
>
> As maybe you know, the deadline of submission has been
> extended to 21st March 2005.
>
> Please note the reference of your paper RC-48  in case you want
> to make changes online.

Thank you.

> An email with the acceptance or refusal of your abstract will be
> sent on 15 April 2005.

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.

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

====

Subject: Re: EPS13 "Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century", 11-15 July 2005, Bern, Switzerland, Poster presentation
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 04:00:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Ophélia Fornari <soria.amri@europhysnet.org>
CC: Mike Cruise <a.m.cruise@bham.ac.uk>,
Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>,
Christophe Rossel <rsl@zurich.ibm.com>,
Martin Huber <mceh@bluewin.ch>

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
> 840 mm wide x 1188 mm high), on which the poster can be mounted.

Thank you. The topics covered in my A0-size poster are outlined at

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

I will register on Monday afternoon, July 11th, at the Registration Desk
located in the entrance hall of the Main Building of the University.

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--

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).

Only you have to ensure that LIGO 'n LISA and The Big Bang Observer have 'outside-GR-and-STR panoramic view' on the whole asymptotically flat 3-D space

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.

Good luck, Flatlanders. Just don't miss another "tidal" force, as seen in the cosmic equator. Well, you can't actually see it, because it's "dark". Anyway.
 

D. Chakalov
May 8, 2005

=========

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

[XXX]   (11)

"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?

I hope B. Schutz will be kind to unscramble the components d3Qjk/dt3 (cf. above) and the six "polarization modes" of gravitational waves: see C. Will [Ref. 1]. 

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 (...)."

This is just the tip of the iceberg. See again an incomplete list of 'unsolved mysteries' starting from here and here, and Angelo Loinger and Hermann Weyl here.

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 way.
 

D. Chakalov
May 10, 2005
Final update: May 13, 2005, 16:58:32 GMT
--

[Ref. 1.] Clifford M. Will, Gravitational Radiation and the Validity of General Relativity. PHYSICS TODAY 52, 38 (October 1999). Based on a talk given at the April 1998 meeting of the American Institute of Physics, 
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/phystoday.ps

"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. In 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."
 

=======
To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle
George Orwell, 1946
 
 


 
 

Subject: Re: Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century, 11 - 15 July, Bern, Switzerland
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:23:51 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: soria.amri@europhysnet.org
CC: Mike Cruise <a.m.cruise@bham.ac.uk>,
Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>,
Christophe Rossel <rsl@zurich.ibm.com>,
Martin Huber <mceh@bluewin.ch>

On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:42:51 +0200, Ophélia Fornari wrote:
[snip]

> The deadlines for the pre-registration, excursions, dinner, reception,
> accommodation, are approaching:

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.

This is crucially important, since LIGO failed twice, while I believe have an *experimental confirmation* of my hypothesis. Here's my question:

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

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Rosinger.html#hope

Looking forward to hearing from you or from your colleagues,

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

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 Albert Einstein's 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 call it.
 

D. Chakalov
May 25, 2005
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law
 


 

Subject: Re: Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century, 11 - 15 July, Bern, Switzerland
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:35:29 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
Message-ID: <42976871.EDD0F4E8@chakalov.net>
To: Mike Cruise <a.m.cruise@bham.ac.uk>
CC: soria.amri@europhysnet.org,
     Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>,
     Christophe Rossel <rsl@zurich.ibm.com>,
     Martin Huber <mceh@bluewin.ch>,
     Eileen Jackson <jacksoee@adf.bham.ac.uk>,
     "Prof. Hans Balsiger" <hans.balsiger@phim.unibe.ch>

Dear Professor Cruise,

Thank you for your email from Fri, 27 May 2005 14:02:08 +0100,
Message-ID:
<EECC955A300389479AB157ECA583A0E9067BE1@adm6.adf.bham.ac.uk>.

> 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
> opportunity to make demonstrations, show videos or any other activity
> beyond fixing your poster to the board and answering any questions
> from any colleagues reading it.
>
> We are in no position to allow unscheduled activities to occur on the
> premises.
> Thank you for your understanding.

I cannot keep quiet at the second failure of LIGO Scientific Collaboration to detect gravitational waves,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#LIGO

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.

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

========

Subject: Re: Beyond Einstein - Physics for the 21st Century, 11 - 15 July, Bern, Switzerland
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:28:22 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: soria.amri@europhysnet.org,
Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>,
Christophe Rossel <rsl@zurich.ibm.com>,
Martin Huber <mceh@bluewin.ch>,
Eileen Jackson <jacksoee@adf.bham.ac.uk>,
Hans Balsiger <hans.balsiger@phim.unibe.ch>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@freesurf.ch>,
Petr Hajicek <hajicek@itp.unibe.ch>,
Andre Gsponer <gsponer@vtx.ch>,
Christoph Schmid <chschmid@itp.phys.ethz.ch>,
"Hans-Jürgen Schmidt" <hjschmi@physik.fu-berlin.de>

On Fri, 27 May 2005 21:35:29 +0300, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
[snip]

> I cannot keep quiet at the second failure of LIGO Scientific
> Collaboration to detect gravitational waves,
>
> http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#LIGO
>
> I'm afraid you and your colleagues are heading toward a third
> consecutive failure, and hundreds of million Euro would be wasted --
> taxpayers' money.

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

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#pitfalls

Thus, I can only try to elaborate on point (i) above, that is, to defend
Einstein's belief on the nature of reality. Please see his statement to
E. Schrödinger below. This is all I can do on a poster.

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.

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
Du bist (neben Laue) unter den zeitgenössischen Physikern der einzige, der sieht, dass man um die Setzung der Wirklichkeit nicht herumkommen kann - wenn man nur ehrlich ist. Die meisten sehen gar nicht, was sie für ein gewagtes Spiel mit der Wirklichkeit treiben.

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.

D.C.
May 31, 2005, 14:47:24 GMT

========

Subject: Re: LIGO failed again
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 02:00:44 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: mwaldrop@nsf.gov, bignami@CESR.fr,
     newman@lheamail.gsfc.nasa.gov, j.hough@physics.gla.ac.uk,
     s.marcuccio@cpr.it, touboul@onera.fr, h.ward@physics.gla.ac.uk,
     John.W.Armstrong@jpl.nasa.gov, shoemaker_d@ligo.mit.edu,
     Massimo.Tinto@jpl.nasa.gov, William.M.Folkner@jpl.nasa.gov,
     Frank.B.Estabrook@jpl.nasa.gov, vitale@science.unitn.it,
     Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de, gerhard.huisken@aei.mpg.de,
     hjschmi@physik.fu-berlin.de, gsponer@vtx.ch,
     hajicek@itp.unibe.ch, fyi@aip.org, focus@aps.org
BCC: [snip]

Gentlemen:

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

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#Einstein

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.

Sincerely yours,

D. Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

=======
 

Subject: LIGO failed again
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 13:46:20 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Joint NSF/NASA Task Force <GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
     Beverly Berger Program Director NSF <bberger@nsf.gov>,
     Michael Salamon Program Scientist NASA <msalamon@hq.nasa.gov>,
     Saul Teukolsky Chair <saul@astro.cornell.edu>,
     patrick@gravity.phys.uwm.edu, jcentrel@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov,
     pablo@astro.psu.edu, lazz@ligo.caltech.edu,
     rasio@northwestern.edu, kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
     barish_b@ligo.caltech.edu, prince@srl.caltech.edu,
     karen.smale@gsfc.nasa.gov, jcentrel@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov
CC: hjschmi@physik.fu-berlin.de
BCC: [snip]

Gentlemen:

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,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#LIGO

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.

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#Einstein

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.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

=======

Subject: LSC March 2005 and June 2005 Meetings
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:18:30 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: LIGO Scientific Collaboration Spokesperson Peter Saulson
     <saulson@physics.syr.edu>,
     Michael Zucker <zucker_m@ligo-la.caltech.edu>,
     Rainer Weiss <weiss@ligo.mit.edu>
CC: Keith Riles <kriles@umich.edu>,
Beth Demkowski <demkowsk@umich.edu>,
Bonnie Wooley <bonnie@ligo-la.caltech.edu>,
"Gabriela González" <gonzalez@lsu.edu>,
Linda Turner <turner_l@ligo.caltech.edu>,
veronica@ligo.caltech.edu,
info@ligo.mit.edu,
info@ligo.caltech.edu,
Angelo Loinger <Angelo.Loinger@mi.infn.it>,
mwaldrop@nsf.gov,
bignami@CESR.fr,
newman@lheamail.gsfc.nasa.gov
 

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,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#LIGO

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).

It seems to me that some colleagues of yours were hugely optimistic six years ago [Ref. 1]. Kip Thorne, for example, predicted that LIGO II will see "rich variety of sources & science" [Ref. 2].

Even today, the U.S. taxpayers can watch a nice movie, in which Ray
Weiss explains "the key to the whole thing" [Ref. 3].

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"
[Ref. 2]. Perhaps you're trying to detect the "dark" energy *as well*,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Ishak.html#note

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,

Sincerely yours,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

References

[Ref. 1] LSC White Paper on Detector Research and Development, by E.
Gustafson, D. Shoemaker, K. Strain, and R. Weiss. 11 September 1999 -
LIGO T990080-00-D,
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/T990080-00.pdf

"At the sensitivities of LIGO I it is plausible, but not probable, that
gravitational waves will be detected. By contrast, LIGO II reaches a
sensitivity level where the best current estimates suggest that a number
of sources should be detectable, with a signal-to-noise for near sources
which could allow detailed quantitative comparisons with astrophysical
models."
 

[Ref. 2] Kip Thorne, LIGO science. Presentation for NSF, 25 October
1999, LIGO-G990111-00-M,
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G990111-00.pdf

Slide 2:
* Conclusions:
» LIGO-I in domain of plausible detection
» LIGO-II likely to see rich variety of sources & science

Slide 15:
UNKNOWN SOURCES
* Big Surprises are Likely
 

[Ref. 3] Gravity: Making Waves (video, 7:38),
http://sciencebulletins.amnh.org/astro/f/gravity.20041101/index.php

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 thing".
 

[Ref. 4] Jeff Crowder and Neil J. Cornish, Beyond LISA: Exploring Future
Gravitational Wave Missions, gr-qc/0506015 v1, 3 June 2005,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0506015

"LISA will not only detect the presence of gravitational waves, but also
provide detailed information about many thousands of gravitational wave
sources, vastly expanding the burgeoning field of gravitational wave
astronomy. (...) Just as the COsmic Background Explorer (COBE) and the
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) missions provided
information about the Universe around the time of last scattering, the
BBO should be able to provide information about the earliest moments in
the history of the Universe."
 

=======

Subject: Re: LSC March 2005 and June 2005 Meetings
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:34:53 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: gustafso@umich.edu

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:13:17 -0400, Message-ID:
<20050607001317.q6tlvjh1c00gsk4c@web.mail.umich.edu>, gustafso@umich.edu wrote:
>
> I don't know you and wish you out of my face, my computer.

I see that you're quite frustrated. I wonder why.

> Yes we discus ALL our known "failures"; that is what these meetings are
> about.

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,

http://www.physics.lsa.umich.edu/department/directory/bio.asp?ID=120

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

=======

Subject: Re: LSC March 2005 and June 2005 Meetings
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:08:12 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Gabriela González <gonzalez@lsu.edu>
CC: Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>, rgambini@fisica.edu.uy,
rgambini@relativity.phys.lsu.edu

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
detecting gravitational waves,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#direction

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,

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

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

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

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

Perhaps this unique reference frame can also explain my viewpoint on the nature of time, which I shared with your husband five months ago,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Pullin.html#last

Anyway. Please see the whole story of detecting GWs at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#pitfalls

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,

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

=======
 

 

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.
 
 

D. Chakalov
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Last update: June 9, 2005
--
You can't scare a dog with a sausage
Old Tanzanian saying
 

The hardest thing of all is to find
a black cat in a dark room,
especially if there is no cat

Confucius
 
 

Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?


Dimi Chakalov

Abstract

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 audience.

July 18, 2005

PACS numbers: 01.70.+w, 04.30.-w, 04.20.Cv, 04.60.-m

Note: The paper, in PDF format (paper.zip), can be downloaded from here.

 

(Some excerpts follow.)

2. The benefit of the doubt

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 to what?'
[snip]

Needless to say, all three conditions of the type (Ao --> YES) need to be met en bloc. We will be happy to help, wholeheartedly.
[snip]

Get  paper.zip  from here.

 


 
 

Subject: Re: Mathematical thinking
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:18:20 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: "Isham, Christopher J" <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>
CC: hajicek@itp.unibe.ch, Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
     office-hannover@aei.mpg.de, Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de,
     Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de, Angelo.Loinger@mi.infn.it,
     GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov, info@ligo.mit.edu,
     info@ligo.caltech.edu
 

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your reply.

Just a brief note on Sec. 2 (Ao --> YES) from my forthcoming paper,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#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
(Bernard Schutz plus another 394 scholars) have introduced the following
hypothesis: there exists an experimentally distinguishable difference between (i) the alleged *time-dependent* tidal acceleration produced by the transverse modes of GWs and (ii) the alleged *time-independent*
acceleration produced by the longitudinal modes of GWs. The latter does not produce any STRAIN, while the former does produce *some* STRAIN, which might -- just might -- be detected with the "improved sensitivity" of the Advanced LIGO, say. This is the wild guess of 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,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#energy

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?

Kindest regards,

Dimi
--
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
Phone & Fax 020-7834-3113
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

References

[Ref. 1] Bernard Schutz, GRAVITY from the ground up. CUP, Cambridge,
2003, ISBN: 0 521 45506 5 (hardback).

[Ref. 2] A. Loinger, On the displacements of Einsteinian fields et cetera, physics/0506024 v2.
 
 

======

Subject: Re: Mathematical thinking
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:49:01 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: "Isham, Christopher J" <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

Dear Chris,

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,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#W1

Otherwise you'd have to "detect" GWs from the dipole mode, and of course you'll get nothing, as confirmed by LIGO so far,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#LIGO

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.

Kindest regards,

Dimi
--
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
Phone & Fax 020-7834-3113
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

======
 
 

Subject: Re: Mathematical thinking
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:31:11 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: "Isham, Christopher J" <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>
BCC: [snip]

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),

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#paper

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
quadrupolar mode.

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."

D.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:49:01 +0100, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> 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,
>
> http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#W1

[snip]

 

My first, and utterly polite, email was sent two years ago, on Sun, 23 Feb 2003 02:17:17 +0200. The only reply so far was this:

"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.

D. Chakalov
Tuesday, June 21, 2005, 17:14:45 GMT

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.


D. Chakalov
Saturday, July 9, 2005

 

Subject: Re: Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:24:38 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Leonid Grishchuk <Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk>
CC: LIGO Scientific Collaboration Spokesperson Peter Saulson <saulson@physics.syr.edu>, Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>, "Isham, Christopher J" <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>, Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>, Giovanni Bignami <bignami@CESR.fr>, M Mitchell Waldrop <mwaldrop@nsf.gov>, Phil Newman <newman@lheamail.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de, "Hans-Jürgen Schmidt" <hjschmi@physik.fu-berlin.de>, weinberg@physics.utexas.edu
BCC: [snip]


On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:22:57 +0100 (BST), Leonid Grishchuk wrote:
>
> I did my best to explain you the origin of your confusion.

I am doing my best to explain you the origin of your confusion,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/submission.doc

Also, there are some subtle differences between us: you are responsible for wasting taxpayers' money, and once you fail, you will have to explain what went wrong to media representatives from USA, UK, Germany, Australia, Canada, India, and Spain.

Recall the warning by Steven Weinberg: "I often find that people who say silly things actually do correct calculations, but are careless in what they say about them." (Steven Weinberg to Leonid Grishchuk, email from 25 February 2003; ref. [67] in your "Update on gravitational-wave research", gr-qc/0305051 v2.)

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
 

 

Message-ID: <42F1F62B.6E310656@chakalov.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:04:11 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Paul Ginsparg <ginsparg@cornell.edu>
CC: moderation@arXiv.org
Subject: Re: Dear arXiv-moderation
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
References: <42DD80F8.9C283FA2@chakalov.net>

Dear Dr. Ginsparg,

I feel obliged by the rules of netiquette to inform you that have mentioned your name and colleagues at

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

No further action on your behalf is requested nor needed.

Yours sincerely,

D. Chakalov

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:38:48 +0100, Message-ID:
<42DD80F8.9C283FA2@chakalov.net> , Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
> Dear arXiv-moderation,
>
> I just learned from arXiv admin [ams] that my paper "Are Gravitational
> Waves Directly Observable?", which was supposed to appear today as
> physics/0507133, has been rejected "upon a notice from our moderators,
> who determined it inappropriate for the physics archive."
>
> I am extremely -- and nothing less than extremely -- motivated to
> demonstrate the absence of any possibility whatsoever to detect
> Gravitational Waves (GWs) with the current laser interferometers and
> future space-based satellites (LISA).
>
> NSF has already spent nearly $500,000,000 in the so-called 'GW
> astronomy', which is, I'm afraid, a total waste of taxpayers' money.
>
> PLEASE DO NOT, IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES, REJECT MY PAPER!
>
> Unless, of course, you or *any* of your colleagues can find 1 (one)
> factual error in it. Please feel free to download the paper (200,195
> bytes, 17 July 2005, 20:05:17) from
>
> http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/0507133.pdf
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> Dimi Chakalov
> 35 Sutherland St
> London SW1V 4JU
> Phone & Fax +44-20-7834-3113
>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:54:57 -0400, "arXiv admin [ams]" wrote:
> >
> > Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators,
> > who determined it inappropriate for the physics archive.
> >
> > Do NOT under any circumstances resubmit to the original arXiv before
> > first explaining the reason to moderation@arxiv.org AND receiving
> > a positive response.
> >
> > Please direct all questions and concerns regarding moderation to the
> > moderation@arXiv.org address.
> >
> > --
> > arXiv admin
 


 

Subject: Support of LIGO Research?
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:05:02 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Peggy L Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>
CC: oig@nsf.gov, Joseph L Dehmer <jdehmer@nsf.gov>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>

Dear Dr. Fischer,

Fifteen years ago, the Congress zeroed out construction funding for the LIGO project. However, on September 27, 1991, conference action on the NSF bill was completed, and LIGO had the first $23.5 million [Ref. 1].

According to UK sources (reference available upon request), you might have invested so far nearly $500 million. I don't know what will be the cost of the Advanced LIGO and LISA, not to mention the proposed Big Bang Observer.

Yet there is no word, not even a hint from NSF [Ref. 2] that the whole enterprise could lead to a dead-end.

I wonder if you are aware of the fundamental -- not technical -- problems of detecting gravitational waves. A very brief note can be read at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html#LIGO

It is absolutely astonishing that nobody from LSC cares about taxpayers' money.

Needless to say, I will be happy to elaborate.

Please confirm the receipt of this email.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Dimi Chakalov

References

[Ref. 1] Richard M. Jones, LIGO: Looking Ahead, Looking Back, The
American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News, Number
162: November 19, 1999,
http://www.aip.org/fyi/1999/fyi99.162.htm


[Ref. 2] Beverly Berger, The View from the NSF, LIGO-G050339-00-0. LSC
August 2005 Meeting, LIGO Hanford Observatory, Hanford, Washington,
August 14-17, 2005,
http://admdbsrv.ligo.caltech.edu/meetings/lsc_default_closed.htf?meetingid=23
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G050339-00.pdf

===

Message-ID: <59B905433CC32646916BB0A02B7D06E48F2672@NSFMAIL16.ad.nsf.gov>
From: "Fischer, Peggy L." <pfischer@nsf.gov>
To: 'Dimi Chakalov' <dimi@chakalov.net>,
"Fischer, Peggy L." <pfischer@nsf.gov>
CC: OIG <oig@nsf.gov>, "Dehmer, Joseph" <jdehmer@nsf.gov>,
"Berger, Beverly K." <bberger@nsf.gov>
Subject: RE: Support of LIGO Research?
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:34:38 -0400

Thank you for your information.

Peggy Fischer


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


From: "Dimi Chakalov" <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Peggy L Fischer" <pfischer@nsf.gov>
Subject: Re: Support of LIGO Research?
Cc: OIG <oig@nsf.gov>, "Joseph Dehmer" <jdehmer@nsf.gov>,
"Beverly K Berger" <bberger@nsf.gov>,
"LIGO Scientific Collaboration Spokesperson Peter Saulson" <saulson@physics.syr.edu>,
"Joint NSF/NASA Task Force" <GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
"Rainer Weiss" <weiss@ligo.mit.edu>,
"Steven Weinberg" <weinberg@physics.utexas.edu>,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de, kip@tapir.caltech.edu, info@ligo.mit.edu,
info@ligo.caltech.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:03:52 +0300
Message-ID: <bed37360709220403o1a9b384eh16301c9ebaf5e123@mail.gmail.com>


Dear Dr. Fischer,

Regarding my email from Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:05:02 +0300, please notice my Research Proposal to LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Trautman.html#proposal

I hope your LSC colleagues will solve the simple task explained at the link above.

If they fail, I'm afraid they will continue to waste taxpayers' money for the so-called Advanced LIGO and LISA.

Please confirm the receipt of this email.

Thank you for your time.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


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

From: "Fischer, Peggy L." <pfischer@nsf.gov>
To: "Dimi Chakalov" <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Support of LIGO Research?
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:04:27 -0400
Message-ID: <A74B5B2C42009044AD35C5490049DAE76A3609@NSF-BE-01.ad.nsf.gov>

I will be out of the office until September 21. In my absence, SAC Jim Evans is Acting AIGI. You may contact him at 703-292-7398 or at jcevans@nsf.gov.
 
Thanks
Peggy Fischer

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


Subject: Statement of Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:03:10 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: The James S McDonnell Professor Joseph Hooten Taylor Jr
<joe@pulsar.princeton.edu>
CC: The Albert Einstein Professor Paul J Steinhardt <steinh@princeton.edu>

RE: Statement of Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., before the Committee on Science,
The U.S. House of Representatives, February 2, 2005

"Our nation’s science enterprise has been well served by having open, broadly based mechanisms for setting priorities in astronomy, and by closely following the wise decisions made in that way."

Dear Professor Taylor,

I wonder who made the "wise decisions" to pursue GW astronomy,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html#LIGO

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov