There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, quoted in Life, October 10, 1949




D. Chakalov
Box 13, Dragalevtsy
BG-1415 Sofia, Bulgaria
Thursday, August 4, 2005, 10:25:32 GMT

I know the 'smell' of communism very well. I was born in a horrible communist country, and have lost my job at the BG Academy of Sciences twice, on 31 March 1984 and on 17 March 1987. Instead of working on my Ph.D., I had to learn some special skills, such as working as porter and fixing tiles on bathroom walls (read: Bulgarian lavatories). It was unforgettable experience, but I had no other choice: with two little kids, I had to work as hard as possible.

Now the situation is different, but I get on highly alert when I smell a trace from the same communism, especially in one of the leading U.S. universities, such as Cornell, the home of e-print archive. Here's my story.

1. My paper "Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?" was endorsed on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:15:16 -0400 (see arXiv_1.txt).

2. The abstract (see physics/0507133 below) was supposed to appear in the mailing scheduled to begin at 20:00 Monday US Eastern time (i.e., Tue 19 Jul 05 00:00:00 GMT); see arXiv_2.txt. I got my User-ID for physics/0507133 and Password (arXiv_3.txt).

3. On Monday, 18 July 2005, I tried to access my paper (arXiv_4.txt), but the password was changed. On the next day I e-mailed (arXiv_5.txt), and finally got an auto-reply acknowledgment (arXiv_6.txt) that my message has been received at their local time of Tue Jul 19 04:51:38 2005 (EDT).

4. Finally, I wrote to arXiv-moderation on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:38:48 +0100, requesting explanation for the rejection of my paper (arxiv_7.txt), and on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:38:55 -0400 (see arxiv_8.txt) I was assured (just as in the old communist Bulgaria) that my moderation query "has been received and will be given due consideration. Pending moderation queries are reviewed weekly. Further action is neither necessary nor helpful to speed up the process. (In particular, e-mail to any other addresses about moderation issues will be left unattended.) Thank you for your patience."

Needless to say, I haven't heard from arXiv Moderators. But I know why they keep quiet. Let me explain.

The whole idea of detecting Gravitational Waves (GWs) is build on some very deceptive analogies from electromagnetism. If you consider a light beam coming from the Sun, you can define its direction of propagation. Then you can use two Polaroid filters to cancel the phase of the light beam, by positioning the filters in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the beam: all you have to do is to orient/twist one of the Polaroid filters on 90 degrees with respect to the other one, like the two arms of the letter  L . Thus, you use two spatial directions from the plane, X and Y, and the third spatial direction, Z, which has been defined by the light beam coming to Earth from the Sun. Obviously, Z is perpendicular (transverse) to the plane defined by X and Y, and you have consumed all three axes of the 3-D space. Now, the problem with GW astronomy is that light propagates in spacetime, thanks to which we can use the latter to uniquely define the direction of light propagation in 3-D space, while GWs propagate 'within themselves': there is no "extra dimension" to help you define the propagation of GWs, their phase, and amplitude. People talk about "extra dimension" in parapsychology, while the proponents of GW astronomy talk about some "dimensionless amplitude" of GWs, which they label with some "dimensionless number",  h . Sounds like a stupid joke, only it's real and consumes a lot of cash -- taxpayers' money.

All this is fully comprehensible even to my 12-year old daughter. LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 distinguished scholars) don't get it, however. Or maybe they do, but don't want to cancel their lucrative projects: GW astronomy is a huge multi-national business, supported currently by USA, UK, Germany, Australia, Canada, India, and Spain. If you live in one of these countries, you are paying for it with your taxes.

Thank you for reading this.

The whole story can be downloaded from my web site, I suspect that my name and email address have been blacklisted by Paul Ginsparg's talibans right after my email from Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:17:04 +0200 (see below).

I will chase Paul Ginsparg and his talibans until the end of my days.

Dimi Chakalov
Thursday, August 4, 2005, 10:25:32 GMT


Subject: Phys Rev D and gr-qc/0312056 v3 
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:17:04 +0200 
From: Dimi Chakalov <> 
To: Alan J Weinstein <> 
CC:,,,,,,,,,,,,, Paul Ginsparg <> 

RE: First upper limits from LIGO on gravitational wave bursts, LIGO Scientific Collaboration: B. Abbott, et al. gr-qc/0312056 v3, 21 pages, 15 figures, for submission to Phys Rev D. 

Dear Dr. Weinstein, 

In case you really decide to submit your paper to Phys Rev D, please see

Your publication in Phys Rev D will be quoted for many years to come, as an incredible case of total ignorance of basic facts known since 1917. 

I believe Phys Rev D keeps much higher standards than, say, Proceedings of NEB-X, tenth Greek relativity meeting. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Paul Ginsparg also will be mentioned on numerous occasions, since his people have banned Prof. Angel Loinger from cross-listing to any section of arXiv. Prof. Loinger can publish his rigorous mathematical proof only in section /physics. 

You may say that you don't read sec. /physics; the point is that my email will not bounce, and you will receive it. 

I suppose you are good in math, so may I suggest you to take a real good look at the papers quoted at the URL above. 

Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to write me back. 

If you wish to prove Prof. Angelo Loinger wrong, please don't forget to use some math. 

Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, 

Yours faithfully, 

Dimi Chakalov


Explanatory Note

Let's look at the facts about GWs. What we know for sure is that an astronomical object called PSR 1913+16 has been losing energy in a very peculiar fashion, and Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor have decided to explain it by applying the old Tanzanian saying: "How do we know that Father Christmas has a beard? We know it, because snow falls when he shakes his beard."

Then Hulse and Taylor were awarded Nobel Prize for explaining exactly how we get snow from Father Christmas' beard.

Fair enough. But can we directly observe Father Christmas' beard? That's the whole question. Let's zoom on the facts, as presented by Clifford Will [Ref. 1, p. 5]:

"The binary pulsar

"In 1974 Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor, then at the University of Massachusetts, discovered a binary pulsar called PSR 1913+16 that was to play a crucial role in tests of general relativity. Pulsars emit pulses of radio waves at very regular intervals and are thought to be rotating neutron stars. PSR 1913+16 was special because it was a pulsar that was in orbit around another compact object.

"By carefully measuring small changes in the rate of the pulsar "clock", Hulse and Taylor were able to determine both non-relativistic and relativistic orbital parameters with extraordinary precision. In particular they were able to measure three relativistic effects: the rate of advance of the periastron (the analogue of the perihelion in a binary system); the combined effects of time-dilation and gravitational redshift on the observed rate of the pulsar; and the rate of decrease of the orbital period.

"If we assume that general relativity is correct and make the reasonable assumption that both objects are neutron stars, then all three relativistic effects depend on the two unknown stellar masses. Since we have, in effect, three simultaneous equations and just two unknowns, we can determine the mass of both objects with an uncertainty of less than 0.05%, and also test the predictions of general relativity. If we assume that the orbital period of the system is decreasing due to the emission of gravitational waves, then theory and experiment agree to within 0.2%."

1. If we assume that GR is correct, and assume that we know the physics of neutron stars, and finally assume that the orbital period of the system is decreasing due to the emission of gravitational waves, we would have, in effect, three assumptions. That's a fact.

2. The second fact is that these three assumptions taken en bloc and experiment agree to within 0.2%.

3. It is now 45 years since Joseph Weber initiated his development of gravitational-wave detectors [Ref. 2], and 34 years since Robert Forward [Ref. 3] and Rainer Weiss [Ref. 4] initiated work on interferometric detectors. Yet there is no consensus among theoretical physicists on whether GWs can be directly observed: there are still daunting ambiguities in the quadrupole formula of gravitational "radiation", despite all the efforts of the proponents of GW astronomy to fix them. As acknowledged (emphasis added) by Clifford Will [Ref. 5, Sec. 4.2]:

"These questions were answered in part by theoretical work designed to shore up the foundations of the quadrupole approximation, and in part (perhaps mostly) by the agreement between the predictions of the quadrupole formula and the observed rate of damping of the pulsar's orbit (see Section 5.1)."

4. Back in 1970s, the opponents to the quadrupole approximation were not able to provide an alternative explanation of how the three assumptions taken en bloc and experiment would agree to within 0.2% (cf. above). They just had to shut up. This too is a fact.

5. As of today, the ambiguities in the quadrupole approximation of GW radiation and the resulting "sensitivity limit" are still not resolved [Ref. 6]. All the failures of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) to detect GWs have been interpreted as helpful hints toward the "desired" level of sensitivity of GW interferometric detectors. Subsequently, all the papers and monographs by Prof. Angelo Loinger were totally ignored, and my paper was deleted by ArXiv "moderators".

I believe these are the facts. The crux of the matter, in my view, is in the following.

The proponents of GW astronomy have made an incredible error in treating the "waves" of spacetime metric as 'waves propagating in spacetime', thus ignoring their own warnings [Ref. 7].

And here begins the whole mess of GW astronomy: see again Clifford Will [Ref. 5, Sec. 4.5], and notice that the waveforms h_+(t) and h_x(t) refer to some time variable,  t , pertaining to the amplitude of GWs, denoted with  h .  However,  h  is not a parameter but some mysterious "dimensionless number". But it is not a constant. It certainly evolves, but somehow remains a "dimensionless number" as well. We know from Kip Thorne that GWs (supposedly) travel along null geodesics with "slowly evolving amplitudes and polarizations" [Ref. 8]. Exactly how "slowly" the amplitudes and polarizations would evolve "during" their travel along null geodesics is a huge mystery, since the GW clock that would travel along null geodesics will be dead frozen. In what time would the amplitudes and polarizations evolve?

And how about the phase of GWs? Bernard Schutz explains:

"You can prove that light is a transverse wave by using Polaroid, the semi-transparent material that is used in some sunglasses. If you take two pieces of Polaroid and place them over one another, then if they are oriented correctly they will pass about half the light through that falls on them. But if you rotate one piece by 90o, then the two pieces together will completely block all the light. (...) A further rotation by 90o restores transmission. The kind of geometrical object that is turned into itself by an 180o rotation is a line." [Ref. 9, p. 311]

What geometrical object corresponds to the cancellation of the phase of GWs? Namely, what geometrical object is turned into itself by an 90o rotation?

Recall that the alleged "+" and "x" waveforms are shifted in 45 [Ref. 9, Fig. 22.1, p. 312], not in 90o, as in the example provided by Bernard Schutz above. Such a peculiar "phase" (if any) is nothing but an artifact from the quadrupole approximation. For if it were a genuine phase, then somebody from the LIGO Scientific Collaboration should be able to explain the conditions under which it can be canceled, hence (i) proving that GWs are indeed transverse waves, and (ii) demonstrating the "direction" of the two independent components, the "+" and "x" waveforms, of the mysterious dimensionless number  h  [Ref. 9, Fig. 22.1]. Its "direction" should be transverse to the 3-D space, however [Ref. 7].

One way to do this is to discover some geometrical object which can be turned into itself by an 90o rotation, in 3-D space and using Cartesian coordinates [Ref. 5, Sec. 4.5]. 

Well, this might be tough. Perhaps LIGO Scientific Collaboration can try something else: rotate the whole "installation" in 3-D space into the longitudinal mode in which no GWs can propagate, ever. This should be a perfectly legitimate diff-invariant state, correct? Try to discover it then. If you find it, try to figure it out how would GWs avoid the longitudinal quadrupole mode, and why.

This is the essence of the L-shaped laser interferometers. It is sheer parapsychology, because LIGO Scientific Collaboration does not offer a falsifiable hypothesis under which you can cancel the phase of GWs and switch to the longitudinal quadrupole mode.

Not convinced?

Look at the center (horizontal) line of Fig. 22.1 [Ref. 9]. It gives the wave as a function of time, while the small segment from the vertical line displays the famous amplitude and wave strain of GWs, which come straight from Father Christmas' beard, as explained above.

How do you time the evolution of GWs? With respect to what? Recall that GWs are "oscillations of the "fabric" of spacetime itself" [Ref. 7]. There is no "extra" dimension to define the dynamics of GWs on the whole spacetime [Ref. 5] (as well as to define the dynamic dark energy, which was also the subject of my paper).

NB: How would you separate the "time parameter" of the propagation of GWs, depicted with the center (horizontal) line of Fig. 22.1 [Ref. 9], from the coordinate "time" in GR? How can you find something that is not being affected by GWs, hence can serve as the reference object with respect to which you can detect the distortion of spacetime metric caused by GWs? Can you record the instant at which such distortion enters your light cone?

Sorry, GWs cannot be directly observed. Read also the warning by Steven Weinberg here: "The device measuring, say, the displacements of free mirrors in an interferometer would be "stretched and squeezed" as well." This is as it should be, since LIGO operates with one time parameter only. However, Steven Weinberg has explained his objections in a private email to Leonid Grishchuk (25 February 2003), and has not (yet) submitted a paper to e-print archive. He still prefers to keep quiet.

This whole mess was made possible by introducing a totally illegitimate approximation to Einstein's GR, called 'linearized gravity' [Ref. 10]. It's an oxymoron. It is utterly unclear how these “additional, non-radiative degrees of freedom” [Ref. 10] can be safely distilled from the genuine metric perturbations (if any) caused by GWs. The obvious “merit” of such linear approximation is that, for weak waves, “it is possible to define their energy with reference to the "background" or undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes” [Ref. 9, p. 317].

That's how LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 distinguished scholars) are trying to catch Father Christmas' beard. And they have a lot of cash to spend. Taxpayers' money, of course.

On February 2, 2005, the James S. McDonnell Professor and Nobel Prize Laureate Joseph Hooten Taylor Jr. made the following statement before the Committee on Science at The U.S. House of Representatives:

"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."

I just wonder who made those "wise decisions" to pursue GW astronomy. If they really want to have "open, broadly based mechanisms for setting priorities in astronomy", here's the first off puzzle: GWs exist, but cannot be directly observed, just as the so-called dark energy cannot be directly observed.

Do you remember that we treat spacetime as one entity, after Hermann Minkowski? Look again at the “direction” of  h  [Ref. 9, Fig. 22.1]. It should be transverse to the 3-D space, not just to the x - y plane [Ref. 5], because "gravitational waves are oscillations of the "fabric" of spacetime itself" [Ref. 7]. However, measurements across 3-D space are unphysical [Ref. 9, Fig. 24.3, p. 349], which is why we have “dark” energy. And it isn't a matter of "improving sensitivity" of LIGO, or the Advanced LIGO, or LISA, or the Big Bang Observer to detect the elementary step/increment of time (the intrinsic time interval associated to any timelike displacement) along the cosmological time arrow driven by the "dark" energy. Put it differently, if GW energy does spring from the "dark" one, then the observable physical energy of GWs should not exceed the cosmological constant. If this is the case chosen by Mother Nature, what can we make from these dark long L-shaped tunnels of LIGO? I suggest we convert them into L-shaped wine cellars.

Well, the ArXiv "moderators" didn't like the idea, and my paper was deleted. In the past two and a half years, the sole feedback from LIGO Scientific Collaboration was an email from Dick Gustafson from Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:13:17 -0400: “I don't know you and wish you out of my face, my computer.”

D. Chakalov
Saturday, October 15, 2005, 23:37:46 GMT


[Ref. 1] Clifford M Will, Relativity at the centenary, Physics World, January 2005, pp. 1-6.

[Ref. 2] J. Weber, Phys. Rev., 117, 306 (1960).

[Ref. 3] G.E. Moss, L.R. Miller, and R.L. Forward, Applied Optics, 10, 2495, 1971.

[Ref. 4] R. Weiss, Quarterly Progress Report of RLE, MIT, 105, 54, 1972.

[Ref. 5] Clifford Will, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 4, (2001), 4. URL (cited on 11 May 2001):

"4.3 Einstein's equations in "relaxed" form

"In general relativity, the gravitational field itself generates gravity, a reflection of the nonlinearity of Einstein's equations, and in contrast to the linearity of Maxwell's equations.

"However, because the source [tau_ab] contains [h_ab] itself, it is not confined to a compact region, but extends over all spacetime. As a result, there is a danger that the integrals involved in the various expansions will diverge or be ill-defined. This consequence of the non-linearity of Einstein's equations has bedeviled the subject of gravitational radiation for decades. Numerous approaches have been developed to try to handle this difficulty.

"4.5 Gravitational wave detection

"From the equation of geodesic deviation, the infinitesimal displacement E of the mass along the line of separation from its equilibrium position satisfies the equation of motion 

[Eq. 56]

"In a source coordinate system in which the x - y plane is the plane of the sky and the z -direction points toward the detector, these two modes are given by

[Eq. 57]

"For a laser interferometer with one arm along the laboratory x -axis, the other along the y -axis, and with E defined as the differential displacement along the two arms, the beam pattern functions are [XXX] and [XXX] .

"The waveforms h_+(t) and h_x(t) depend on the nature and evolution of the source."

[Ref. 6] Linqing Wen, Bernard F Schutz, Coherent Network Detection of Gravitational Waves: The Redundancy Veto, gr-qc/0508042 v1.

Comments: Accepted for publication in Classical and Quantum Gravity special edition for proceedings of GWDAW 9, Annecy, France, December 2004

"By the end of 2005, LIGO and GEO are expected to have embarked on full-time observing. Within a year or two we should know whether or not the first-stage sensitivity of these detectors is sufficient to make the first detections of gravitational waves, or whether the field will have to wait for the sensitivity upgrades that are planned over the subsequent five years."

[Ref. 7] K. S. Thorne, Gravitational waves, gr-qc/9506086 v1.

"There is an enormous difference between gravitational waves, and the electromagnetic waves on which our present knowledge of the Universe is based:

"Electromagnetic waves are oscillations of the electromagnetic field that propagate through spacetime; gravitational waves are oscillations of the "fabric" of spacetime itself.

"If the source estimates described in this review article are approximately correct, then the planned interferometers should detect the first waves in 2001 or several years thereafter, thereby opening up this rich new window onto the Universe."

[Ref. 8] Kip S. Thorne, The Theory of Gravitational Radiation: An Introductory Review, in Gravitational Radiation, eds. N. Dereulle and T. Piran, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1983, pp. 1-57.

[Ref. 9] Bernard Schutz, GRAVITY from the Ground Up: An Introductory Guide to Gravity and General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.

(Fig. 22.1, p. 312)


(Fig. 24.3, p. 349)

[Ref. 10] Eanna Flanagan and Scott Hughes, The basics of gravitational wave theory, gr-qc/0501041 v3.


2. The basic basics: Gravitational waves in linearized gravity


The most natural starting point for any discussion of GWs is linearized gravity. Linearized gravity is an adequate approximation to general relativity when the spacetime metric, gab, may be treated as deviating only slightly from a flat metric, hab :


gab =  hab + hab,    ||hab|| << 1.     (2.1)


Here  hab  is defined to be diag(-1, 1, 1, 1) and ||hab|| means “the magnitude of a typical non-zero component of hab”.


Note that the condition ||hab|| << 1 requires both the gravitational field to be weak, and in addition constrains the coordinate system to be approximately Cartesian. We will refer to hab as the metric perturbation; as we will see, it encapsulates GWs, but contains additional, non-radiative degrees of freedom as well.


In linearized gravity, the smallness of the perturbation means that we only keep terms which are linear in hab – higher order terms are discarded. As a consequence, indices are raised and lowered using the flat metric  hab. The metric perturbation hab transforms as a tensor under Lorentz transformations, but not under general coordinate transformations.



Subject: gr-qc/0510044 v1
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:41:09 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Michel Leclerc <>

Dear Dr. Leclerc,

In your recent "Canonical and gravitational stress-energy tensors", gr-qc/0510044 v1, you said that "outside of the matter distribution, there will be no gravitational energy density. This is rather disappointing, especially in view of potential applications concerning gravitational waves."

I wonder if you'd agree with my views at

The opinion of your colleagues will be greatly appreciated, too.


Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU


Physics, abstract

From: Dimi Chakalov [view email]
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:59:24 GMT   (196kb)

Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?

Authors: Dimi Chakalov
Comments: Comments, corrections, suggestions will be appreciated
Subj-class: General Physics; Space Physics
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.

Full-text: PDF only

Which authors of this paper are endorsers?


Links to: arXiv, physics, /find, /abs (-/+), /0507, ?



Subject: Re: Quantum Physics confronts Einstein's Gravity
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:51:44 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Don Marolf <>
CC: Matt Visser <>,

Dear Professor Marolf,

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:06:31 -0700, you wrote:

> As I am sure you can appreciate, we are not able to engage in physics
> discussions with every arxiv author.

I expect that you and Prof. Visser would be willing to engage in physics discussions with each and every arxiv author who offers a brand new path to quantum gravity. I believe this is the case with my Ansatz. Please see my preceding email printed below.

> As a result, we and the arxiv ask that you send all related inquiries to:

This is what I did. I'm afraid you haven't read my email. See the last link in it.

> Please do not expect direct communication from the moderators.

I do expect direct communication from the "moderators" in such outrageous case of censorship. This is totally irresponsible and unprofessional behavior on behalf of your colleagues. The LIGO mafia is wasting hundreds of millions dollars and euro, and arxiv "moderators" simply deleted my paper, without any explanation. That's communist
censorship, plain and simple.

In the future, please do read my email before replying to it.

Thank you.

D. Chakalov

> On 9/21/05 4:49 AM, "Dimi Chakalov" <> wrote:
> > RE: Matt Visser, Quantum Physics confronts Einstein's Gravity,
> > Washington University, Science Saturdays, 13 October 2001
> >
> >
> > Dear Professor Visser,
> >
> > You said that "there must be some theory, call it "quantum gravity",
> > that reproduces both quantum physics and Einstein gravity in
> > appropriate limits" (slide 26), hence the "elegance trick" (slide 20)
> > could be some brand new approach to both quantum physics and
> > Einstein gravity, which would provide them with some 'common
> > denominator', hence we could reproduce them in the "appropriate
> > limits".
> >
> > I believe the 'common denominator' can be found by providing the two
> > theories with what they do *not* have: the notion of reality. It's just
> > a different kind of reality, called 'potential reality'. Example at
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if you and Prof. Marolf agree with the interpretation at the
> > link above. Your opinion is very important to me, since you and Prof.
> > Marolf will be the moderators of physics.GR, and I'm afraid you may
> > reject my future papers in the same way as the current "moderators"
> > did with my paper on GWs,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Dimi Chakalov


Subject: Re: Quantum Physics confronts Einstein's Gravity
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:32:04 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Don Marolf <>
CC: Matt Visser <>,
"Mário Novello" <>,
Steven B Giddings <>,
Tom Banks <>,
Simon F Ross <>,
James B Hartle <>

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:06:31 -0700, Message-ID:
<>, Don Marolf wrote:
> Dear Mr. Chakalov,
> As I am sure you can appreciate, we are not able to engage in physics
> discussions with every arxiv author.

You haven't responded to my email from Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:51:44 +0300,

in which I wrote: "The LIGO mafia is wasting hundreds of millions dollars and euro, and arxiv "moderators" simply deleted my paper, without any explanation. That's communist censorship, plain and simple."

I believe you know the moderators of physics.GR, who deleted my paper.

Or maybe you did it. If true, perhaps you'll never acknowledge it, and will also never reply to the following questions.

1. Regarding the "intrinsic uncertainty in measurements" [Ref. 1].

Q1. Given "the bound (6.7) that says there is no way to simultaneously
measure all of the field theory degrees of freedom at a resolution 1/x
in a region of size larger than given by (6.7), using only degrees of
freedom inside the region" [Ref. 1, p. 36] -- which suggests "an
intrinsic uncertainty in measurements, above and beyond that of quantum
mechanics" [ibid., p. 39] -- can you measure IN PRINCIPLE the wave
strain from GWs?

2. Regarding the amplitude of GWs: is not a parameter but some mysterious "dimensionless number". But it is not a constant. It certainly evolves, but somehow remains a "dimensionless number" as well,

Q2: Is the amplitude of GWs "diffeomorphism-invariant and relational observable" [Ref. 1]?

3. Regarding the "evolution" of GWs, in Dirac-ADM "dynamics" of GR:

Q3: Is the time variable, t , pertaining to the amplitude of GWs,
"diffeomorphism-invariant and relational observable" [Ref. 1]?

4. Regarding the alleged phase of GWs:

Q4: What geometrical object is turned into itself by an 90 degree

More on this whole mess, as introduced by Kip Thorne, at

As to your "causal boundary technology" (hep-th/0303044 v2, gr-qc/0303025 v1, hep-th/0208197 v3), which is needed to resolve the
long-standing problems of GWs [Ref. 2], perhaps you may wish to see the
ideal (end)points at

General considerations on GWs at

And on quantum gravity at

I will be happy to elaborate, should you or any of your colleague choose to reply to Q1-Q4 above. If possible, please start with Q4.

It seems to me that LIGO and all other ground- and space-based devices
are manifestly blind and deaf to the quasi-local nature of GW energy,
firstly, and secondly -- they cannot provide the essential *shielding*
from GWs, which is needed to fix a *reference object* with UNdisturbed

Please feel free to correct my statements above and show my errors, which will hopefully help me understand why was my paper on GWs deleted
by the moderators of physics.GR (or by you).

If you have the guts to speak openly on the so-called GW astronomy,
perhaps you, Steven Giddings, and Jim Hartle would consider a fifth version of your hep-th/0512200. Just a thought.


D. Chakalov


[Ref. 1] Steven B. Giddings, Donald Marolf, James B. Hartle, Observables
in effective gravity, hep-th/0512200 v4.

[Ref. 2] Roger Penrose. A remarkable property of plane waves in general
relativity, Reviews of Modern Physics, 37(1), 215-220 (1973).


Note: I will print below some excerpts from Giddings-Marolf-Hartle paper [Ref. 1]. Notice that the illustrative examples in Sec. 4 do not explicitly refer to any ‘pseudo-local’ observables relevant to GW astronomy.

The problems of the seemingly "local" observables in classical GR are widely known (see, e.g., the definition of 'gravitational energy' here, and Charles Torre here), but I couldn't figure it out how these problems may be resolved with the ‘pseudo-local’ observables introduced in [Ref. 1].

Also, it is unclear to me what are the implications for GW astronomy from:

(i) "this property is critically dependent on the state(s) in which the observables are evaluated" (p. 24),

(ii) "the correlations we desire will typically arise only in special states of the system" and "the state plays a key role in the recovery of the notion of locality itself" (p. 26),   and

(iii) "locality is only recovered in an approximation, and is in general spoiled by both quantum and gravitational effects. Thus locality is both relative and approximate." (p. 38)

NB: If the state plays "a key role" (notice the poetry) in the recovery of the notion of locality itself, but the locality turns out to be "both relative and approximate", then perhaps you're dealing with the potential point(s); more here.

Isn't that simple? All you need is the correct math.

If you want to start from scratch, recall that the strong version of the equivalence principle in classical GR requires the strict notion of "point" (reference here), hence in order to develop a complete theory of quantum gravity you need to find a quantum version of the strong equivalence principle, which in turns means that both QM and GR have to be modified, as suggested here.

This is not the choice of Giddings-Marolf-Hartle, since they carry the problems of QM and GR into their efforts to build quantum gravity, much like Thomas Thiemann.

Fine. It's a free world. To find out whether Giddings-Marolf-Hartle are on the right tack, I suggested to elaborate on the implications from their ‘pseudo-local’ observables for GR astronomy. Shall we read the fifth version of hep-th/0512200 [Ref. 1]?

I am seriously doubtful that they have the guts to do it.

D. Chakalov
September 13, 2006

From the abstract from [Ref. 1]: "We address the construction and interpretation of diffeomorphism-invariant observables in a low-energy effective theory of quantum gravity. The observables we consider are constructed as integrals over the space of coordinates, in analogy to the construction of gauge-invariant observables in Yang-Mills theory via traces. As such, they are explicitly non-local. Nevertheless we describe how, in suitable quantum states and in a suitable limit, the familiar physics of local quantum field theory can be recovered from appropriate such observables, which we term ‘pseudo-local.’ We consider measurement of pseudo-local observables, and describe how such measurements are limited by both quantum effects and gravitational interactions.

"An outstanding and central issue in the quantum mechanics of gravity is the identification and interpretation of observables, see e.g. [1] and references therein.
[1] K. Kuchar, "Time and Interpretations of Quantum Gravity," in Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics ed. Kunstatter G et. al. (New Jersey: World Scientific, 1992).
"We are manifestly local observers within our own cosmological spacetime, and ultimately one of the goals of physics must be a precise mathematical description of the observations we make.

"Section four focuses on a special subclass of these observables, the "pseudo-local" observables, which in certain approximations reduce to local observables of field theory; we do so primarily by giving illustrative examples.

p. 12: "For a classical solution of the form (4.1), the delta function picks out a definite point. Moreover, it will pick out a finite set of points in a generic perturbation of (4.1). Thus, operators of the form (4.3) qualify as pseudo-local observables.

"The operator defined in (4.3) is not only Poincare invariant, but also diffeomorphism invariant under changes of coordinates [XXX]. [X] is, however, potentially problematic to define in the context of a quantum field theory due to the [delta]-function of quantum fields in (4.3).

p. 24: 5.1. Measurement: generalities

"The examples of the preceding section have illustrated how certain "pseudo-local" diffeomorphism-invariant observables reduce to the usual local observables of quantum field theory. As we have seen, this property is critically dependent on the state(s) in which the observables are evaluated.
p. 26: "5.2. Measurement and relational observables

"Although they are non-local, a connection between measurement and correlation can nevertheless emerge from a treatment of relational diffeomorphism-invariant observables. However, the correlations we desire will typically arise only in special states of the system.

"This is a standard feature of measurement situations (see e.g. [53]), but is especially prominent here since, as described in section 4, the state plays a key role in the recovery of the notion of locality itself.

p. 38: "This paper has addressed the construction and interpretation of
diffeomorphism-invariant observables of effective quantum gravity. In particular, we study operators constructed via integrals, in analogy to the construction of gauge-invariant observables in Yang-Mills theory via traces. A particularly important class of such operators are the "pseudo-local" operators, which in certain circumstances reduce to the local observables of field theory. This happens only in certain states, and the information about location is encoded in the interplay of the operator relative to the state.

"Moreover, locality is only recovered in an approximation, and is in general spoiled by both quantum and gravitational effects. Thus locality is both relative and approximate."




The message below was sent by email on Monday, July 25, 2005, to 377 recipients. Nobody has agreed so far to endorse the submission of my paper to the gr-qc section of e-print archive. On the other hand, even my 12-year old daughter can understand the basic ideas. Read them here.

D. Chakalov
Wednesday, August 17, 2005, 18:37:44 GMT

==[Start of message]==

From: Dimi <>
Subject: Re: Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?
Date: Monday, 25 July 2005

[This is the last bulk email from D. Chakalov]

Dear colleague,

Please excuse my bulk email, again. This is the last one.

Please see paper.doc from 25 July 2005 in
(310,685 bytes)

The first version of the paper, 0507133.pdf from 18 July 2005 (included in, was rejected "upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it inappropriate for the physics archive"; see arxiv_7.txt in

The same "moderators" have banned Angelo Loinger from posting papers at gr-qc section, since July 2000: his latest paper posted on gr-qc section is gr-qc/0007048 v1 from Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:23:13 GMT.

Angelo Loinger has published two monographs and many articles on GWs, all of them totally ignored. His latest papers appear only in sec. 'general physics'.

The same "moderators" have even banned Angelo Loinger from cross-listing to gr-qc section.

Meanwhile NSF has granted LIGO Scientific Collaboration nearly $500,000,000 -- taxpayers' money -- and all papers by LIGO Scientific Collaboration appear in the gr-qc section of e-print archive.

This is a bit too much, isn't it?

Would you endorse the submission of paper.doc, from 25 July 2005 (cf. above), to the gr-qc section of e-print archive?

If you agree, please write me back.

Should you find 1 (one) error in paper.doc, please write me back as well.

With all good wishes,

Dimi Chakalov

==[End of message]==