|Subject: The algebraic approach,
arXiv:0907.0416v1 [gr-qc], p. 8
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:44:43 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <email@example.com>
To: Robert M Wald <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Stefan Hollands <HollandsS@Cardiff.ac.uk>
I provided link to your recent arXiv:0907.0416v1 [gr-qc] at
If you and your colleague wish to "simultaneously consider all states arising in all Hilbert space constructions of the theory without having to make a particular choice of representation at the outset" (p. 8), recall KS Theorem,
Have a nice summer.
Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he reaches his level of maximum incompetence
Laurence J. Peter
Subject: QFT in curved spacetime vs updated GR
Note: See the discussion of the dynamic dark energy (coincidence problem) on p. 16 and p. 6 from gw.pdf. The idea of embedding this "dark" stuff is also explained with the ladder metaphor here. Recall also that the cosmological constant was introduced 'by hand', as stressed by Albert Einstein. It is totally alien to GR. Es explained eloquently by Larry Kraus, the dynamic dark energy "does not depend on position or time -- hence the name "cosmological constant". The force caused by the constant operates even in the complete absence of matter and radiation. Therefore, the source must be a curious energy that resides in empty space."
So, how would you tackle a dark stuff that is 18 times more than the "normal" stuff [Ref. 1], has its own dynamics, and resides in empty space? Also, how can the Hubble parameter "vary" in its own time [Ref. 2]?
The so-called empty space is nothing but the quantum-gravitational potential reality; see the second footnote on p. 16 from gw.pdf. Put it differently, the dynamic dark energy is embedded within the 'infinitesimal displacement' in the smooth, nonsingular transport [Ref. 1].
If you choose to ignore the global mode of spacetime, the hypothetical source of quantum-gravitational potential reality, you also face the problem of the cosmological time arrow; see my comments on Bob Wald's "The Arrow of Time and the Initial Conditions of the Universe", gr-qc/0507094 v1. Moreover, we need a generic patch to the non-linearity of Einstein equations, as explained here.
Briefly, the decomposition of spacetime into 3-D space and 1-D time, along the lines of Dirac-ADM, is deadly wrong and utterly misleading, since it cannot reveal the true dynamics of GR [Ref. 3]. I tried to explain this to my 12-yeard old daughter here; more here. (Can you exclude on purely theoretical grounds a past sudden singularity and a past "big rip" [Ref. 3]? If you can't, your theory is wrong, since it predicts catastrophes which have never happened.)
Our students are kids, and kids have the right to know everything we know. We must never give them directions to a dead-end. I wonder if Bob Wald agrees.
The dead-end in question is the 'question mark' area in Fig. 1 from the recent book by Slava Mukhanov [Ref. 2]. The only possible -- we don't have multiple choice here -- resolution is to introduce a new degree of freedom, called 'global mode of spacetime', for both the graceful exit and the physical presentation of The Beginning [John 1:1]. We need a new parameter to allow for the variation of the Hubble parameter, since it cannot vary in its own "time" from the Hamiltonian formulation of GR (the coincidence problem). Hence the only possible solution is to include that same 'question mark' area in each and every elementary step of the cosmological time arrow: just place it in the global mode of spacetime. Once created, the universe cannot reach The Beginning from the local mode; it can only tend asymptotically toward it (see the 'vacuum cleaner paradox' here). This 'question mark' area [Ref. 2] is again the case of 'numerically finite but physically unattainable boundaries of the physical world'. Once created, the universe has a dual age: finite in the local mode, and infinite (or rather indecisive) in the global mode. Have your "inflation" cake and eat it!
God is, and has always been, inside the instant 'now'. Physically, this is a very special state of the whole universe as ONE. There is no way we could physically trace it back along the local mode of spacetime: we would need an exposed privileged reference frame, but then Bob Wald wouldn't be able to teach GR [Ref. 1] and Slava Mukhanov wouldn't write his book [Ref. 2]. They teach their students, but do they tell these kids everything they know? Do they really care about their students?
This is a very sensitive issue to me. Back in 1972, when I was a 20-year old kid, I was specifically instructed by the Bulgarian colleagues of Bob Wald to forget about "upgrading" Einstein's GR, and subsequently lost many years in exploring different solutions to the mind-brain problem. Now, see my comments on Bob Wald's "The Arrow of Time and the Initial Conditions of the Universe", gr-qc/0507094 v1, below. He still hasn't acknowledged my email from Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:41:01 +0300, and probably never will. Needless to say, I haven't heard from Slava Mukhanov either. What can you expect from American and Russian professors who live in total socialism?
Anyway. I believe it is agonizingly clear that in cosmology we need a fundamental time asymmetry. But this same fundamental time asymmetry must be totally hidden in the local mode of spacetime: if we "look" in the past, we should see a time-reversible snapshot that has already been created in the cosmological time arrow. Again, the only possible way to solve this highly non-trivial task is to introduce a new degree of freedom, called here 'global mode of spacetime'. It makes the local mode a perfect continuum, since its "duration" there is strictly zero. The only way to solve the problem of The Beginning [Ref. 2] is to embed it in the cosmological time arrow, in each and every elementary step. Otherwise we cannot solve the most difficult paradox of cosmology. Back in April 1986, the late Yakov Zel'dovich explained it in the following manner: "Long time ago, there was a period of time during which there was still no time at all." Any time you look at your wristwatch, you've already passed through the "dark gap" of the global mode of spacetime.
All this is very old. I am terribly tired of repeating what I've written on August 15, 1999. Will quote just this: "Should a discussion prompted by this paper confirms the custom-made interpretation of the cause (or 'diagnosis') for the problem of time, I would be greatly encouraged to make the next step of suggesting concrete ideas potentially applicable for a background-free quantum gravity endowed with some 'universal time arrow' matching the psychological time arrow."
All I got so far was a dark and somber silence. It just makes me wonder how many students of Bob Wald, Slava Mukhanov, etc., have graduated since August 1999, and how many of them will choose to teach GR.
[Ref. 2] V. Mukhanov,
Inflation: Homogeneous Limit. Sample chapter from "Physical Foundations of
Cosmology" published by Cambridge University Press (2005). November 18, 2005,
"Inflation is a stage of accelerated expansion of the universe when gravity acts as a repulsive force."
[Ref. 3] Vasileios Paschalidis,
Alexei Khokhlov, and Igor Novikov, Well-posed constrained evolution of 3+1
formulations of General Relativity,
v2. (None available - D.C.)
Celine Cattoen and Matt Visser, Necessary and sufficient conditions for big bangs, bounces, crunches, rips, sudden singularities and extremality events, gr-qc/0508045 v2, Class. Quantum Grav. 22 (2005) 4913-4930.
"Big rips: A "big rip" is said to occur if a(t)
--> 0 at finite time [7, 8]. We can distinguish a "future rip" from a "past
rip", where the literature to date has solely considered future rips (as a past
rip would be a most unusual and unexpected beginning to the history of the
Subject: Re: Kozma Prutkov on cosmology
From: Dimi Chakalov <email@example.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?
Dear Professor Wald,
Sorry for my bulk email from yesterday; it was the last one indeed.
I wrote: "Would you endorse the submission of paper.doc, from 25 July 2005 (cf. above), to the gr-qc section of ArXiv.org e-print archive?
"If you agree, please write me back.
"Should you find 1 (one) error in paper.doc, please write
me back as
I will be happy to hear from you and from your colleagues. Please feel free to download the paper in DOC and PDF formats, whichever you prefer, from
May I comment on your recent "The Arrow of Time and the
"However, our ignorance of the probabilities of various cosmological occurrences is truly dwarfed by our (nearly) total ignorance of the probability of the existence of observers, since we know virtually nothing about what is really required to produce conscious life."
I believe have tried in my web site to elaborate on the proposition due to Pauli and Jung, which goes back to Leibnitz. Physically, it boils down to the idea of 'quantum-gravitational potential reality'; please see Secs. 3 and 4 in my paper. BTW I believe the very notion of 'isolated system', such as 'the whole universe', needs to be specified by answering the question 'with respect to what?' Well, I dare to suggest that the only truly isolated system is "isolated" w.r.t. the 'quantum-gravitational potential reality'.
You also wrote: "It seems to me to be far more plausible that the answer to the above question (why the observable universe is in the state we find it to be in? - D.C.) as to why the very early universe was in a very low entropy state is that it came into existence in a very special state. Of course, this answer begs the question, since one would then want to know why it came into existence in a very special state, i.e., what principle or law governed its creation. I definitely do not have an answer to this question. But I believe that it will be more fruitful to seek an answer to this question than to attempt to pursue dynamical explanations."
I believe we can 'have our cake and eat it', that is, both pursue dynamical explanations and maintain a very special "dark" state of 'the whole universe', such as the putative 'quantum-gravitational potential reality'. Again, please see Secs. 3 and 4 of the paper, particularly my NB argument on p. 12.
RE: Proceedings of the 9th Gravitational Wave Data Analysis
Workshop, Annecy, France, 15-18 December 2004; CQG Special Issue, expected
online publication September 2005,
Dear Professor Wald,
I wonder if there is at least *one* article from the forthcoming
If none of your colleagues have done that, would you allow me to balance their efforts by publishing my viewpoint in your Journal?
I will be happy if you personally agree to review my article,
Please look at the outline intended to my 12-year old daughter at
My manuscript is ready to land on your desk.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Subject: Re: CQG Special Issue
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:25:28 -0500 (CDT), robert manuel
Dear Professor Wald,
I've done my homework, opened an account, now I'm waiting to hear from Dr. B. Schutz (cf. below). I hope to submit my manuscript very soon.
Dear Dr. Schutz,
In line with IOP Guidelines for reproducing published
material, I am
I will argue [Ref. 3] that the strain of GWs may not be observable *in principle*, and hence need to elaborate extensively on your viewpoint, which, in turns, requires reproducing your two figures, as requested above.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
[Ref. 1] Bernard Schutz, GRAVITY from the Ground Up: An Introductory Guide to Gravity and General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
[Ref. 2] Bernard F. Schutz, Gravitational Radiation, AEI-2000-020,
[Ref. 3] D. Chakalov, Are Gravitational Waves Directly
Subject: Re: CQG Special Issue
Dear Professor Wald,
Regarding my email message from Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:36:54 +0300: I regret to report that I still haven't received any response from Dr. B. Schutz to my request from Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:08:59 +0300 for reproducing published material.
I need to reproduce some crucial text and images from B. Schutz' papers, but cannot of course break IOP Guidelines for reproducing published material. Thus, I am still unable to submit my manuscript to CQG. If some day Dr. B. Schutz allows me to quote from his published papers, I will send you my manuscript ASAP.
Meanwhile, I invite you and all your colleagues to read an outline at
Should you and/or any of your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate. I will be more than happy to elaborate.
Thank you for your time.
Dear Professor Wald,
The hypothesis of inflation/deflation has always puzzled me: how can you link the Beginning (we know nothing about it) to the fast-roll inflation, and "then" link the latter to the slow-roll inflation up to the present moment of time, as read with you wristwatch?
I can't see how some *physical clock*, as defined in GR, could possibly survive if you run it back to the inflation stage, if any.
Perhaps the crux of the matter is in the absence of some time parameter suitable for any dynamical evolution, as advocated by Baez and Geroch,
If this is the case, how is the time measured with your wristwatch different than the "time" of inflation/deflation?
I will be happy to learn the opinion of your colleagues as well.
Thank you very much for your time, as read with your watch.
[Ref. 1] Stefan Hollands, Robert M. Wald.
An Alternative to Inflation. Fri, 31 May 2002 19:04:48 GMT,
Footnote 1: "It also should be noted that for a self-gravitating
system such as our universe, dynamical evolution will normally tend to
make the system become more inhomogeneous with time ("Jeans' instability").
Thus, the isotropy of the microwave background radiation on large scales
would truly be a puzzle if it did have time to equilibrate on these scales.
In other words, it seems overwhelmingly improbable that
a collapsing universe would undergo an era of "deflation" just before the
Footnote 7: "In other words, we suggest that it makes
sense to talk about phenomena "emerging out of the spacetime foam" at length
scales greater than l_0, and that *some* sort of semiclassical description
of such phenomena may be possible even in an era that would correspond
to t << t_p in the naive extrapolation of a semiclassical solution
of Einstein's equations to early times. Note however that we do *not* suggest
that an accurate semiclassical description should be given by such a naive
extrapolation of the classical spacetime metric to time earlier than t_p
. Instead, the "correct" semiclassical description that we have in mind
would presumably be obtained by some suitable "coarse graining" of the
degrees of freedom of quantum gravity over length scales < l_0.
"In summary, we have argued that inflation does not satisfactorily
"solve" the homogeneity/isotropy and flatness "problems" -- nor is any
other dynamical mechanism likely to give a satisfactory explanation of
the homogeneity/isotropy and spatial flatness of our universe. Rather,
a much deeper understanding of the nature of the birth of our universe
undoubtedly will be required."
[Ref. 2] Lev Kofman, Andrei Linde, V.
Mukhanov. Inflationary Theory and Alternative Cosmology. Tue, 11 Jun 2002
"Paradoxically, evaluation of the "alternative to inflation"
proposed in  provides an additional argument in favour of inflation.
"Indeed, in inflationary cosmology the total energy of the scalar field and particles created by its decay is not conserved. (...) The absence of adiabaticity is a key feature of all inflationary models because inflation removes all particles that could be present before inflation; all 10^88 particles that we see now within our cosmological horizon were created by the decaying scalar field.
"Decay of the scalar field and particle production are
irreversible processes, and therefore, quite independently of the issue
of probabilities, time reversal of inflationary evolution *can never produce
the same initial conditions the universe started with*. The scalar field
that decayed at the end of inflation is not going to re-appear again if
one reverses the time evolution. The number of particles produced by this
field, just as the inhomogeneities produced during inflation, will only
grow on the way back to the singularity.
"Thus, inflationary evolution is irreversible, and the
'obvious' requirement of measure preserving evolution is not satisfied
in inflationary cosmology."
"The fact that the ANEC can be violated by classical scalar
fields is significant and important (even with the trans-Planckian caveat).
The ANEC is the weakest of the energy conditions in current use, and violating
the ANEC short circuits all the standard singularity/positive mass/censorship
theorems. This observation piqued our interest and we decided to see just
how weird the physics could get once you admit scalar fields into your
"In summary: The conflict between quantum physics and
gravity is now becoming acute. Problems are no longer confined to Planck
scale physics but are leaking down to arbitrarily low energies and even
into the classical realm. These problems appear to be insensitive to and
independent of high energy phenomena and so it is not at all clear that
a high energy cutoff (string theory, quantum geometry, lattice gravity,
etc...) would do anything to ameliorate them. The situation is both puzzling
[Ref. 4] James E. Kloeppel, "Dark Matter:
Science Doesn't Know What, Where Or How",
[Ref. 5] Steve Bradt, "Planets, Stars
And Gases Make Up Only 5% Of Universe",
Subject: Re: What is deflation time?
Dear Professor Wald,
I have not yet received a reply to my email from Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:00:52 +0300,
In your recent contribution to MOG [Ref. 6], you wrote that "(...) theories that are renormalizable in Minkowski spacetime will also be renormalizable in curved spacetime, although additional "counterterms" corresponding to couplings of the quantum field to curvature will arise."
Sure will. Why waste time with mixing apples with oranges? Let me quote John Wheeler (courtesy by Christopher Fuchs): "We must make as many mistakes as we can, as fast as we can, or we'll never have a hope of gaining a true understanding!" That was 30 years ago, I'm afraid.
To cut the long story short, I've compiled a CD-ROM and if you or any of your colleagues agree for a brief and informal review, I will be happy to send it. More info at
Thank you for your time, as read with your watch. I'm afraid it won't help you nor Prof. Geroch [Ref. 7] to attach gravity to quantum fields and explain the deflation time. What you're looking for may not be there,
Again, I will be happy to mail you and your colleagues my CD-ROM for a brief review.
"A program on "Quantum field theory on curved space times"
was held at the Erwin Schroedinger Institute in Vienna, Austria from July
1 through August 31, 2002. The main goal of this program was to bring together
researchers with expertise in general relativity and researchers with expertise
in mathematical aspects of quantum field theory, in order to address some
problems of mutual interest in quantum field theory in curved spacetime.
Approximately 25 researchers in quantum field theory in curved spacetime
and related areas participated in the program. The following is a brief
summary of some of the main topics and results discussed during the program.
"The upshot is that perturbative renormalization theory for quantum fields in curved spacetime is now on as sound a footing as in Minkowski spacetime. Furthermore, theories that are renormalizable in Minkowski spacetime will also be renormalizable in curved spacetime, although additional "counterterms" corresponding to couplings of the quantum field to curvature will arise."
Source: MATTERS OF GRAVITY, No. 20, Fall 2002,
[Ref. 7] R. Geroch (Monday, July 29, 2002). Diffeomorphism Freedom. 50 years of the Cauchy problem in General Relativity. Cargèse, Corsica, France, July 29 - August 10, 2002.
"A fundamental feature of Einstein's equation is that it manifests gauge freedom associated with diffeomorphisms, and that, up to this freedom, it has a well-posed initial-value formulation. The diffeomorphism freedom, for example, plays a central role in discussions of energy in general relativity (ref) and of gravitational radiation and asymptotic structure (ref). The initial-value formulation underlies virtually every topic in the theory. For instance, "stability" of an astrophysical system refers to the character of the evolution of a small perturbation in initial conditions, i.e., requires, in order to be sensible, an initial-value formulation.
"It would be some interest, given the crucial role this
feature plays in the structure of the theory, to understand better how
it works. One method of doing this would be to formulate a general, practical
characterization of having "gauge freedom associated with diffeomorphisms,
and, up to this freedom, a well-posed initial-value