Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:31:05 +0200
Subject: How to "give and take" with the rest of the universe?
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Xiaolei Zhang <>
CC: Tiberiu Harko <>, 
 Danielle Graham <>,
 James F Woodward <>, 
 Paolo Aschieri <>,
 Marija Dimitrijevic <>, 
 Frank Meyer <>,
 Julius Wess <>, 
 Peter Schupp <>,
 Christian Blohmann <>, 
 James Gilson <>,
 Waldyr A Rodrigues <>

Dear Dr. Zhang,

I found your generalized Mach's principle and nonequilibrium phase transitions [Ref. 1] very interesting, and wonder if you could suggest a mechanism for the emergence of 'inertia' in the cosmos [Ref. 2]. The opinion of your colleagues will be greatly appreciated, too.

My speculations on the instantaneous action and 'generalized Mach's principle' are based on analogies from neuroscience, and are hugely speculative,

I am genuinely interested in your opinion on the generation of inertia, and will keep it private and confidential.

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov
[Ref. 1] Xiaolei Zhang, A Realist Interpretation of the Quantum Measurement Problem, quant-ph/0602212 v1.

p. 3: "A quantum measurement is in general a non-local process. Quantum measurements involve not only the objects being measured, the measuring apparatus, but also involve the "give and take" with the rest of the universe.
"Without a global resonant cavity to determine the modal characteristics, we would not have such things as elementary particles, or fundamental constants themselves. The identity of particles is the result of their being the same mode, and the properties of the fundamental particles are created at the moment of phase transition, since before this transition an electron, say, does not already exist inside a neutron.

p. 7: "In fact, the reference frame established by the entire content of the universe is a convenient one, if the universe is finite. This reference frame obviously possesses the relational nature demanded by Mach’s principle."

[Ref. 2] James F. Woodward, Origin of Inertia: How inertia originates in
the cosmos,


Problems arise when we ask how, in detail, inertial reaction forces are produced by the distant matter in the cosmos. The foregoing argument may leave you with the impression that the distant matter in the universe generates a vector potential field throughout space that acts on bodies immediately when external forces cause them to accelerate.
Inertial reaction forces are instantaneous; there's no doubt whatsoever about that. When you push on something, it pushes back on you immediately. If they're caused chiefly by the most distant matter in the universe, how can that be?

Only three answers to this question seem to be available:

1. Relativity notwithstanding, the force really is propagated instantaneously. The occurrence of so-called "non-local" interactions in quantum phenomena (reported even in the popular press of late) might make such a scheme seem plausible.

2. Some sort of a local field, maybe not our A field, is really the cause of inertia.

3. When you push on an object a gravitational disturbance goes propagating off into either the past or the future. Out there in the past or future the disturbance makes the distant matter in the universe wiggle. The wiggling stuff out there makes up the currents that cause disturbances to propagate from the past or the future back to the object. They all arrive from the past or future just in time to produce the inertial reaction force you feel.

Roughly, the modern instantaneous action argument goes as follows. In general relativity theory matter "there" tells space "here" how to curve, and space "here" tells matter "here" how to move. (Matter "here" also tells space "there" how to curve.) Thus, in order to talk about any situation in dynamics we must specify the distribution and motion of matter throughout space. (Strictly speaking, we must provide "initial data" on some suitably chosen "three dimensional spacelike hypersurface".) The usual field equations for gravity (Einstein's equations) are not enough, by themselves, to do this it turns out. Because of the finite propagation velocity built into them, we might specify some distribution of matter that subsequently leads to idiotic results.

To make sure this doesn't happen, our distribution of matter has to satisfy some additional equations called "constraint" equations. The neat thing about these constraint equations is that, unlike the field equations, they're instantaneous. (Technically, they're "elliptic" rather than "hyperbolic" differential equations.) It's then claimed that inertia is conveyed by the constraint equations -- instantaneously. The use of constraint equations to communicate real physical influences instantaneously is justified by appeal to the instantaneous propagation of stationary electric fields in the Coulomb gauge.


Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:52:53 +0200
Subject: Re: How to "give and take" with the rest of the universe?
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: "Waldyr Alves Rodrigues Jr." <>

Dear Waldyr,

Thank you for your kind reply. I wonder if you can apply Clifford algebra to make some 'two time' formalism: a global time for the "give and take" talk with the rest of the universe, and the observable local time in which we *already* have EPR-like correlated physical stuff in our past light cone, with specified inertial mass.

RE the global time: John Cramer used atemporal "hand-shaking" waves, which cancel *exactly* at a fixed point from the local time, provided we have suitable "mirrors" all +/- infinity, which is a beautiful idea, but it doesn't seem to work,

Hence I can only bet on the Clifford algebra, and you're the expert here.

Best regards,



Subject: gr-qc/0603005 v3
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:09:57 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Christophe Nickner <>

Dear Chris,

It is such a pleasure to read your paper. I hope it will be published soon.

Regarding the master time arrow (p. 18) and your statement that "the additional matter expected to exist alongside normal matter cannot be directly observed" (p. 19), please see

As to the apparent "violation of the principle of inertia" (p. 5): do you know the nature of inertia? I don't. Please see



Note: To understand the enormous task undertaken by Christophe Nickner in his "Theoretical Basis for a Solution to the Cosmic Coincidence Problem", gr-qc/0603005 v3, read Ed Copeland et al., "Dynamics of dark energy", hep-th/0603057 v2 (invited review for International Journal of Modern Physics D): "From the point of view of particle physics, however, the cosmological constant naturally arises as an energy density of the vacuum", but "if the cosmological constant originates from a vacuum energy density, then this suffers from a severe fine-tuning problem" (pp. 12-14).

What do we do then? We simply sweep the garbage under the rug: "Whether or not the zero point energy in field theory is realistic is still a debatable question" (ibid.). Then they added: "The above cosmological constant problem has led many authors to try a different approach to the dark energy issue. Instead of assuming we have a small cosmological constant, we ignore it, presume it is zero due to some as yet unknown mechanism, and investigate the possibility that the dark energy is caused by the dynamics of a light scalar field. It does not solve the cosmological constant problem, ... ".

Instead of postulating some "light scalar field", Christophe Nickner has launched a frontal attack on the dynamical "dark" energy, without any help from the so-called anthropic principle or other "fine tuning" parapsychology. What a brave young guy! I very much hope he will succeed.

I personally believe that we live in a quasi-static universe, in which the "positive matter" part is being chased by a "negative matter" part, along the lines suggested by Sir Hermann Bondi. This pertains to the 'master time arrow', however. If we drop it on the local mode of spacetime, we can only see two frozen, static worlds with "inverted" spacetime basis, as observed here. Notice also that GR currently does not incorporate the three kinds of masses, as explained in the book by Yakov Terletsky.

Details about such quasi-static universe may be available only after we understand the nature of 3-D space, by November 2015, hopefully. In a letter to Paul Ehrenfest dated 4 February 1917, Einstein wrote about his attempt at introducing the cosmological "constant":

"I have again perpetrated something relating to the theory of gravitation that might endanger me of being committed to a madhouse. (Ich habe wieder etwas verbrochen in der Gravitationstheorie, was mich ein wenig in Gefahr bringt, in ein Tollhaus interniert zu werden.)"

Happy Birthday, Albert! The fun part is just around the corner!


D. Chakalov
March 14, 2006