http://archivefreedom.org
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
IS COMMUNISM ALIVE AND WELL AT ArXiv.org
EPRINT ARCHIVE ?
D. Chakalov
Box 13, Dragalevtsy
BG1415 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 ArXiv.org
eprint 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 UserID 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 emailed wwwadmin@arXiv.org
(arXiv_5.txt),
and finally got an autoreply 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 arXivmoderation
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, email 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 3D 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 3D 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 12year 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 multinational 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, paper.zip.
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
http://www.Goddoesnotplaydice.net
http://www.Goddoesnotplaydice.net/download.html

Subject: Phys
Rev D and grqc/0312056 v3
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:17:04
+0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Alan J Weinstein <ajw@caltech.edu>
CC: prd@aps.org, prdcomm@aps.org, prdtex@aps.org,
exoffice@aps.org, focus@aps.org, letters@aps.org,
barish_b@ligo.caltech.edu, blackburn_k@ligo.caltech.edu,
desalvo_r@ligo.caltech.edu, lazzarini_a@ligo.caltech.edu,
nash@ligo.caltech.edu, sanders_g@ligo.caltech.edu,
yamamoto_h@ligo.caltech.edu, Paul
Ginsparg <ginsparg@cornell.edu>
RE: First upper limits from LIGO
on gravitational wave bursts, LIGO Scientific Collaboration: B. Abbott,
et al. grqc/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
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Loinger.html
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 NEBX, 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 crosslisting 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 nonrelativistic 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 timedilation 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 gravitationalwave 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
semitransparent 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
90^{o}, then the two pieces together will completely block all the light. (...) A further rotation by
90^{o} restores transmission. The kind of geometrical object that is turned into itself by an
180^{o} 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 90^{o} rotation?
Recall that the alleged "+" and "x" waveforms
are shifted in
45^{o } [Ref. 9,
Fig. 22.1, p. 312], not in 90^{o}, 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 3D space,
however [Ref. 7]. One
way to do this is to discover some geometrical object which can be turned into itself by an 90^{o}
rotation, in 3D 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 3D space into the longitudinal mode in which
no GWs can propagate, ever. This should be a perfectly legitimate diffinvariant
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 Lshaped 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 ArXiv.org eprint
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, nonradiative 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 socalled 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 3D 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 3D 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 Lshaped tunnels of LIGO? I suggest we convert them
into Lshaped 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
References
[Ref. 1] Clifford
M Will, Relativity at the centenary, Physics World, January 2005,
pp. 16.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/5/1
[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):
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20014
"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 illdefined. This consequence of the nonlinearity 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,
grqc/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 fulltime observing. Within a year or
two we should know whether or not the firststage 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,
grqc/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. 157.
[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, grqc/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, g_{ab}, may be treated as deviating only slightly
from a flat metric, h_{ab }:
g_{ab}
= h_{ab}
+ h_{ab}, h_{ab}
<< 1. (2.1)
Here
h_{ab
}is defined to be diag(1, 1, 1, 1) and h_{ab}
means “the magnitude of a typical nonzero component of h_{ab}”.
Note
that the condition h_{ab} << 1 requires both the gravitational
field to be weak, and in addition constrains the coordinate system to be
approximately Cartesian. We will refer to h_{ab} as the metric
perturbation; as we will see, it encapsulates GWs, but contains additional, nonradiative
degrees of freedom as well.
In
linearized gravity, the smallness of the perturbation means that we only keep
terms which are linear in h_{ab} – higher order terms are discarded.
As a consequence, indices are raised and lowered using the flat metric
h_{ab}.
The metric perturbation h_{ab} transforms as a tensor under Lorentz
transformations, but not under general coordinate transformations.
Subject: grqc/0510044
v1
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:41:09
+0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Michel Leclerc <mleclerc@phys.uoa.gr>
CC: dhs@ligo.mit.edu, pullin@lsu.edu, lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu, box@peterostermann.de
Dear Dr. Leclerc,
In your recent "Canonical and gravitational
stressenergy tensors", grqc/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
http://www.Goddoesnotplaydice.net/download.html#LIGO
http://www.Goddoesnotplaydice.net/arXiv.html#NB
The opinion of your colleagues will
be greatly appreciated, too.
Regards,
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
Physics, abstract
physics/0507133
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
Subjclass: 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
spacebased 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 socalled
dark energy would render the task impossible in principle. The
discussion is kept at conceptual level, to make it accessible to the
general audience.
Which
authors of this paper are endorsers?

