Atemporal loop 'now'

"The representation of matter by a tensor was only a fill-in to make it possible to do something temporarily, a wooden nose in a snowman."

Albert Einstein's Last Lecture, Relativity Seminar, Room 307, Palmer Physical Laboratory, Princeton University, April 14, 1954


"In the first place, we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception."

Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1920


"According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time."

A. Einstein, Äther und Relativitätstheorie, May 5, 1920

(Lisa M. Dolling et al., The Tests of Time: Readings in the Development of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2003, p. 346)

Panta rei conditio sine qua non est

Your Global Time is ZERO

It is suggested that the spacetime manifold is a dynamical entity re-created at every step of a hypothetical spacetime arrow; the latter is due to the "expansion" of space by the dynamic dark energy (DDE). Two modes of spacetime are postulated in this Phoenix Universe: local mode, in which we have point-like events cast on a perfect continuum, with a "carpe diem" unit probability (cf. the measurement problem in QM here), and a global atemporal mode, in which a Machian-type negotiation of every next step is being processed. The effects from the global mode of spacetime, which literally build up '3-D space', begin from the macro-scale of classical physics in two "directions": quantum effects toward the Small, and dark matter & dark energy effects toward the Large. Briefly, we model the universe as a huge brain which 'thinks' with its global-mode state by following the rule 'think globally, act locally'. The implications for quantum gravity are explained by revealing the two modes of spacetime in Quantum Theory and General Relativity, and by suggesting conceptual solutions to the problems and paradoxes hindering the quantum gravity of He Who Does Not Play Dice.

Does a fish need a bicycle?

 

Latest update: November 26, 2009

Printable copy (current version) from

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/front_page.pdf

 

Check out 'Quantum Mechanics 101' here, my detailed reproach upon wasting taxpayers' money with LIGO here, and my efforts toward quantum gravity here.

Regarding Quantum Mechanics (QM), the aim is to avoid the incomprehensible paradoxes and artifacts in it (watch the double slit experiment here), which originate from its textbook interpretation (Niels Borh's belief that quantum world can only be "seen" through classical "glasses"). We can indeed understand the quantum world (but not the current QM textbooks; cf. Richard Feynman), by changing the "glasses" through which we "see" and construe the quantum world: the universe modeled as a brain.

Regarding the artifacts in QM, we may be in a situation similar to an Eskimo trying very hard to comprehend the notion of "trunk". In our case, we encounter an incomprehensible wave-particle complementarity, which could be just an artifact from our wrong thinking, like the "nose-arm complementarity" in the case of the Eskimo observing elephant's trunk. Surely 'the quantum system' doesn't live in any relativistic space, so one should expect all sorts of headaches and artifacts (e.g., "diese verdammte Quantenspringerei", Erwin Schrödinger) from imposing wrong "glasses" onto the quantum world 'out there'. (A typical example is Franco Selleri's quest for detecting de Broglie waves.)

The prerequisites for the interpretation of QM suggested here originate from Schrödinger. Back in 1935, Erwin Schrödinger stressed the following:

"The rejection of realism has logical consequences. In general, a variable has no definite value before I measure it; then measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value that it has."

And in a letter to Einstein dated 18 November 1950 (quoted after J. Bub, p. 115), he wrote (emphasis added):

“It seems to me that the concept of probability is terribly mishandled these days. Probability surely has as its substance a statement as to whether something is or is not the case — an uncertain statement, to be sure. But nevertheless it has meaning only if one is indeed convinced that the something in question quite definitely is or is not the case. A probabilistic assertion presupposes the full reality of its subject.”

We are obviously dealing with a new form of reality: a probabilistic assertion, and the Hilbert space itself, cannot accommodate the Kochen-Specker case in which "the something in question" is beyond an unequivocal "is or is not" state (cf. "an unequivocal true-false value" in Isham and Butterfield, p. 3; emphasis added):

Check out the implications of KS Theorem to the Precise Value Principle (PVP) and the statistical interpretation of QM from R.I.G. Hughes, p. 164.

Going back to Ernst Specker's tripod, if there are states of the tripod in which one of its legs has UNdecidable color, then not just this particular leg, but the whole tripod will be UNdecidable. It's a package.

The phrase "an incomplete Kochen-Specker colouring" (Helena Granström, p. 2) has no meaning whatsoever; it is the result from imposing wrong "glasses" onto the quantum world. And if you subscribe to the modern quantum mysticism -- "the quantum state is not a physical object, it is a representation of our state of knowledge, or belief" (Itamar Pitowsky, p. 28) -- your brain will wind up in a schizophrenic state of, say, 68% "knowledge" of the quantum state, and 32% of "[what da heck is that uncolored KS sphere?]".

No mental concepts, such as 'knowledge' or 'imagination', are admissible in the ontology of quantum reality. We must never mix apples with oranges (Res Extensa and Res Cogitans).

Karl Svozil refers to this UNdecidable faculty of the quantum world as "ambiguity" (p. 4), and stressed: "This ambiguity gets worse as the number of particles increases." If you think about the quantum world with classical concepts, it will get from bad to worse, until you end up with the (old) cosmological "constant" problem (more on that from Alan Guth).

As Erwin Schrödinger might have said in 1935, the same "variable" that has had no definite value before you measured it will continue to keep its UNdecidable nature after you "measure" it as well. And you can't fit it in any Hilbert space, of course (what is the dim(H) for 32% "uncolored" and 68% colored KS sphere?).

Let's give it a name: potential reality. In the quantum realm, it (i) offers its context-dependent explications (a.k.a. "observables"), (ii) keeps the sameness (Genidentität, Kurt Lewin) of particles of the same type, which MTW regard as "a central mystery of physics" (p. 1215), and (iii) facilitates the ultimate quantum phenomenon: entanglement. It may be difficult to grasp, but is much simpler to the juggling with the possible implications from Bell's inequality and their loopholes (e.g., Ghim and Zhang).

As to quantum gravity (notice the opinion of an expert here), the 'potential reality' is introduced to revive the physical objectivity of spacetime "points", by making the spacetime manifold itself an emergent phenomenon: "The requirement of general covariance takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity" (A. Einstein, Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik 49 (1916) 769-822). The current formulation of GR can only determine "the mutual relations that exist between the gravitational field and the matter fields (i.e. the value the gravitational field takes where the matter field takes such and such value)", but not "the proper time between spacetime points" (Wiki; more from Butterfield and Isham), and the field equations "cannot even uniquely determine the topology of a manifold" (Alan Macdonald, Einstein's Hole Argument, p. 4).

How can we fix these problems? By introducing two connections, geometric (local mode) and torsion (global mode of spacetime). The torsion connection is completely vanished (Hehl and Obukhov) in the local mode, hence its effect are considered "dark" (see Alex Murphy).

Notice also that a hierarchy of 'potential reality' (never in plural), resembling the structure of cognitive concepts, is postulated (application here). In metaphysical terms, it supports the views of Aristotle and Spinoza: no "parts" of the infinite can exist, as the infinite Substance is indivisible. It's not like Russian dolls.

In the case of a human brain (not mind or consciousness), the UNspeakable potential reality can be explicated with, for example, three (and many more) sayings, which produce "measurements" (if you prefer QM jargon) on it:

1. All are not hunters that blow the horn.
2. La robe ne fait pas le médecin.
3. Es ist nicht jeder ein Koch, der ein lang Messer trägt.

None of these "measurements" can "collapse" the potential reality (Platonic idea) explicated with these sayings. And if our brain can work with 'potential reality', so can the universe modeled as a brain.

Regarding the brain above your neck: its 'potential reality' is to its human self what EM radiation is to your subjective experience of 'color' -- no direct action of the human self on its brain is allowed in science. Hence it may be conceivable that the potential reality entwined with the human brain could be bridged to that of the quantum vacuum (BCCP). All you may need is an arrow of spacetime. (Notice, however, the 'two rules of success' here.)

Notice also that 'potential reality' is an intrinsically holistic phenomenon, so it will be very misleading to call it "dark", just because it is not possible to be traced back from any of its physical explications in the r.h.s. of Einstein field equation.

Forget about "energy conservation in GR". It's an oxymoron (details from Denisov and Logunov). What kind of "time" is implied in the non-linear dynamical cancellation of the two "fluxes" (Merced Montesinos), such that the ether would not "come back"? Can your wristwatch read it?

The sole "explanation" of this ultimate puzzle of GR, offered by Chris Isham, was that, "after all, general relativity does seem to work well as a theory, and yet I can certainly read the time on my wrist watch!" But your wristwatch should not be able to read more than one instant from this (global) non-linear "time". Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers (Murphy's Law No. 15).

We need quantum gravity, to uncover "the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories" (Carlo Rovelli; drawings here) and the genuine 'time variable' associated with the expansion of space due to DDE. Once we achieve this formidable task, we will (hopefully) find out what -- if anything -- might remain unchanged/conserved in this particular (global mode of) time. In the current 'GR without DDE', the dynamics is "entirely generated by constraints. The dynamical data do not explicitly include a time variable" (Karel Kuchar), and one can only hope that "the energy momentum tensor which is the source of gravity" might be conserved "due to the Bianchi identities" (E. Guendelman, p. 9). Such hopes are (i) utterly murky even in the textbook GR, because any observable of the gravitational field is "necessarily quasi-local" (Laszlo Szabados) and (ii) not applicable to the new dynamics of GR due to DDE. For example, Noether's Theorem holds only for flat spacetime, and the Bianchi identities are applicable only for 'GR without DDE'.

At this point, I got an emotional response from Eduardo Guendelman, saying that the Bianchi identity is a mathematical theorem, so there is no ambiguity involved here. Well, I'm just a psychologist, so let me quote Matt Visser, p. 3:

"... the Einstein equations of general relativity are local equations, relating some aspects (notice the poetry -- D.C.) of the spacetime curvature at a point to the presence of stress-energy at that point. Additionally, one also has local chronology protection, inherited from the fact (Sic! -- D.C.) that the spacetime is locally Minkowski (the Einstein Equivalence Principle), and so “in the small”  (that's the sole application of those 'twice-contracted Bianchi identities', cf. George F R Ellis and Henk van Elst, Eq. 2 -- D.C.)  general relativity respects all of the causality constraints of special relativity.

"What general relativity does not do is to provide any natural way of imposing global constraints on the spacetime — certainly the Einstein equations provide no such nonlocal constraint."

Which is precisely the missing element needed to address the 'global properties of spacetime' in the presence of DDE. As R. Rakhi and K. Indulekha acknowledged (p. 5): "Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence (the same phrase was used by Sean Carroll -- D.C.), more of this energy-of-space would appear. (...) So the mystery continues."

And so does the confusion about it -- click here.

The intrinsic dynamics of the phenomenon of 'more space comes into existence' could only be detected in a reference frame from which this phenomenon is excluded, like 'not acting there'. But because DDE acts on the whole 3-D space en bloc, without any irregularities, there is no place in the universe in which we could install a clock and say -- look, this clock does read the (global mode of) time pertaining to the omnipresent phenomenon of 'more space comes into existence'. It is the theory of relativity itself, which cannot "detect" it. Which is why some people call it "dark".

Although the mathematical meaning of the phrase "more space comes into existence" is not clear, I don't think Kurt Gödel would have called the ultimate source of spacetime points "dark". Once we move from physics to geometry, it's a whole new world there. Pity Mike Turner called it "dark"; that's so wrong!

One cannot insert the "dark" energy of  X  into its consequence -- accelerated expansion of space. The source  X  does not belong, and cannot be fitted into the same 3-D space (Cauchy hypersurface) which is being created by  X . You can do this only in GR textbooks that deal with 'GR without DDE'. Capiche?

Notice also that Matt Visser (see above) considers the metaphysical assumption that the spacetime were "locally Minkowski (the Einstein Equivalence Principle)" to represent a fact. But we only have a mathematical fact that  locally , "over" a point, one can indeed eliminate the gravitational "field" by hand (Hermann Weyl). But because nobody has so far explained the resulting quasi-local nature of the gravitational field's observables (see Laszlo Szabados above), nor the origin and the mechanism of inertial reaction "forces", I think we should be very cautious and open-minded in interpreting such mathematical facts and theorems, like the above-mentioned Bianchi identity.

If you are looking for a genuine quantum-gravitational measuring device, your wristwatch (as well as the one of Kip Thorne) fits the bill, because it reads an already-linearized (see the explanation of 'already' below) time variable obtained from the "the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories" (Carlo Rovelli) and the (global mode of) time associated with the expansion of space due to DDE.

This is to me the ultimate puzzle in present-day GR. The sole "explanation" of Chris Isham was that, "after all, general relativity does seem to work well as a theory, and yet I can certainly read the time on my wrist watch!"

I will desist to comment on C. Isham's observation, and will instead take the liberty of being (again) deadly boring, by explaining the difference between 'GR without DDE' vs 'GR with DDE'.

First, a simple example from STR, with a trajectory of a Frisbee, on the fixed background of Minkowski spacetime: we can calculate the instantaneous state of the Frisbee at each point from the trajectory, and attach to this dimensionless point a well-defined vector. My teenage daughter couldn't understanding how it is possible to attach a vector to a "point", and I explained the puzzle by saying that the information from a finite interval from the history of this infinitesimal "point" is encapsulated in it -- we instruct this interval to shrink asymptotically toward zero -- so the vector is indeed well-defined. All this is possible under the premise of the fixed "grid" in STR. But once we move to 'GR without DDE', the "grid" is gone (Emilio Elizalde): at each and every "point" from the trajectory, the non-linear mutual determination of matter and space (John Wheeler) takes place. But in what time (see Chris Isham's wrist watch above)? There is no background grid or "ether" w.r.t.w. one can define the dynamics of 'GR without DDE'. Yet people don't ask such questions and prefer to just do calculations with the linearized approximation of 'GR without DDE'. As another expert explained to his undergraduates, "one begins by introducing the notion of a tangent vector to describe an infinitesimal displacement about a point  p " (Bob Wald, p. 4). But again, in order to recover the true dynamics of 'GR without DDE', you need some "ether" or rather 'reference fluid' w.r.t.w. one can describe the fundamental phenomenon of transience (Abner Shimony): see the so-called Aristotelian Connection here.

At this point, the 'GR with DDE' comes to rescue the Hamiltonian formulationof 'GR without DDE': we have a brand new, global degree of freedom of spacetime en bloc, hence can recover the transience of spacetime, as driven by the source of DDE, along the arrow of spacetime -- see above.

To identify this same source in the quantum realm (called 'potential reality'), let's go back to the interpretation of QM here.

In a nutshell, the so-called PR² interpretation of QM offers a solution to the non-unitary "collapse" by replacing the alleged "U" and "R" processes with a new (at least to people like Ed Witten, Steven Weinberg and Gerardus 't Hooft) form of reality, known since Plato, called here 'potential reality'. Its quantum presentation is ubiquitous and has zero entropy; hence the familiar notion of time, which pertains to monotonic increase of entropy "in time", is not applicable to 'potential reality'. It may produce "shadows" in terms of 'quantum observables', yet these "shadows" cannot be traced back, to reveal any evidence of such events (or "quantum information") ever having emerged from 'potential reality'. It may act, yet not experience any backaction from its "shadows". Hence it is the ultimate "background" for QM and GR. It evolves along the arrow of spacetime (resembling the "memory" of the universe), by unfolding from 'the ideal monad without windows'. In the local mode of spacetime, every "point" is filled with an already explicated value of its 'potential reality', and as the latter evolves and becomes enriched, the "number" of its localized explications increases accordingly: more and more things come into existence in the universe. As John Wheeler put it, "Time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once". Only with 'potential reality' there is no need nor place for any 'unitary dynamics' in the local mode of spacetime. This is the metaphysics of 'the universe modeled as a brain', viz. the interpretation of 'expansion of space' along the arrow of spacetime.

From this perspective, if we follow the deflation time arrow in the local mode of spacetime, things will gradually fade away in a strictly non-unitary fashion, but will only approach asymptotically The Beginning, because it is logically impossible to reach It from/within the local mode of spacetime (cf. the paradox here). The solution is 'dual age cosmology'.

As M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle have noticed, "quantum mechanics is best and most fundamentally understood in the framework of quantum cosmology" (quoted after Claus Kiefer, p. 1). And vice versa.

The current situation with inflationary cosmology was presented by Alan H. Guth, the winner of the 2009 Isaac Newton medal, on 13 October 2009. He speculated that our galaxy could be an amplified "quantum fluctuation" (Part 2, 3:30 - 6:16),

... and then confessed his "Nightmare of Dark Energy" (Part 2, 11:36), on which the "eureka" of inflationary cosmology is grounded.

Perhaps Alan Guth should have entitled his talk 'The Dark Energy Nightmares of Inflationary Cosmology', as encapsulated in the [?] area in V. Mukhanov's paper:

With the so-called dual age cosmology, the "first" Plankian time "after" The Beginning is stretched toward infinity in the local mode of time. This is otherwise being explained as 'the universe started asymptotically from time zero'. In this local mode of time (read by your wristwatch), the universe is effectively eternal and its age is indecisive, while in the global mode of time it has a finite age. Another nice feature of dual age cosmology is that The Beginning is an atemporal phenomenon, and is always present (global mode of time) in the instant 'now'.

Let's go back to QM. Think of a trajectory of a Frisbee: at each "point" from the trajectory (the latter could be a perfect continuum of such "points"), the state of the Frisbee is a perfectly well defined fact, with a 'carpe diem' unit probability. I use this simple idea to introduce a new kind of cancellation mechanism, pertinent to 'potential reality', for removing the non-unitary "R" process (historical account from October 2002 here); hence the motto of this web site, since July 1997: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

Notice that not only the "R" process is being removed (as did Hugh Everett III in his relative state interpretation of QM), but the alleged "U" process and Hilbert space as well.

The established theoretical physics community, particularly Niels Bohr, ridiculed Everett's interpretation to the extent to which Hugh Everett left physics (and became millionaire).

NB: Notice that if the PR² interpretation of QM is correct, then all tentative solutions proposed for the measurement problem and the classical limit of QM, based on either probabilistic or "toposification" (Chris Isham), ‘neo-realist’ interpretation of QM (Cecilia Flori, p. 211), will necessarily be wrong.

The next step is to elaborate on the continuum of such explicated quantum states (local mode of spacetime), which emerges from the back bone of the whole physical world (global mode). Here we enter quantum gravity, particularly the emergence of time and space from "something else" (Isham and Butterfield): check out the arrow of spacetime here, and think of 'the whole universe' as a huge brain which self-determines its consecutive quantum-gravitational states in line with the Bootstrap Principle of Geoffrey Chew. Also, the alleged quantum "fluctuations" are interpreted as flexibility of 'the quantum state' to offer potential states, one of which to be chosen (one by one) by 'everything else in the universe'. Hence the speculation about some "spacetime foam" and the insoluble problems from it (how do you tell apart spacelike from timelike at Planck scale?) are avoided from the outset. Possible practical implications are outlined here.

As in the case of Hugh Everett, many theoretical physicists jumped to play the role of Niels Bohr, chief among them was Britain's leading expert in quantum gravity, who declared seven years ago (Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:24:15 +0100):

"You do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area."

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has so far offered some new cancellation mechanism as a joint solution to the measurement problem of QM and the cosmological "constant" problems. Such cancellation mechanism is built in the UNdecidable quantum state (quantum presentation of Platonic ideas) from the outset: instead of dealing with some |alive cat> & |dead cat> from the "U" process, we encounter an UNdecidable 'cat per se', so if we happen to observe an 'alive cat' as a fact, with unit probability, the 'dead cat' will happily live undisturbed in 'the UNdecidable quantum state'. No "collapse" nor dead cat doppelgänger à la Everett are needed.

The animated cat above is very deceptive, because its "evolution" prior to the "collapse" seems fully deterministic. If you think about the quantum "evolution" of such superposed states in terms of 'energy eigenstates', notice the imaginary unit in S. Carroll's essay, Eq. 4: "all of the time evolution is encoded in the phases [XXX]" (ibid., p. 6). But how do you encode 'time evolution' in complex phases (Chen Ning Yang)? Recall that, after you "collapse" the cat, the alleged "time parameter" in the Schrödinger equation turns into some non-relativistic [you-name-it], but the equation itself doesn't say anything whatsoever about the nature of this "time parameter" prior to the "collapse", as introduced by hand (along with the Born rule) in QM textbooks.

To understand the origin of this whole mess, read the second sentence from the excerpt below (R.I.G. Hughes, The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics, p. 77):

This "general principle", however, does not cover the case of UNdecidable, hence not-yet-physical, KS quantum state, as explained by R.I.G. Hughes here. One can hardly overestimate the enormous confusion from this huge blank spot in current QM textbooks -- just recall the ongoing quest for "quantum computing" and the alleged "decoherent histories" (J. Halliwell; cf. Franck Laloë, Sec. 6.4 and footnote 47 on p. 81).

All these problems are resolved in the PR² interpretation of QM from the outset. Moreover, the new cancellation mechanism is introduced to explain the ongoing, as-we-speak mechanism of 'the flatness problem' (asymptotically flat spacetime conjecture), producing an extremely precise balance between the two tug-of-war effects, CDM & DDE, of the geometry of spacetime at cosmological scales.

Otherwise we have to inject up to 96% "dark stuff" (with all sorts of "ghosts") into the current theoretical physics, as calculated under the assumption that 'potential reality' doesn't exist. As Evalyn Gates put it (p. 196), the detection of DDE was "like finding an elephant on top of a table impeccably set with the finest china and silver (...). We stare in shock at the uninvited guest and demand to know where the elephant came from -- and how it got into (the) room."

Regarding the arrow of spacetime: notice that the Frisbee-like sequence of explicated facts (local mode of spacetime) is inherently background-free, because the background (the reference fluid of GR and the UNdecidable quantum state) is 'not there', being placed  ]between[  the "points" of the continuum of the local mode of spacetime. In other words, the "dark gaps" of the global mode are not like the real gaps between the tiles in R. Penrose's bathroom: regardless of how small tiles you choose, if you decrease the size of the tiles in a Fibonacci sequence, you will never ever reach the "gaps" from/within the local mode of spacetime (more on Fibonacci here).

This proposal makes the local mode of spacetime a perfect 3-D continuum with dynamical topology of 'asymptotically flat spacetime'. The "dark" gaps of the postulated global mode of spacetime are completely sealed off  by the arrow of spacetime -- the mechanism by which the "dark" gaps of the global mode are made nonexistent in the local mode is the same that makes the "speed" of light a fundamental constant (and also hides the mirror tachyonic world). This renders the Schlaefli conjecture (L. Schlaefli, Ann. di Mat. 5 (1873) 170), as well as all "branes" and other multidimensional superstitions in GR and string hypotheses (Lisa Randall; see also A. Vilenkin below) redundant, to say the least.

In the context of GR, the global mode of spacetime is located "within" each and every point from spacelike hypersurfaces, as it "lives" exclusively on null hypersurfaces. (Unlike the geometry of spacelike hypersurfaces, the geometry of null hypersurfaces is not metric (D. C. Robinson), which leaves a challenging opportunity to introduce an additional, to the Christoffel connection, global torsion connection.) To be precise, the "duration" of the global mode, recorded with a physical clock (local mode), matches the "duration" of the atemporal "handshaking" transaction in Cramer's interpretation of QM: it has been already completed at each and every instant we "look" at it (see below).

Hence in the local mode of spacetime, the dimensionless GW amplitude is zero, nonexistent, zilch. (Another case of reining a dimensionless amplitude, the mythical "quantum computing", is examined here.)

Notice also that the hypothetical global mode of spacetime cannot be read by a physical clock (it will "stand still"). It is introduced to replace the "external time parameter" in H.-D. Zeh (p. 13) and the “auxiliary internal time” (cf. Macias and Quevedo, p. 8) by 'the reference fluid of GR'. The latter can "act" upon matter without being affected in turn by matter. In this unphysical "absolute" reference frame, an electromagnetic radiation field can indeed "stand still" (recall that EM radiation field cannot stand still with respect to any physical observer, Bahram Mashhoon, p. 14).

The next metaphysical idea is straightforward: 'time' does not originate from 'change in space' but from 'change of space'. Only if you have the latter (global mode), you may introduce the former, as 'time read by a clock' (local mode). Why? Because one cannot insert the "dark" energy of  X  into its consequence: accelerated expansion of space. The dynamics of 'the change of space' is defined relative to the "omnipresent ether  X " (global mode of spacetime). The latter is located "within" each and every point from the local mode of spacetime, and is wrapping the local mode by two (in fact, one) 'numerically finite but physically unattainable Aristotelian boundaries'.

All we can physically observe is that the local mode of spacetime is being 'acting upon itself'. Such self-action will of course look "dark" to all local sub-systems (see Alex Murphy).

Hence we can bridge QM and GR, and understand the origin of quantum and gravitational "waves": EPR-like correlations (global mode) will inevitably induce wave-like holomovement of physical stuff along the arrow of spacetime. Such wave-generation effects can be found in our brains and in many living organisms. Perhaps it determines the inertial reaction "forces" as well (don't bother to ask Criss Angel, he knows nothing about it).

Recall what William Kingdon Clifford claimed in his paper ‘On the Space-Theory of Matter’, presented to the Cambridge Philosophical Society on February 21, 1870 (quoted after Domenico Giulini, p. 2):

I believe Clifford's idea in (2), about "the manner of a wave", is amended here with the proposed origin of quantum-and-gravitational "waves": the continuous passage of "curved or distorted" from one point (not "portion", as in (1) above) to the next one is what the arrow of spacetime does on the perfect continuum of the local mode of spacetime (the "dark" gaps of the passage are being completely sealed off  by the arrow of spacetime).

But why 'arrow of spacetime'? Because our good old 3-D space is not like a huge static warehouse, in which we would notice some redshifted light from moving objects, receding from us in line with the Hubble Law (some balloon metaphors may be highly misleading). It is the other way around: distant galaxies are not "speeding up" with respect to us in some absolute static space, but the very metric of space is "expanding" (I firmly disapprove of this notion of "expansion", and have suggested the so-called 'relative scale principle').

Hence the space itself is endowed with dynamics, but then we need some ether w.r.t.w. such 'global dynamics of 3-D space' can be formulated. Then the only possibility -- trust me, there is no other option -- is to place the omnipresent ether, as 'the source of the "dark" energy', in the global mode of spacetime. Otherwise you will have to define the dynamics of space w.r.t. itself, and will look like Baron Munchausen. That's why we need an arrow of spacetime, in my opinion (but notice the opinion of Chris Isham above).

NB: If this is the case chosen by Nature, then any approach to quantum gravity, based on the "splitting" of spacetime (Brett Bolen), will necessarily be wrong.

The speculations of Roger Penrose will necessarily be wrong as well: "The fuzzy idea of where and what is infinity was clarified and made more specific by the work of Penrose [45, 46] with the introduction of the conformal compactification (via the rescaling of the metric) of spacetime, whereby infinity was added as a boundary and brought into a finite spacetime region." (Ted Newman et al.)

Perhaps we may have to develop new mathematical theory of 'potential reality', such that the "state space" of Margenau's Onta (quantum presentation of Platonic ideas) would match the structure of cognitive concepts; notice that in the "cheating on 20 questions" the answer 'cloud' was explicated by a Baeysian learning rule (not the Born rule). For comparison, the categorification of Feynman diagrams requires "black boxes with many wires going in and many wires going out" (Baez and Lauda, p. 16), while in our case all wires are "instantaneously" (global mode of spacetime; see the Escher drawing below) keeping track of all virtual 'black boxes' as well (relational ontology), in order to dynamically adjust to the changing context of the game, until they jointly select the final, explicated 'black box': 'cloud' (see also the four dice here).

NB: In the local mode of spacetime, the "duration" of the total negotiation with 'everything else in the universe' (relational ontology) is zero. Hence a wave pattern is being created, without any source of these "waves" being present in the local mode, and a new form of retarded causality (biocausality; see below) can be postulated -- a revitalization of Leibnitz' harmonia praestabilita, Jung's Synchronicity, and Einstein's Überkausalität.

We definitely need mathematical theory of 'potential reality'. The task is highly non-trivial, but once we unravel the correct mathematical theory, the astonishing effectiveness of mathematics (Eugene Wigner) may drive us closer to the true quantum gravity of He Who Does Not Play Dice -- the world is not deterministic but flexible, and the 'chooser' of one possibility (one at a time) amongst infinitely many is 'the whole universe' in its state of ONE.

All I've been getting so far is either dark silence or insults (some of them really harsh).

Perhaps the situation will improve in 2010, after the sixth consecutive failure of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) to detect GWs with the so-called "enhanced LIGO". GW energy transfer is fundamentally non-linear phenomenon (Hermann Bondi), but is wiped out with the "linearized approximation" adopted by LSC. Also, GW energy is intrinsically quasi-local, in the sense that GWs do not propagate exclusively "in one direction only" (“when the waves are all moving in the same direction”, cf. P.A.M. Dirac, Ch. 33, p. 64), as they also have a holistic global component (atemporal "handshake"), which covers the whole 3-D space en bloc.

LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that there are no bans whatsoever on the dipole radiation, simply because conservation of gravitational mass-energy and momentum, in a world dominated by an evolving cosmological "constant", is a wishful thinking. They fear to even mention the implications of DDE to their project, and have never tried to address the (old) cosmological "constant" problem, which inevitably occurs if you trust the unwarranted assumption that the "dark energy" from the quantum vacuum can only spring from Lorentz-invariant stuff with positive energy density.

Is it possible to detect some 'elementary shift' of the expanding metric -- the "intrinsic time interval associated to any timelike displacement", T. Jacobson, pp. 18-19 -- due to the omnipresent and perfectly smooth DDE? In what reference frame? Notice that you're dealing with some "fluid" that "has zero inertial mass! It can be accelerated with no cost, no effort" (B. Schutz, p. 255) and "provides an all-pervading energy density and negative pressure that are the same to all observers, at all places, and at all times in the history of any universe model, even the expanding ones." (p. 257)

Similar rhetoric questions apply to the dynamics of the metric, producing inflationary gravitational waves on the 3-D "balloon" hypersurface. It's a bundle.
 

Yet the same kind of waves, only much "weaker", are expected to be detected by LIGO (see below).

Forget it. There is no need for "precise calibration" of a dead turkey.

The insane efforts of LSC remind me of the old joke about a drunken man, who has lost his key somewhere in the dark, but is searching for it under the street lamp, simply because it is brighter there. Only LSC's "key" costs billions. Which is why I accused LSC members of aggressive professional negligence, and offered them to review my White Paper. They responded with dark silence, as usual.

Check out the communist censorship of Paul Ginsparg's "moderators" here.

Since all this points to the unknown dynamics of GR, consider this: similar to the case of particle-wave duality, the splitting the spacetime into two "components" is allowed for educational purposes only. In fact, we are dealing with one object, as stressed by Hermann Minkowski (recall again the elephant's trunk). Hence if you split the spacetime into two "components", and let one of them ('time read by a clock') to "evolve" with respect to the other one (3-D space) -- as Paul Dirac and ADM did in the misfortunate Hamiltonian formulation of GR -- you will end up with a dead frozen snapshot of the arrow of spacetime, in which all GW effects (the positivity of mass and its inertial reaction "force") have already been completed by the "instantaneous" non-linear Machian-type negotiation (global mode of spacetime; see the Escher drawing below) with 'everything else in the universe' (the so-called biocausality).

To explain "already", let me quote from Thomas E. Phipps, Should Mach's Principle be taken seriously? Speculations in Science and Technology, 1(5) 499-508 (1978), p. 504:

"Gravity is a different beast from radiation of any kind. Being mediated by virtual
particles, which may be considered to be kept permanently virtual by the physical
non-existence of gravity shields or absorbers, gravity can act (nonlocally) with infinite speed -- in effect, with precognition. That is exactly what it does, if Mach's principle has any substance. The fixed stars "know" the subway is going to jerk, because they have sent their virtual spies forward in time to find out about it."

The crux of the idea of biocausality is well-known. Back in 1953, Wolfgang Pauli suggested that the concept of finality ("the end (telos), that for which a thing is done", Aristotle, Physics 194b33) should be considered as a complement to causality in deterministic and statistical laws. The stipulation here is that Aristotle's effective cause & final cause determinate jointly the next state of all material constituents of the universe relationally, in line with the bootstrap principle 'think globally, act locally' (global mode of spacetime; see the Escher drawing below), but in the local mode the resulting biocausality is retarded, along the arrow of spacetime.

From this perspective, detecting GW effects requires "online" access to the global mode of spacetime, in which the dynamical determination of spacelike and timelike directions (hence Lorentzian metric) is being produced -- one-at-a-time, along the arrow of spacetime. In simple words, this means that the proper GW detectors must be endowed with the self-acting faculty of the human brain, to match the "interaction of spacetime with itself" (C. Kiefer, p. 2; cf. also J. G. Pereira et al., arXiv:0909.4408v1 [gr-qc], p. 10, Eq. 7.2).

As of today, nobody cares. Nobody.

I can take it. I'm psychologist, and don't need quantum gravity to practice PHI.

Why would a fish need a bicycle?

D. Chakalov
Thursday, 26 November 2009

[click the image to enter the web site]

Some history of the project outlined above. In January 1972, shortly after my demobilization from BG army (age 19, with the lowest possible rank), I decided to study psychology and "sort out" the physics of the human brain, to explain and eventually explore its amazing latent abilities. It took me sixteen years to realize that the task is unfeasible with the established Weltbild, and on 22 May 1988, at 23:45 local time, I decided to try the project 'the other way around', namely, to develop a model of the universe as a 'brain', such that there will be a natural explanation of the physics of the (small) brain from the outset. After many trials and errors, the first (relatively) encouraging evidence appeared in July 1998, but the project is still far from being completed. I am trying to find any weak points or inconsistencies in it, just as I would do with a brand new parachute, which I would have to put on ultimate test by jumping from a helicopter. I do like the unfolding of the whole project, since it seems to me that all pieces of 'the bridge' snap to their places effortlessly. Yet there is no room for contention, and I never go into the mood of 'chi si contenta gode' (a contented mind is a perpetual feast; he who contents himself, enjoys).

Hopefully, if we join our efforts and knowledge (included at the level of our collective unconsciousness, cf. Jungian Kollektives Unbewusstes), some day we may succeed.

Meanwhile, please keep in mind the prediction of Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics (1923): "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."

This web site is my feedback to all people, who are helping me, one way or another, with improving the theory. Feel free to download it (app. 11.8MB) from

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/PHI_info.zip

By unzipping PHI_info.zip, a new folder, !Einstein_PHI , will be created on your hard drive. Find there START.html.lnk and open it (it is linked to this front page (index.html) in the website folder).

If, for some reason, you believe we don't need new approach to quantum gravity, try to understand Sean Carroll's speculations (448 pages, January 2010):

"... wavefunctions appear to collapse in one direction of time but not the other is not an explanation for the arrow of time, but in fact a consequence of it. The low-entropy early universe was in something close to a pure state, which enabled countless "branchings" as it evolved into the future." Yet he acknowledged: "we can't, once again, define a conserved total energy in any reasonable way." Consequently, the main speculation of S. Carroll about some "low-entropy early universe" is just as unclear as is its gravitational energy which would evolve "into the future". (Also, there may be a critical low geometric entropy state of the 'extremely early' universe, which may blur the timelike and spacelike directions themselves, and turn them into some primordial quantum dough from which nothing could possibly "decohere", ever.) As one of his senior colleagues summarized, "the magnitude of the entropy of the universe as a function of time is a very interesting problem for cosmology, but to suggest that a law of physics depends on it is sheer nonsense."

... Alex Vilenkin's arXiv:0908.0721v1 ($63,000 FQXi Grant):

... Laura Mersini-Houghton's arXiv:0909.2330v1 [gr-qc] ($50,000 FQXi Grant):

"... when treated in a multiverse framework, fundamental time is directionless and consequently physical laws inherit its time-reversal symmetry. Despite that reversal symmetry is broken for the local time by the bubble nucleation, the bubble still inherits laws of physics at birth from the multiverse, without modification. Thus the emergent time’s arrow in the bubble does not affect the time-reversal symmetry imprinted onto the physical laws that the bubble inherits from birth in the multiverse. (...) An emerging time in the multiverse does not appear plausible since the emergence adds information on the multiverse that wasn’t there prior (... but we face the same kind of emergent non-unitary phenomenon with DDE -- an evolving cosmological "constant" that springs from the quantum vacuum - D.C.)."
 

... and the obstinate belief of Andrei Linde ($164,179 FQXi Grant):

"During the last 25 years a new scientific paradigm gradually emerged. (...) My main goal is to learn how to make scientific predictions in this complicated framework."

Sure enough, Andrei Linde tried to answer the first off question of how many universes are in the "multiverse" (arXiv:0910.1589v2):

Coincidently or not, his calculation matches the number of angels (mostly blond) that can fit on the head of a pin, as suggested by A. Linde's medieval colleagues.

If these people were here in the 21st century, I suppose they would gladly join LIGO Scientific Collaboration (see above), and speculate that, shortly after the "big bang", the whole universe was still small enough to fit on the head of a pin, with strong ripples of the spacetime metric (see their picture above). They would love to feel again like an 'absolute observer' with an absolute clock paired with an absolute measuring rod, to tell the dimensions of the universe and its current cosmological age, as read by their absolute wristwatch. But instead of arguing about angels (either blond or not), they would certainly prefer to measure the "ripples of the metric" (albeit very weak), which again can only be seen from the same standpoint of 'absolute observer'. Needless to say, they will easily publish tons of articles on "GW astronomy", and will ignore any alternative viewpoint on what can be "seen" by such absolute observer: nothing but "gauge-dependent" stuff.

That's how 'potential reality' is being camouflaged in present-day GR, simply because if it were possible to detect the source of DDE as 'gauge invariant observable', the omnipresent and perfectly smooth ether (the source of DDE) will be exposed to direct physical observations, as 'spacetime acting upon itself'.

Back in April 1986, Yakov Zel'dovich wrote in a letter the following (private communication): "Long time ago, there was a period of time during which there was still no time at all." Of course he was joking.

Yet the 'global mode of time', pertaining to potential reality, cannot be read by any physical clock, because the poor inanimate clock will read it as 'stand still' or "no time at all", as Yakov Zel'dovich put it. Maybe The Beginning, which lives in "no time at all", is always with us (dual age cosmology).

Anyway. Perhaps in the next twenty-five years a new paradigm will emerge: the universe modeled as a brain. The driving force of its arrow of spacetime cannot spring entirely and exclusively from the "brain" itself, which brings us to Virgil's statement: Mens agitat molem (The Aeneid, Ch. 6, 727).

In German, it reads: Der Geist bewegt die Materie. Physically, Der Geist may look like 'the ideal monad without windows'. However, no scientific predictions can be made about it, or else we will conflate religion with science. Thank God, this is impossible.

D. Chakalov
October 31, 2009

Subject: "best of all possible worlds."
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 21:09:20 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Robin G Jordan <jordanrg@fau.edu>

Dear Professor Jordan,

It was a great pleasure to read your essay on Newton vs. Leibniz,

http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/phy1931/NEWTON/newton.htm

"Leibniz thought the idea of God as an astronomical maintenance man as absurd. He believed that God had carefully chosen among an infinity of possible worlds, the one He felt the most suitable. So that although we may not have a perfect world, it was the

"best of all possible worlds."

I intend, Deo volente, to talk on a similar subject on 25 November 2015,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#VGP

My web site isn't encrypted (like Newton's 6accdae13eff7i3l9n4o4qrr4s8t12ux), and if you have some spare time, I will highly appreciate your comments on my efforts.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
 

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

Subject: New limit on the mass of Father Christmas' beard (a.k.a. WIMPs)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 21:55:02 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joe Silk <j.silk1@physics.ox.ac.uk>, silk@astro.ox.ac.uk
Cc: M Angeles Perez-Garcia <mperezga@usal.es>,
Jirina R Stone <j.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk>,
rminchin@naic.edu,
Jonathan.Davies@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Mike.Disney@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Sarah.Roberts@astro.cf.ac.uk,
caj@jb.man.ac.uk,
Wim.vanDriel@obspm.fr,
benjamin.allanach@googlemail.com,
s.sarkar@physics.ox.ac.uk,
matthew.chalmers@iop.org,
Plus@maths.cam.ac.uk,
J.D.Barrow@damtp.cam.ac.uk,
uzan@iap.fr,
blanchet@iap.fr,
alain.blanchard@ast.obs-mip.fr,
edwin.cartlidge@yahoo.com


Dear Joe,

I am really surprised that you took part in the calculations of a new limit of WIMPs (arXiv:1007.1421v2; Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 141101).

May I use this opportunity to invite you and your colleagues to my talk on quantum gravity,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#VGP

All the best,

Dimi
----
How do we know that Father Christmas has a beard?
We know it, because snow falls when he shakes his beard.

Old Tanzanian saying
 

===================================
 

Subject: Spherical cows
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 14:42:46 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Richard Gray <richard.gray@telegraph.co.uk>
Cc: Jim Hough <J.Hough@physics.gla.ac.uk>,
Sheila Rowan <S.Rowan@physics.gla.ac.uk>,
Ralph Cordey <Ralph.Cordey@astrium.eads.net>,
Keith Mason <keith.mason@stfc.ac.uk>,
council@stfc.ac.uk
Bcc: [snip]

RE: Largest scientific instrument ever built to prove Einstein's theory of general relativity, by Richard Gray. The Daily Telegraph, 8:30 AM BST, 09 May 2010,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7695994/Largest-scientific-instrument-ever-built-to-prove-Einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity.html


Dear Mr. Gray,

I trust you are familiar with the anecdotal story about a 'spherical cow',

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

Suppose someone claims that *the real cows are indeed round*, because cows might be approximated as spherical objects, and then ask your government to allocate a significant portion from your taxes for detecting the unique pattern of 'real spherical cows'.

Likewise, you were told by a number of people that, after applying their spherical-cow approximation to Einstein's theory of general relativity, they might eventually detect gravitational waves (GWs): "we haven't been able to detect them yet because they are very weak" (Jim Hough).

However, their persistent optimism is rooted on artifacts due to their spherical-cow (=linearized) approximation of GR,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

I fact, they ignore all problems due to their approximation. For example, Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 that such spherical-cow approximation implies the existence of a tensor that, except for the trivial case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist,

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/weyl-1.pdf

Regarding Ralph Cordey at Astrium UK and the so-called LISA Pathfinder: How much this spherical cow will cost to UK taxpayers, I wonder.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
SW1V 4JU
----------

Note: The failures to detect GWs were "explained" by Jim Hough with a very misleading statement: "we haven't been able to detect them yet because they are very weak". In fact, GWs are immensely powerful phenomena, but nobody -- Jim Hough and Sheila Rowan included -- can offer a non-linear theory of GWs. All they can do is to imagine that, by the time GWs reach LIGO or LISA, they will be "very weak", such that their spherical-cow approximation to Einstein's GR would be correct. But again, they don't have any non-linear theory of strong GWs, from
which some "weak limit" can be derived.

All they do is asking for more taxpayers' money for detecting spherical cows, instead of doing their homework first on paper, to demonstrate such "weak limit" to initially strong GWs. Pity nobody cares.

D.C.
May 12, 2010
 

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

Subject: arXiv:1005.1614v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 05:14:25 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Robert Geroch <geroch@uchicago.edu>
Cc: Alexander Vlasov <Alexander.Vlasov@pobox.spbu.ru>, qubeat@mail.ru

Robert Geroch, Faster Than Light? arXiv:1005.1614v1 [gr-qc]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614

R. Geroch: "I am not sure that this is the right perspective — or even whether “right” makes much sense in this context."


Bob, I think you can have your cake and eat it -- the key word is 'quasi-local',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#topology

You and your Russian colleague are so good in math ...

D.
--------

Note: To explain quasi-local, and 'what is going on' in QM, check out Feynman [Ref. 1, 12-1]: 

"The first question we have to answer is: What are the base states for the system? Now the question has been put incorrectly. There is no such thing as “the” base states, because, of course, the set of base states you may choose is not unique. New sets can always be made out of linear combinations of the old. There are always many choices for the base states, and among them, any choice is equally legitimate. So the question is not what is the base set, but what could a base set be? We can choose any one we wish for our own convenience. It is usually best to start with a base set which is physically the clearest. It may not be the solution to any problem, or may not have any direct importance, but it will generally make it easier to understand what is going on."

There is such thing as “the” base state (never in plural) -- the UNdecidable KS state, as explained below.

For example, in the case of two spin-half particles, everything you insert in brakets

|1> = |++>, |2> = |+->, |3> = |-+>, |4> = |-->

... are just possible physical manifestations of  “the”  base state, much like the three sayings above, emanating from their UNspeakable potential-reality state of your brain.

Thus, the system {“the” base state & |whatever>} evolves along the arrow of spacetime in a strictly quasi-local fashion: see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 below.

Feynman also stressed [Ref. 1, 12-2]: "That’s the question: How do the amplitudes change with time in a particular (fixed) base?"

The amplitudes change along the global mode of time: see again Fig. 2 below. Don't be befuddled by the anti-relativistic "time parameter" in the Schrödinger equation, because you need “the” base state to eliminate the measurement "problem" in QM and reconcile QM with STR, as well as solve the puzzle of quantum vacuum and gravitation: “the” base state does not gravitate.

It would be nice if Robert Geroch writes up a sequel to his 30-year old book General Relativity from A to B, entitled "General Relativity from A to A+ds", to elucidate the concept of 'interval' in GR -- professionally. But he wouldn't. Trying to discover new math is a tough challenge.

The last time I heard from Robert Geroch was eight years ago, only to require his email to be removed from my web site. I will gladly do that, if only he writes a serious paper on GR, or at least reply professionally. Here are two questions:

Do you believe that the "points" from the underlying manifold can be connected only and exclusively only by their physical content that is invariant under "active" diffeomorphisms? If your answer is 'no', what could be “the” base state in GR (a.k.a. the reference fluid of GR), which binds the "points" by one single unique bare UNdecidable matrix?

If your answer to the first question is 'yes', you are ready to teach GR and enjoy its generic pathologies [Refs 2 and 3].

It is generally believed that (i) one can picture the spacetime in GR as a manifold that can be "locally modeled" on some fictitious flat Minkowski space, but (ii) this picture should break down at short distances of the order of the Planck length. Neither of these ideas are needed, however. There is no need for any limitation in the possible accuracy of localization of spacetime events either. Why is that? Because the so-called Planck length may possess an inner geometrical structure.

Ignore it at your peril.
 

D.C.
May 12, 2010
Last update: May 14, 2010

[Ref. 1] Feynman Lectures on Physics. Volume III : Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965; ISBN: 9780201020144


[Ref. 2] José M.M. Senovilla, Singularity Theorems in General Relativity: Achievements and Open Questions, arXiv:physics/0605007v1

"The problem of the definition of the concept of singularity in General Relativity is very difficult indeed, as can be appreciated by reading on its historical development (Hawking and Ellis, 1973; Tipler, Clarke and Ellis, 1980). The intuitive ideas are clear: if any physical or geometrical quantity blows up, this signals a singularity. However, there are problems of two kinds:

• the singular points, by definition, do not belong to the space-time which is only constituted by regular points. Therefore, one cannot say, in principle, “when” or “where” is the singularity.

• characterizing the singularities is also difficult, because the divergences (say) of the curvature tensor can depend on a bad choice of basis, and even if one uses only curvature invariants, independent of the bases, it can happen that all of them vanish and still there are singularities.

"The second point is a genuine property of Lorentzian geometry, that is, of the existence of one axis of time of a different nature to the space axes.
...

"All in all, it seems reasonable to diagnose the existence of singularities whenever there are particles (be them real or hypothetical) which go to, or respectively come from, them and disappear unexpectedly or, respectively, subito come to existence.

"And this is the basic definition of singularity (Geroch, 1968; Hawking and Ellis,
1973), the existence of incomplete and inextensible curves. That is to say,
curves which cannot be extended in a regular manner within the space-time
and do not take all possible values of their canonical parameter.
...

"Singularities in the above sense clearly reach, or come from, the edge of space-time. This is some kind of boundary, or margin, which is not part of the space-time but that, somehow, it is accessible from within it."



[Ref. 3] Lars Andersson, The global existence problem in general relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/9911032v4

Footnote 1: "All manifolds are assumed to be Hausdorff, second countable and C∞ (maximal differentiable atlas, cf. Michael Spivak, Vol. 1, Ch. 2 - D.C.), and all fields are assumed to be C∞ unless otherwise stated."

Id., Notes on Differential Geometry, 1, p. 8:

"A differentiable manifold is a topological manifold M together with a differentable structure, i.e. a way of defining differentiable functions on M. The natural way of doing this (forget about this "natural way" - D.C.) is to use the charts [X] to transfer the definition of differentiable functions from Rⁿ to M."

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

Subject: The global existence problem in general relativity,
arXiv:gr-qc/9911032v4
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:54:55 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: ehrlich@ufl.edu, chris.tsokos@gmail.com, keti@mat.unb.br,
hbrandt@arl.army.mil, ljalias@um.es, andrzej@math.ohio-state.edu,
fabrice.debbasch@gmail.com, sanchezm@ugr.es


Dear Dr. Andersson,

I suppose if you (i) do not assume upfront some space-like Killing fields, (ii) don't confine your analysis to some hypothetical vacuum spacetimes, and (iii) wish to avoid poetry [Ref. 1], you may have to start from scratch,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#GR

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Ruben

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#LIGO

Perhaps the tasks are strictly mathematical.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
------
[Ref. 1] José M.M. Senovilla, Singularity Theorems in General Relativity: Achievements and Open Questions, arXiv:physics/0605007v1

p. 6: "This is some kind of boundary, or margin, which is not part of the space-time but that, somehow (Sic! - D.C.), it is accessible from within it."

 

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

Subject: Positive-mass conjecture in the case of "more and more space appears" ?
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 05:28:23 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Shing-Tung Yau <yau@math.harvard.edu>,
Richard M Schoen <schoen@math.stanford.edu>,
Niall Ó Murchadha <niall@ucc.ie>,
Claus Gerhardt <gerhardt@math.uni-heidelberg.de>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>


Dear colleagues,

As of April 2010, “over 2250 papers with the words ‘dark energy’ in the title have appeared on the archives since 1998, and nearly 1750 with the words ‘cosmological constant’ have appeared” (Shinji Tsujikawa, arXiv:1004.1493v1, p. 39).

I believe Michal Chodorowski explained, in arXiv:astro-ph/0610590v3, the meaning of "more and more space appears",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Blanchard4

It is totally unclear to me how one could define an isolated system in GR, in which "more and more space appears", to start thinking about some new positive-mass conjecture and the total energy in such "isolated system". Perhaps if one can demonstrate that _no_ asymptotically flat spacetime can be stable under the conditions of such (accelerated or not) "flux" of "more space", we will face a paradoxical situation similar to the ultraviolet catastrophe of late 19th century, after which some bright mathematician will sort out this whole mess.

Please advise.

With kindest regards and admiration,

Dimi Chakalov

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

Re: Positive-mass conjecture in the case of "more and more space appears" ?
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:11:29 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Shing-Tung Yau <yau@math.harvard.edu>,
Shing-Tung Yau <yau@ims.cuhk.edu.hk>
Cc: Chiu-Chu Melissa Liu <ccliu@math.columbia.edu>,
Mu-Tao Wang <mtwang@math.columbia.edu>,
Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>,
Lau Loi So <s0242010@gmail.com>,
Hsin Chen <hchen@ntnu.edu.tw>,
Fei-Hung Hoa <93242010@cc.ncu.edu.tw>,
Chih-Hung Wang <chwang@phy.ncu.edu.tw>,
Hwei-Jang Yo <hjyo@phys.ncku.edu.tw>


Dear Professor Yau,

I hope my email from Wed, 2 Jun 2010 05:28:23 +0300 has been safely received.

I believe some young and hungry grad student might crack the puzzle of quasi-local mass,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Hehl_final

If you and/or some of your colleagues know such person, please pass her/him the link above. The task is highly non-trivial and strictly mathematical, and also requires guidance from Shao Yong.

I also believe the future of new energy sources belongs to your country, but if you wish to extract energy from 3-D space, you should always follow the advice of Shao Yong. Since I haven't heard from you so far, it seems the latter turned out to be too difficult for you.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov

-------
Examine the objects as they are and you will see their true nature; look at them from your own ego and you will see only your feelings; because nature is neutral, while your feelings are only prejudice and obscurity.

Shao Yong, 1011-1077

Fooling around with alternative current is juts a waste of time.
Nobody will use it, ever.

Thomas Alva Edison, 1889

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

Subject: arXiv:1107.1374v3 [math-ph] and arXiv:0912.2886v4 [math-ph]
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:37:03 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkNe2NriAaNhSd60JnDeggcuqrUUQUmhqXnABtSZqANbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Bert Schroer <schroer@cbpf.br>, bert.schroer@physik.fu-berlin.de
Cc: Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Stefan Hollands <HollandsS@cardiff.ac.uk>

Dear Bert,

You consider Haag's 1957 idea "of interpreting the spatial extend of a measuring device and the duration of its activation as an observable localized in the corresponding spacetime region fulfilling Einstein causality and an appropriately formulated causal propagation was (and still is) metaphoric if not to say naive" (arXiv:1107.1374v3 [math-ph], p. 8). His latest views are summarizer in [Ref. 1].

There is no such thing as "local covariance principle" (arXiv:0912.2886v4 [math-ph], Sec. 6 and p. 32).

Regarding the nonobservance of the holistic aspects of QFT (arXiv:1107.1374v3 [math-ph]), see a quasi-local approach to GR & QM at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#GR

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#shoal

I think the opposition to such proposals is not related to our current Zeitgeist. People just don't care. They live in total socialism and love to play with their hobbies.

Names? They're all at my web site.

All the best,

Dimi

[Ref. 1] Rudolf Haag, Questions in quantum physics: a personal view,
arXiv:hep-th/0001006v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0001006

"In simple cases the event may be regarded as the interaction process between a particle and a detector. But the notion of ‘particle’ does not correspond to that of an object existing in any ontological sense. It relates to the simplest type of global state and describes possibilities, not facts. The notion of ‘partial state’ demands in addition that we ignore all possible events outside some chosen region and thus ignore possible correlations with outside events."

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

Subject: 260037 PR Spezialisierungsmodul Mathematische Physik und Gravitationsphysik
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:45:27 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Theor-Physik@univie.ac.at,
joachim.schwermer@univie.ac.at,
jakob.yngvason@univie.ac.at,
bernhard.baumgartner@univie.ac.at,
helmut.rumpf@univie.ac.at,
mark.heinzle@univie.ac.at,
robert.beig@univie.ac.at,
piotr.chrusciel@univie.ac.at,


Dear colleagues,

I learned that the Spezialisierungsmodul offers "guidance to scientific research on open problems in mathematical physics and general relativity", which I hope to discuss with you during the ESI Workshop in December this year.

Meanwhile, please check out the Ansatz for 'necessary and sufficient conditions for spacetime', which can (hopefully) eliminate 'dieser verdammten Quantenspringerei',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Erlangen

As I mentioned in my email to Dr. Robert Beig (Sun, 8 Apr 2012 20:04:57 +0300), the task is strictly mathematical. I will be happy to explain it under the roof of Erwin Schrödinger Institute.

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov
------
Wenn es doch bei dieser verdammten Quantenspringerei bleiben soll, dann bedauere ich, mich mit der Quantentheorie überhaupt beschäftigt zu haben.
Erwin Schrödinger

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



Printable version is available from here; mathematical details here.


 

FINITE INFINITY

 

Space inversion

Finite 3-D space (depicted with circle) obtained by snapping the
inversion of points along the  w  axis (sphere-torus transitions, Fig. 5).
Space becomes both "infinite" (local mode of spacetime) and bounded
from  S  and  L  (global mode of spacetime).

Abstract

To introduce "boundaries" on the physical spacetime at all (timelike, spacelike, and null) directions, I will consider an ideal dimensionless point of 'pure geometry', and will postulate a structure of such point: a dual presentation of 'the universe as ONE', interpreted along an axis (w) as both 'an infinitesimal' (S) and 'arbitrarily large volume of 3-D space' (L). Then I will suggest topological transformations of points (called 'space inversion') in an infinite-dimensional Euclidean space to obtain a 'collapse over infinity'-reduction of this unphysical Euclidean space to 'asymptotically flat 4-D spacetime' endowed with "boundaries" placed at the dual object, 'the universe as ONE'. The spacetime of 'the universe as ONE' is called 'global mode of spacetime', with equation  L = S = 1  (Eq. 2), while the equation of the Arrow of Space, generating perpetual emergence and re-creation of an asymptotically flat spacetime ('collapse over infinity'), is postulated as  LS = 1  (Eq. 1), in line with Virgil's dictum Mens agitat molem or Der Geist bewegt die Materie.

I will also outline the so-called 'relative scale principle' (RSP) aimed at removing an absolute structure of space known as 'size of objects': nobody has 'the right meter'. Relative to an observer placed at the macroscopic length scale (the "middle" of  w ), objects in 3-D space would look like "large" in the direction toward  L  and "small" in the opposite direction toward  S , while a co-moving observer will not notice any chance in her 'one meter and one second', and will always experience the same "speed of light". Since 'space' is interpreted as an emergent phenomenon along the Arrow of Space, I will introduce finite templates for 'size of objects', and will argue that their scale-dependent alteration resolves the paradox of the (accelerated) "expansion" of space toward  L  and the (non-accelerated) "shrinking" of space toward  S , as seen by an observer placed at the macroscopic length scale (the "middle" of  w ), while their local alteration recovers the correct geometrical manifestation of gravity (not "curvature"). Hence one can eliminate all "dark" effects of gravity such as "black holes", "cold dark matter", and "dynamical dark energy", and amend Einstein's General Relativity with the "total field of as yet unknown structure" from the Arrow of Space.

The quest for Finite Infinity has a long history, starting from Gunnar Nordström (Über die Möglichkeit, das elektromagnetische Feld und das Gravitationsfeld zu vereiningen, Phys. Z. 15 (1914) 504-506). It is an age-old problem of General Relativity. Nothing could be more important than understanding the topological manifold of the Universe, and its dynamics.

Traditionally, experts in GR start with what I hope to derive at the end of this project: asymptotically flat spacetime with quasi-local positive mass. For example, Rick Schoen would presuppose a "smooth manifold", which has already been equipped with a "Lorentz signature metric", "asymptotic flatness", and "appropriate falloff" conditions, and then ask question like: 'why do we see positive mass only' ? A short answer: because we have an Arrow of Space. The detailed answer requires careful analysis of all initial presumptions in Rick Schoen's talk and in present-day GR textbooks.
 

A New Mean Curvature Proof of the Spacetime Positive Mass Theorem
By Richard Schoen, November 13, 2011, at
Celebrating Jim Isenberg's 60th birthday
Pacific Northwest Geometry Seminar, Corvallis, OR, November 12-13, 2011
 

A rigorous definition of 'isolated gravitating system', which would ensure an "asymptotic regime such that all gravitational effects are localized inside of it" (Adam Helfer) and proper boundary conditions, is still an unresolved task: there are no physically motivated boundary conditions in the case of the Einstein equations; for example, "we do not know how to build a mirror for gravitational waves" (A. Rendall), nor can we resolve the paradox of geodesic incompleteness and "black holes". Moreover, how can we define an 'isolated gravitating system' and its (obviously) positive mass if the space itself is endowed with a new, dynamical "dark" energy? The calculating machinery of ADM, suggested half a century ago, doesn't work anymore. Enter the Finite Infinity (FI).

In a nutshell, the idea of FI is to suggest a mechanism for obtaining a finite volume of Archimedean 3-D space. The very notion of 'finite 3-D space' implies the existence of two distinguishable volumes of 3-D space, separated by a "trapped" surface (cf. lion's cage below), such that we can always define the notions of 'inside vs outside' (hence "large" vs "small") and 'left vs right'. (In order to eliminate the absolute structure of 'size', we will introduce later the so-called Relative Scale Principle, RSP.) Now, how can we introduce some process and mechanism by which 'finite space' can be fixed at all length scales, in such way that 'physical space' will never actually reach zero nor infinity but will always remain 'finite' ? We will use an infinite-dimensional Euclidean space and will introduce smooth sphere-torus conversions in it, along a new axis  w  , such that these sphere-torus conversions snap and fix all Archimedean volumes of 3-D space from both "below" and "above" (cf. Fig. 5). Hence space becomes both "infinite" (local mode of spacetime) and bounded from  S  and  L  (global mode of spacetime). The latter is physically unobservable, because we're stuck in the Archimedean 3-D space and don't have access to 'actual infinity'. Only Chuck Norris has been there (twice).

As in a good crime novel, all will become crystal clear at the end. Well, eventually.

Some history. The notion of 'finite infinity' (Fi) was suggested by George F R Ellis in 1984; please see:

George F R Ellis, gr-qc/0102017v1, Sec. 5, "Finite Infinity and Local Physics",
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102017

"This led me some years ago to ask the question: ‘How far away is an effective ‘infinity’ to use in discussing boundary conditions for local physical systems of this kind?’ (...) Then incoming and outgoing radiation conditions can be imposed on that surface F, rather than at infinity or conformal infinity I as is usual [57]. (...) Furthermore the famous positive mass theorems [64] should also be generalized to this case.
...
"This may also be the best setting for numerical calculations for ‘isolated systems’, which often talk about ‘integrating to infinity’, but in most cases do nothing of the sort. As in the rest of theoretical physics, it would be advantageous to have a theoretical framework that corresponds more closely to actual calculations - namely an integration to a surface at a finite distance from the centre of coordinates. It is usual to make that surface a null surface; the suggestion here is that it would be better to make it timelike, corresponding to the region in the real universe where the exterior is physically separated from the local system.

"So the obvious proposal [54] is that we should put boundary conditions on all fields at that distance, rather than at infinity itself, leading to the concept of a 'finite infinity' FI ... "
--
[54] Ellis G F R, Relativistic Cosmology: Its Nature, Aims and Problems, in: General Relativity and Gravitation, Ed. B. Bertotti et al., Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984, pp. 215-288; cf. Sec. 5.2 and Fig. 11(c).
 

See also: Ehlers J (Ed) (1979). Isolated Gravitating Systems in General Relativity. Proc Int School Enrico Fermi Course LVII (Academic Press, New York).
http://www.directtextbook.com/prices/0444853294

-------------

By using exclusively the notion of 'potential infinity', Stephen Leacock posed the dilemma of 'infinite space' in the following fashion:

"We cannot imagine that the stars go on forever. It’s unthinkable. But we equally cannot imagine that they come to a stop and that beyond them is nothing, and then more nothing. Unending nothing is as incomprehensible as unending something."

In order to resolve the conundrum of 'ending something', notice that the nature of the local Archimedean mode of spacetime (cf. below) is determined by 'potential infinity': every step toward the Finite Infinity provides the necessary and sufficient condition for the next step, just as in the Thompson's lamp paradox. If we go in the "direction" toward 'the infinitesimal' (S), one can (with some luck) work out a cutoff and end-point, but it will belong, again and always, to the local ("colored") mode of spacetime (see the story about 'John's jackets' below).

If we wish to work out a proper Finite Infinity, the obvious choice is to introduce a new 'cutoff and end-point' conjugated with the infinitesimal,  S , and to employ the two forms of 'infinity': potential and actual. The latter is 'already completed', in the sense that (i) it does not entail any "dynamics" that can be recorded with a physical clock, and (ii) applies only to the global non-Archimedean mode of spacetime.

We begin with postulating an uncountably infinite "number" of points packed in any finite -- arbitrarily "large" or arbitrarily "small" -- line segment, plane, or volume of space in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, in such way that 'there is nothing ]between[ these points'. Then we will "insert" the global mode of spacetime ]between[ the points from the local mode, and will make sure that the global mode is non-existent in the local mode, with the sole exception of the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, in which the two modes of spacetime coincide (cf. Fig. 1 below).

Notice the crucial difference between the two modes of spacetime: in the local mode, a test particle equipped with a clock reading its proper time will need a finite Archimedean time interval to pass through a finite Archimedean volume of space, even if the test particle travels with the speed of light. It cannot pass through a finite volume of space for 'zero time', even if the volume of space is 'tending asymptotically toward zero', as in the case of the empty set (R). Thus, it will always need 'more Archimedean time' to pass through all uncountably infinite points from the perfectly smooth continuum of the local (physical) mode of spacetime. This is the essence of 'potential infinity', and it is valid only for the local mode of spacetime.

Hence the interpretation of 'the infinitesimal' as the empty set (R): in the local mode of spacetime, it is and will always remain a finite entity, tending asymptotically toward zero, being comprised from uncountably infinite points. In the global mode, however, it is a purely geometrical, dimensionless point -- just one single geometrical point (Fig. 1).

NB: This one single geometrical point cannot be reach from/within the local (physical) mode of spacetime, for any finite duration of time, as read with a physical clock. Why? Because its physical content (jacket) is UNdecidable, after the Thompson Lamp paradox.

Thus, the empty set (R) is endowed with a structure, as hinted in Fig. 1 below, and with 'space inversion' (Fig. 1.1). It is the flashmob for the two modes of spacetime, at which they "coincide". It is also the instant 'now' (now-at-a-distance) from the Arrow of Space. And thanks to the so-called "speed of light", it has zero duration and zero spatial extension.

Compared to the local mode, the global mode of spacetime is ontologically different: it is a non-Archimedean realm of 'potential reality' (GPIs), which can traverse any finite -- arbitrarily "large" or arbitrarily "small" -- line segment, plane, or volume of space from the local (physical) mode of spacetime for zero time, as it would have been read by the clock attached to a test particle from the local mode. Namely, the global mode is equipped with 'actual/completed infinity': it can traverse the uncountably infinite points of any finite object for zero time (as it would have been read by the clock attached to the test particle from the local mode), and endows the local mode with a web of "instantaneous" correlations (as they would have been read by an inanimate clock from the local mode). With the Arrow of Space, such kinematics gives rise to a new dynamics resembling a living organism: a 'school of fish'-type bootstrapping of physical systems in their quantum and gravitational regimes, and quasi-local geodesics, in line with the rule 'think globally act locally' (hence one can introduce a background-free, relational reality and Machian quantum gravity).

The question of what kind of 'global time' runs in the global mode of spacetime, equipped with "instantaneous" actual infinity, can be answered by explaining its corresponding 'global space' and the non-Archimedean structure of the purely geometrical GPIs in it.

In general, the quest for amending Finite Infinity with an Arrow of Space is highly non-trivial, because we should also consider the following tasks:

1. The two modes of spacetime are separated by the fleeting instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, namely, the global mode is placed in the realm of 'potential reality' (GPIs residing in the potential future in the Arrow of Space), while the local mode refers to the irreversible world of explicated GPIs in terms of facts, placed in the steadily increasing 'irreversible past' from the Arrow of Space. Such 'ever-increasing past' is what makes an 'arrow', due to irreversible 'information gain': every instant 'now' pertains to an explicated physical universe, which contains more information that its immediate predecessor in the 'ever increasing past', and at the same instant 'now' the physical universe is offered an enriched spectrum of potential states to choose from for its next instant 'now', just as in the cognitive cycle of Ulric Neisser (Fig. 2 and Ch. 2 and 4).

Metaphorically speaking, the Arrow of Space is depicted with the Dragon devouring its tail (Ouroboros), from the Chrysopoeia ('Gold Making') of Cleopatra during the Alexandrian Period in Egypt. The enclosed words mean 'The All is One.'

The ultimate source for such information gain is 'the true monad without windows' which remains at absolute rest within the instant 'now' (see below), depicted with Fig. 1 below.

1.1. The only "meeting point" of the two modes of spacetime is the instant 'now', in which they coincide (Fig. 1). The result is an already completed and already negotiated physical universe, spanned across the absolute instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, with 3-D space and zero "thickness" along  w  (cf. below), in which “there’s energy in the gravitational field, but it’s negative, so it exactly cancels the energy you think is being gained in the matter fields” (Sean Carroll); check out the Photoshop layers metaphor below and the resulting non-linear dynamics here.

2. The unique "boundaries" on 3-D space in all (timelike, null, and spacelike) directions, introduced with Finite Infinity, should make the universe an 'isolated system', which (i) contains 'absolutely everything', included its Aristotelian First Cause, (ii) is self-enclosed (Albert Einstein), and (iii) is "bounded" by some ambient unphysical spacetime (called here 'global mode of spacetime') which is part and parcel from the same 'isolated system'.

2.1. To describe such 'universe as ONE' -- self-wrapped (cf. (iii) above) and endowed with the faculty of 'self-acting' due to its "gravitational field" -- one needs to place its source "inside" the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space (Fig. 1), and make sure that the so-called "dark" energy of 'the universe as ONE' is unobservable in principle.

3. Last but not least, the ultimate source of 'the universe as ONE' should be interpreted as 'zero nothing', that is, a special kind of "zero" opposite to the mundane case of 'zero something'. Perhaps the only way we could grasp the notion of 'zero nothing' or 'the true monad without windows' is by recalling the relation between the content and volume of concepts: the larger the volume, the smaller the content; hence the source of 'absolutely everything, the unknown unknown included' should possess zero intrinsic content (cf. the undefinable matrix).

I haven't been able to find suitable mathematical formalism to describe these widely known ideas. All I can offer is a simple (but incomplete) geometrical explanation of Finite Infinity.

Firstly, there should exist a maximal volume of 3-D space (L), at which we place the Finite Infinity (FI), such that any finite volume of space, no matter how large, is identified as an Archimedean sub-volume smaller than the 'maximal space volume',  L . Likewise, there should exist a minimal volume of 3-D space (S), at which we place the same Finite Infinity (FI), such that any finite volume of space, no matter how small, is identified as an Archimedean volume larger than 'the minimal space volume',  S .

Secondly, the two physical, finite, Archimedean volumes of space tend asymptotically toward  L  and  S  in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, but cannot reach them for any finite Archimedean duration of time due to the "structure" of the empty set (R) at which the global mode and the local mode coincide (Fig. 1).

The 'no-go' axiom about the empty set (R) ("cannot reach them for any Archimedean duration of time") stems from our belief (not 'fact') that there exist, in the local mode of spacetime, an 'uncountably infinite' "number" of points between any finite Archimedean volumes of space and their "two" cutoffs, L and  S : the empty set (R) cannot be bridged by any finite Archimedean system for any finite duration of time, even if it jumps over the points with the "speed of light". That is, in the local mode of spacetime the empty set (R) is 'finite' entity, and will always occupy a finite, albeit "very small", volume of space packed with 'uncountably infinite' points arranged by 'potential infinity'. On the other hand, the same empty set (R) is consumed/traversed instantaneously in the global mode of spacetime, which has non-Archimedean nature and is endowed with 'actual/completed' infinity.

Thus, we shall place the "two" cutoffs, L and  S , within the red point in Fig. 1 below, stressing again its UNdecidable nature (Thompson Lamp paradox) of 'potential reality': pre-quantum non-colorizable General Platonic Ideas (GPIs).

FI Postulate: Due to the Thompson Lamp paradox, any finite, arbitrarily "large" or "small", Archimedean volume cannot physically reach  L  and  S  residing in the global mode of spacetime, equipped with actual infinity.

A precise explanation of 'physically reach': in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, we always reach/nullify the empty set (R) at the point of '2 min', which is why the state of Thompson's lamp is always defined by the rules of 'bartenders', but it is just a fleeting "jacket" cast by John from the global mode of spacetime. The latter is endowed with actual infinity. In other words, in the global mode of spacetime the interval [0, 2] is closed, while in the local mode the same interval is open -- (0, 2).

Thanks to the Arrow of Space, the 'large finite volume' will chase  L  in the local mode indefinitely; in the local mode of spacetime the empty set (R) can only tend asymptotically toward zero. The same holds for the opposite case of the separation of any arbitrarily small Archimedean volume of space from  S  by the same empty set (R): in the local mode, it would require an infinite -- actual infinity -- amount of time for the elimination of the empty set (R) and reducing it to zero, at which point the Arrow of Space would stop, and the universe would cease to exist.

Notice that the FI Postulate introduces new structure of spacetime at the level of 'differentiable manifold' prior to any matter; example here.

The very notion of 'space' requires that all physical objects acquire finite Archimedean size; a table with length 'one meter' fills in a template for 'one meter'. In the case of an one-meter template, we observe a finite table with length one meter, which is again a 'sub-volume of finite space'. The purpose of Finite Infinity (FI) is to define the largest template and the smallest template for all finite volumes of 3-D space.


The maximal volume of 3-D space,  L , and minimal volume of 3-D space,  S , belong to the global mode of spacetime for which the actual infinity holds ('already completed'), and are related by

LS = 1  (Eq. 1).

Thanks to the empty set (R), no physical, Archimedean stuff can 'physically reach'  L  and hence go "beyond"  L  , and also no physical stuff can 'physically reach'  S  and hence go "below"  S  (compared it to the conformal recipe): L & S  is ONE object which belongs to the non-Archimedean global mode of spacetime.

In a nutshell, the modified Finite Infinity satisfied two conditions: in the local mode of spacetime the universe approaches asymptotically its causal boundary (cf. Eq. 1 above) within an open interval, while at the same time the universe is being (present continuous) permanently wrapped by itself in the global mode of spacetime. Hence 3-D space can be literally wrapped by itself, exactly as Albert Einstein required.

Again, there is no path whatsoever to the global mode of spacetime from the local mode of spacetime; hence the FI Postulate above. The difference between  S  and  L  is that in the case of the former we can find some 'numerically finite but physically unattainable boundary/cut off' (the Planck length), but for  L  we have only an eternally expanding 'sub-volume of finite space', which can only chase  L  but can never physically reach it: L  and  S  belong to the non-Archimedean global mode of spacetime.

It is the Arrow of Space which creates such asymmetry in the treatment of   L  and  S . We have a numerically finite but physically unattainable "bottom", while space "expands" in the local mode toward  L  indefinitely: at each and every instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, the universe occupies a finite sub-volume, being literally wrapped from both "below" and "above" with Eq. 1 above. Depending on the direction we look at the edge of the universe in the local mode of spacetime, either toward  L  or toward  S , we see "two" edges, while in the global mode they are ONE -- the universe as ONE, as stressed by Lucretius some 2060 years ago. We don't have such structure of spacetime in differential geometry textbooks.

Notice that we face here a kind of 'logical infinity': no physical, Archimedean volume of space can reach  L , because  L & S  belong to the 'the universe as ONE' (Eq. 1 above). In other words, one could logically reach something only if this "something" is 'not yet reached', while in our case it is logically impossible to "reach" something (L) which is being eternally residing "inside" us (S) from the outset. Thus, the notion of 'logical infinity' refers to the statement that if the Arrow of Space is terminated, the universe will cease to exist and will return to its initial state of pure light and cognition, known as [John 1:1].

Without the global mode of spacetime, the universe would be governed exclusively by Archimedean geometry, conformal recipes would have worked, tessellation of space with 3-D "tiles" would have been possible, and we would calculate the exact finite number of "atoms" filling a finite volume of space without any gaps from the empty set (R): we would hit an "end-point" beyond which "is nothing, and then more nothing" (S. Leacock). Thank God, this is impossible.

Again, we cannot physically "see"  L & S , because we don't have access to 'actual infinity'. Only Chuck Norris has been there (twice).
----------

Now, let me try to explain geometrically the empty set (R), which would "point" to the "dimension" of space, denoted with  w  (from wunderbar, after Theodor Kaluza), of the postulated global mode of spacetime (pictured with red; local mode with black).

The size of physical bodies along  w  are zero, because  w  lives only at the fleeting instant 'now'  -- a purely geometrical "point" at which the two modes of spacetime, global and local, coincide. Attached to the same instant 'now' is a 'pocket of propensity states' in the global mode of spacetime, called General Platonic Ideas (GPIs); check out GPIs in the human brain (not "mind") here.

First, the dimensionless instant 'now', at which the two modes of spacetime coincide:
 

Fig. 1
 

Fig. 1.1
Space inversion with respect to the instant 'now' (Fig. 1).

The so-called 'space symmetry' in the global mode of spacetime (pictured with red) is defined as two interchangeable and
simultaneous presentations of any finite volume of space from the local mode (pictured with black circle), such that a global
observer can monitor any finite volume of space in the two
directions of  w  simultaneously, as explained in Wiki: (i) from the
center of the circle (Fig. 1) "outside" in all radial directions, and
(ii) from "outside" the black circle (2-D trapped surface of lion's cage) toward the center of the circle along the same T-inverted radial directions (not shown). In 2-D space, the "trapped surface" is a circle; in 3-D space it is a sphere with radius r (Fig. 4.2). In order to derive the circumference of the black circle, consider the two red rectangles (sides n = 4), and start doubling their parameter n , after Archimedes. At the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space (Fig. 1),  n  reaches actual/completed infinity and the inscribed and the circumscribed polygons shift to 'pure geometry' of 'the grin of the cat without the cat', as observed by Alice (in the LHS of Einstein field equation).

 

The sides of the polygons are converted into uncountably infinite "geometrical points", each of which can take a fleeting physical (colored) "jacket" in the local mode of spacetime (cf. the parable of John's jackets below).

If we apply space inversion along the two "directions" in the drawing from Mark Armstrong below, we can grasp the notion of Finite Infinity: every volume of 3-D space is being snapped like the circumference of a circle, along the two "directions" of  w  (see Fig. 5 below), thanks to which it becomes a finite entity. Voila!
 

M.A. Armstrong, Basic Topology, Springer, 1997, p. 104

In the local mode of spacetime (pictured with black), we multiply the dimensionless point in Fig. 1 along one dimension in two opposite directions, to obtain 2-D spacetime. For the purpose of this presentation, the time direction will not be shown. Notice that 1-D space is endowed with T-invariance: we can flip all the points to the right with those to the left (Fig. 2.1), and vice versa, with respect to the initial point in the middle (Fig. 2.2).
 

Fig. 2.1
 

Fig. 2.2

The next step is constructing 2-D space from Fig. 2.2, by introducing a second spatial dimension, again with two directional degrees of freedom, and move all points from 1-D space, en bloc, in two opposite directions (Fig. 3.1).
 

Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.3

Notice that Fig. 3.2 is a Flatland universe (time dimension not shown) in which Flatlanders enjoy PT-invariance: swapping the points along the horizontal line (Fig. 3.2), with respect to the vertical line, will bring T-symmetry, while the vertical flip, with respect to the horizontal line, will produce a mirror image with 'right' and 'left' interchanged. If we try to apply Finite Infinity to such Flatland universe, the two spatial dimensions will be "bounded" by the non-physical (to Flatlanders) third spatial dimension in which their space would look extrinsically "curved", with "tangential surfaces" attached to one "point" but spanned in the third spatial dimension.

In the current GR textbooks and tutorials, the black and red points in Fig. 3.3 are fused with the rules of diff calculus, after Leibniz; then people claim that in "sufficiently small" (notice the poetry) neighborhood around such fused black/red point "it is possible to choose a "locally inertial coordinate system" such that, within a sufficiently small region of the point in question, the laws of nature take the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems in the absence of gravitation" (cf. below). What a mess.

Going back to the Flatland: we, as "global" observers, can "see" all points from Fig. 3.2 en bloc, while the Flatlanders will encounter obstructions from a line: it will be like an infinite 1-D wall which prevents them from seeing "behind" the wall. We can "see" all the points from Fig. 3.2 simultaneously, en bloc, which would translate to Flatlanders as 'keeping simultaneously two inverted images from their Flatland', one with T-symmetry and a second one with P-symmetry. Regarding their 'time', the Flatlanders will be totally puzzled by our ability to oversee en bloc their two paths from A to B in their (t+)-direction, and from B to A in their (t-)-direction. They don't have such clock, and will claim that our "time" is dead frozen (much like 3-D people do in canonical quantum gravity).

It requires far more efforts to elaborate on the example from Wiki about an infinite 2-D plane in our 3-D space, which poses no restrictions to "observers" in the global mode along  w  , equipped with actual infinity and capable to "see" simultaneously all points from our 3-D space both en bloc and inverted with 'space inversion' (cf. Fig. 5). Notice that we have three such restrictive planes in 3-D space (xy, xz, and yz, cf. Fig. 4.2), and enjoy CTP-invariance upon "swapping" the points via the global mode of spacetime, as we did in Figs 2.1 and 3.1 above.

The new symmetry, called 'space inversion', should eliminate all fixed relations in the Archimedean 3-D space, such as 'large vs small' or 'inside vs outside'. Otherwise our 3-D space will not be dynamical, but will impose a fixed background for the length scale in terms of absolute size of objects in 3-D space. Once we eliminate the absolute Newtonian time, we should eliminate all absolute structures from 3-D space as well.

To elaborate on the example from Wiki, I suppose one could "see", from the global mode of spacetime, two superposed P-invariant images of "the lion", obtained after the inverted (w.r.t. the cage surface) 3-D space. Such symmetry is literally about inverting all the "points" trapped inside a finite volume of space approaching asymptotically S  with all the "points" from the finite volume of space approaching asymptotically, in "opposite direction",  L , which remain outside that "shrinking" finite volume of space (Fig. 1.1). The "number" of points in any finite volume of space is 'uncountably infinite', so there should be no obstacles to perform such 'space inversion'.

Let's start with endowing the Flatland with a spatial dimension, by moving all the points from Fig. 3.2 en bloc along two opposite "directions", up (toward L) and down (toward S):
 

Fig 4.1

Fig. 4.2
The "expansion" of 3-D space (S < r < L)

The two opposite "directions" along  w , inferred from Fig. 4.1, are absent in Fig. 4.2. One is toward the Small (S); the other runs in the opposite direction along  w , toward the Large (L). In the instant 'now' (Fig. 1), these additional geometrical degrees of freedom are set to zero, as explained in the beginning of this exercise -- they are hidden within the empty set (R). The meaning of 'set to zero' corresponds to 'spontaneous broken symmetry' (cf. below): we end up with only one "charge" of mass, and the wunderbar (after Theodor Kaluza) dimension  w  is being literally eliminated, thanks to which we obtain the good old 3-D space of classical physics. It doesn't contain any trace from the "negative mass", but two worlds with inverted spacetime basis, material and tachyonic, separated by a luxonic "surface":

Max Tegmark, arXiv:gr-qc/9702052v2, Footnote 4: "The only remaining possibility is the rather contrived case where data is specified on a null hypersurface. To measure such data, an observer would need to "live on the light cone", i.e., travel with the speed of light, which means that it would subjectively not perceive any time at all (its proper time would stand still)."

 

Due to the 'spontaneous broken symmetry' (cf. below), we have two kinds of mass in the picture above, real and imaginary (tachyonic), safely separated by a timeless luxonic world of zero, or rather indifferent mass, which keeps the dimension  w  totally hidden.

Notice that, in addition to the three planes in 3-D space (xy, xz, and yz) and their corresponding transformations or "swapping the points" (CPT-invariance), we have a new 'space inversion' symmetry, as mentioned in the discussion of Fig. 1.1 above.


NB: This exercise will be really tough. Try to imagine the "trapped circle" from Fig. 1.1 as "trapped 3-D space", that is, a 3-D "rubber glove" hypersurface which can be seen along the two directions of  w  as two simultaneous "gloves", right and left, corresponding to the unbroken symmetry of the GPI field (see below) inhabited by the unphysical, GPI states of negative & positive mass.

You will have the unique freedom to "look" at the 3-D hypersurface simultaneously along the two directions of  w  : from 'inside-out' and from 'outside-inside' (cf. the drawing from Mark Armstrong below), corresponding to 'sphere' and 'torus' (cf. Fig. 5).
 

M.A. Armstrong, Basic Topology, Springer, 1997, p. 104

Such simultaneous viewpoint is impossible to imagine, as hinted in Wiki, but if we lower the dimensions of the physical space to 2-D spherical surface trapped by the six red planes in Fig. 4.2, the 'inside-out' view will display all points from the 2-D spherical surface, as seen from the center of Fig. 4.2 along all radial directions 'inside-out', and by executing 'space inversion' with respect to the 2-D spherical surface ("lion's cage") we will see again all points from the finite 2-D surface from 'outside-inside', along the inverted radial directions, keeping the two presentations of the 2-D "rubber glove" (left and right) simultaneously available to our  w - inspection. However, we cannot "move" the unique object at the center of Fig. 4.2, shown with the red point in Fig. 1 above: it is in 'absolute rest' and is residing both inside every point from the physical 3-D space and outside the physical 3-D space, as The Beginning (see below) of the two viewpoints at the 3-D "rubber glove" hypersurface along  w , from 'inside-out' and from 'outside-inside'.


Last but not least, the aim of the putative space inversion is to recover 'asymptotically flat spacetime' with the two 'viewpoints' along  w . Look at Fig. 3.2 above, and picture it as a clock, such that Fig. 1 is placed at the center, and four red segments tangential to 12, 3, 6, and 9. Imagine one radius "connecting" (not quite: see Fig. 4.3) the center to 9, and blow up the circle by instructing the radius to reach infinity and pass "over" it. The conventional wisdom tells us that the circle will "degenerate", or rather "collapse", to 1-D Euclidean space presented with the vertical red line at  9  (Fig. 3.2) at the very instant at which its radius is exactly infinite, but at that same instant the two points in the orthogonal direction, 12 and 6, will ultimately break up. Once it passes "over" infinity, the object will regain its 2-D status, but will be converted into two finite cross-sections of a torus. Notice that at the instant of 'collapse over infinity' all points from the circle in Fig. 3.2 will be arranged in 1-D space, like those in Fig. 2.2 above.

Now, if we keep the radius constant, such non-smooth topological transition will match a well-known screensaver in Windows 97, half of which is depicted with the drawing from D. DeCarlo and D. Metaxas (1996) below.

But our case is different, since we wish to recover the asymptotically flat spacetime "around" the critical 'collapse over infinity' instant, with positive and negative space curvature inherited from the circle and the torus. Namely, after passing through this critical instant, not just one but all "inflating" radial directions -- except for the center, see Fig. 1 -- will be inverted, as explained in the exercise above. If we wish to start by inflating the torus from 'case (e)' above, along the opposite direction in  w , we will again pass through the same 'collapse over infinity' instant, "around" which we imagine some 'asymptotically flat spacetime', after which we will wind up in the "clock" case from Fig. 3.2, only this time its radius will be shrinking toward the center of the clock. Please keep these two invertible T-invariant images passing through 'asymptotically flat spacetime' in your mind. All we need now is to replace the circle/torus with the 3-D "rubber glove" hypersurface from the exercise above.

Again, the two opposite directions along  w  are totally hidden inside the luxonic world (cf. Max Tegmark above) with indifferent (zero) mass. Physically, the two directions of the circle/torus conversion in the global mode of spacetime, along  w , are totally hidden, their duration is zero, and we can only imagine two atemporal waves, depicted with the Escher hands, by which all non-linear negotiations in 'the school of fish' are completed for zero time, as read with your wristwatch: we can never see Macavity.
 

Notice that I haven't tried so far to introduce any 'distance function'. I have only an uncountably-infinite 'points' ordered with the relation of intermediacy, [A (zero) B], which is interpreted as "zero is ]between[ A and B". The unique object with zero physical presence in the local (physical) mode of spacetime is The Aristotelian Connection of 'the universe as ONE' (cf. the red dot in Fig. 1). It is manifested by purely affine connection facilitating parallel transport of vectors in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, from one spacetime point to the nearest point, and is independent from the metric. It also captures the essence of the "speed" of light. Let me try to explain.

0.47-0.52: "Relative to the platform, time on the train completely stops."
The ill-defined expression " √0 " must be amended by a new mathematical object relevant exclusively to the non-Archimedean global mode of spacetime.
 

Relative to the passengers in the train (see the picture above), the local mode of their 'time on the train' does indeed "stop": you move into the luxonic world (cf. Max Tegmark above), and can "see" all the intermediate topological transformations of the Universe, not just its 'collapse over infinity'-state depicted in Fig. 5.

Consider again a finite chunk of space, say, one meter: it is comprised from uncountably-infinite 'points' ordered with the relation of intermediacy, [A (zero) B]. The Aristotelian Connection of 'the universe as ONE', [A (zero) B], passes the physical state at point A to its "neighboring" point B with particular "speed" which acquires an upper limit for any finite volume of space. The numerical value of the "speed of light" isn't interesting; just like the Planck length, it is a 'numerically finite but physically unattainable boundary of the local mode of spacetime'. We cannot define, even as a Gedankenexperiment, 'one second' as the product of [Planck time] x 10⁴³. The universe as ONE (global mode) is a totally different world which shows up only with its Aristotelian Connection.

What matters here is that The Aristotelian Connection operates in the global mode of spacetime: it "reads" all of the uncountably-infinite 'points' from any finite chunk of space  en bloc . By an analogy with a movie reel, one could speculate that The Aristotelian Connection is "projecting" 3-D space as 'uncountably-infinite infinitesimal "frames" per second', meaning that every "frame" is the 'collapse over infinity'-state (cf. Fig. 5). Unless we encounter relativistic effects (watch the movie from NOVA below), this en bloc "reading" does not slow down (for comparison, watch a water drop here).
 

The unique "speed" of light, due to The Aristotelian Connection, is preventing us from taking even a glimpse at the global mode of spacetime: we can see only an already-completed physical world, in line with the idea about relativistic causality ("causal processes or signals can propagate only within the light-cone," Jeremy Butterfield).

Notice the precise meaning in GR of 'already-completed': all non-linear negotiations between the two sides of the Einstein field equations are being post factum completed for zero time, as read with your wristwatch. "All agree that in general relativity, the metric tensor g_ij is (or better: represents a field that is) dynamical: it acts and is (at the same instant - D.C.) acted on. They also agree that it is a special field since it couples to every other one, and also cannot vanish anywhere in spacetime. Many authors go on to say that the metric tensor represents geometry, or spacetime structure, so that geometry or spacetime structure acts and is (at the same instant - D.C.) acted on" (Jeremy Butterfield). More succinctly: "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at the same instant - D.C.) affected by, the other fields" (John Baez). This non-linear paradox is depicted with the Escher hands above, and can be resolved only with the two modes of spacetime, as argued previously. Michael Redhead argued in 1995 that the notion of 'localizable particle' makes sense only for a free particle, while I suggest a 'quasi-local' alternative in terms of Machian relational ontology with the rule 'with respect to everything else in the universe'. In short, the issue of relativistic causality is anything but trivial in GR. As stressed by Margaret Hawton, in quantum field theory probability density is defined at a fixed instant  t  , and it is by no means obvious how to "insert" in such fixed instant  t  the already-completed non-linear 'acting and at the same instant being acted upon' in GR.

Thanks to The Aristotelian Connection [A (zero) B], there exists a bond between spacetime points, and the "speed" of light is its manifestation. If the "speed" were infinite or unlimited, there would be no difference between 'small' and 'large', and '3-D space' as the medium for 'finite things' would have not existed; if the "speed" of light were a finite entity, it would be surpassable, and then there would be no separation between the two worlds with inverted spacetime basis, material and tachyonic (cf. Max Tegmark above).

Notice that 'space as the medium for finite things' is a very old idea, debated by Ernst Mach. The difference between 'small' and 'large' is not fixed in the local, Archimedean mode of spacetime, but in the global, non-Archimedean mode by 'finite invariant templates' (cf. below).

NB: The alteration of these templates is the essence of gravity. We have 'finite invariant templates' for 'finite space', fixed by The Aristotelian Connection: it is the bond between spacetime points that determines 'the time it would take a photon to traverse a distance equal to a [finite volume of space]'. (As Erik Curiel explained, arXiv:0908.3322v3 [gr-qc], "in general relativity all the fundamental units one uses to define stress-energy, namely time, length and mass, can themselves be defined using only the unit of time; these are so-called geometrized units. (...) A unit of length is then defined as that in which light travels in vacuo in one time-unit.") Then a minuscule alteration of the bond between spacetime points can produce enormous change of 'the time it would take a photon', and subsequently of the 'finite invariant templates' (resembling "curvature", cf. Bill Unruh), leaving the deceitful impression of some "cold dark matter" or "supermassive black hole".

  The effect is purely geometrical, according to the so-called relative scale principle (RSP). Namely, an observer placed inside such altered (by 'the time it would take a photon') spacetime template will not notice any change of her ambient spacetime assembled by The Aristotelian Connection, in terms of her 'one meter and one second': she will always experience the same "speed of light", regardless of the extent to which her template has been altered with respect to an unaltered template of an observer placed at the length scale of tables and chairs. This is because the "number" of spacetime points in any finite volume of 3-D space, approaching asymptotically  S  and  L , remains unchanged (Kurt Gödel), being a non-Archimedean phenomenon, and also because The Aristotelian Connection is endowed with 'actual infinity' and "reads" all uncountably-infinite 'points' from any finite chunk of space  en bloc .

Notice that 'the time it would take a photon', which defines each and every 'finite volume of space' (see above), is the global (en bloc) mode of time. It is the background time code of the animation from John Walker below, and it must be totally hidden.

Again, the crux of the matter is the initial puzzle of 'one meter' and its treatment with the two manifestations of infinity. Namely, with the potential infinity operating in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, 'one meter' will be presented with "open sets" (James Dungundji), which do not include the crucial 'end points', ( 1m ), despite the fact that any such interval can be defined only with respect to a fixed point in The Beginning; with the actual/completed infinity operating in the global non-Archimedean mode of spacetime, the same 'one meter' will be presented as 'completed' en bloc interval [ 1m ]. The puzzle of 'the infinitesimal' was identified by Titus Lucretius Carus some 2070 years ago, yet people still seek 'the smoothest manifold' like bartenders, and of course cannot find 'the unmoved mover' in GR (Karel Kuchar).

There is a lot more to be said about the "speed" of light, as The Aristotelian Connection "happens" only post-factum, at null-surface. We cannot witness the alteration of these templates online, as it "happens", and we will always observe an already-assembled, by The Aristotelian Connection, spacetime in which we cannot reach the luxonic world.

By going into the center of Milky Way, all we can post-factum observe is a finite volume of space in which our 'one meter and one second' has not been altered, hence we would claim that these 'spacetime templates' are "invariant to us", while a distant observer will see us "shrinking". Ditto to the "expansion" of space. There is no need to invoke any anomalous "dark" stuff with "positive energy density and negative pressure", as you may have heard from Ned Wright, say.

More on SPR later; for now it suffices to say that the "speed" of light must be 'numerically finite but physically unattainable boundary' in order to provide for finite volumes of space and time intervals of the local mode of spacetime.

First and foremost, I need to eliminate all absolute structures in 3-D space, such as 'absolute size', by allowing the 'templates for finite space' to shrink toward  S  and expand toward  L , as viewed by an observer at the length scale of tables and chairs, and also providing invariant size of all object toward  S  and toward  L , as seen by a co-moving observer. In other words, we need a dual, scale-dependent metric to define 'distances in 3-D space'. Then the "expansion of space" can be explained as an illusion observed only from the length scale of tables and chairs. Ditto to the "non-accelerated" shrinking of the "size" of objects toward  S , in line with the so-called 'relative scale principle' (RSP). The latter is an elaboration on the old idea about 'the mutual penetration of the Large and the Small'. Who has "the right meter"? Nobody. This is the essence of RSP. Simple, no?

NB: To explain the 'templates for finite space' and their "dark" influence on matter and fields, recall the operational definition of 'second': the total duration of 9,192,631,770 transitions between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom, provided the cesium atom is "at rest at a temperature of 0K, such that the ground state is defined at zero magnetic field" (reference here). In the local, Archimedean mode of spacetime, we imagine that the distance between every two neighboring dots from the drawing below refers to one transition between the two levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom, and that the total of such physical, Archimedean distances, comprising 'one second', is exactly 9,192,631,700:

 

{..............................................}

 

This is clearly an unfeasible Gedankenexperiment, which cannot be reproduced. Most importantly, the "intrinsic time interval associated to any timelike displacement" (Ted Jacobson, pp. 18-19), defined here as 'the elementary tick of time  ]between[  two purely geometrical points ordered with the relation of intermediacy [A (zero) B]', can be defined only in the global, non-Archimedean mode of spacetime. These are 'invariant templates' for finite durations of time and finite volumes of space, which approach asymptotically  L  and  S .

NB: An objection to such 'finite templates' would be that they are merely mental, or epistemological constructs representing our "knowledge", hence we cannot grant them an ontological status of 'ideal geometrical reality'. Well, with Finite Infinity we can indeed suggest such 'finite templates' fixed by the topological transitions in the global mode of spacetime (cf. Fig. 5), hence resolve the underlying puzzle of 'extendable volumes of space', which allow us to "look around, and see as far as we can" (L. Smolin). This simple fact can be explained iff the spacetime "points" are perfect geometrical points ordered by The Aristotelian Connection as a perfect continuum (the current theory requires that "points become fuzzy and locality looses any precise meaning," cf. Sergio Doplicher).

The alteration of these templates, relative to an observer at macroscopic length scale, produces purely geometrical effects (interpreted as "black holes" and "expanding space"), yet a co-moving observer will not notice any alteration of her intrinsic 'distance function'. Again, this is the well-known idea about 'the mutual penetration of the Large and the Small', which can start only from the macroscopic length scale in the two "directions" along  w , toward  L  and toward  S .

With RSP and its dual spacetime metric, one could alter the "distances" in 3-D space in such a way that a "reactionless" alien visiting craft (AVC) will travel with speed "one meter per second" (relative to the people in the AVC) to cover the size of a galaxy (relative to observers outside the AVC). You won't notice your "speeding", but you will notice that the space in front of you is running towards you, just like with the Alcubierre warp drive. In RSP, the question of 'who has the right meter and the right second' is meaningless. In present-day GR, the question of 'who has the right meter' is answered with absolute size of objects in 3-D space, toward  L  and toward  S , which is nothing but 'looking for a right answer to a wrong question'.

Fig. 4.3 below shows the main idea of Finite Infinity.
 

And finally, let's see how the  w  axis will look in the global mode of spacetime (Fig. 5), by combining Fig. 1 with the blow up of Fig. 3.2 at the point " 9 o'clock " (not shown).
 

Fig. 5

The red/black point in Fig. 5 belongs to an asymptotically flat, physical, 4-D spacetime; the vertical black line is taken from Fig. 2.2. above. The right part from Fig. 5 shows the T-invariant (cf. the drawing from Mark Armstrong above) "blow up" of the circle from Fig. 3.2, by watching the point at "9 o'clock" (see above): at the critical 'collapse over actual infinity' instant, at which the radius of the circle in Fig. 3.2 is exactly infinite, we would have obtained an absolutely flat 4-D spacetime, which is why I talked, for the lack of better wording, about "around the critical 'collapse over infinity' instant". The left part from Fig. 5 shows a segment from a torus -- see the drawing from DeCarlo and Metaxas above, 'case (e)', and the explanation of 'space inversion', about the two simultaneous viewpoints at the 3-D "rubber glove" Cauchy hypersurface, from 'inside-out' (right part from Fig. 5) and from 'outside-inside' (left part from Fig. 5). The horizontal  w  axis is the one along which 'the mutual penetration of the Small and the Large' begins from the macroscopic length scale, as discussed above. Hence the only remnant from  w  in our asymptotically flat spacetime (called 'local mode of spacetime') is depicted with the two red lines in Fig. 4.3 above, placed at  S  and at  L .

Notice that the horizontal  w  axis is not a 4th spatial dimension, because the new degrees of freedom to "look at" the 3-D "rubber glove" Cauchy hypersurface entail moving simultaneously along all directions in the local mode of spacetime, from any point in 3-D space, from both 'inside-out' toward  L  and its time-reverted direction toward  S . This is impossible in 3-D space, as explained in Wiki below, but recall that these are the "directions" of the Arrow of Space: the elementary 'change of space' is nothing but the elementary increment of our physical time, as read with our clocks -- it isn't a "vector". Thus, the global mode of spacetime and the axis  w  of the Arrow of Space could only be perceived by us as "occurring" in some infinite-dimensional Euclidean space, much like a Flatlander (cf. Fig. 3.2) would be totally puzzled by our 3-D viewpoint, and would also have to imagine some higher-dimensional space to accommodate our 3-D viewpoints inside his Flatland.

To visualize these smooth torus-sphere transitions over the 'collapse over infinity' instant 'now' (Fig. 1), hence the re-created 'asymptotically flat 3-D space', look carefully at the drawing below, from Eric Schechter (5 December 2009, emphasis added): "There are no points for plus or minus infinity on the line, but it is natural to attach those "numbers" to the endpoints of the semicircle."

The point denoted with 'zero' from the vertical line corresponds to the point at "9 o'clock" in Fig. 3.2 above (not shown). Notice that every point from the circle in Fig. 3.2 above will pass over the 'collapse over infinity'-instant, and at this instant its two conjugated endpoints, from the direction orthogonal to the horizontal line segment pictured here, will "break up" the circle and will convert it into a (hyper?) torus. The 3-D space at the exact 'collapse over infinity' instant would be absolutely flat, and would contain just a bare red point from Fig. 1 above, known as [John 1:1]. Which is why I talked, for the lack of better wording, about "around the critical 'collapse over infinity' instant", to describe the asymptotically flat 3-D space, hence 4-D spacetime, of present-day GR.
 

But look at Eq. 1 above: in the global mode of spacetime, we can set  L and  S  to take values of some dimensionless variable "measured" along  w ; all we need is to ensure that  L and  S  take reciprocal values, until they snap to

L = S = 1  (Eq. 2).

Eq. 2 describes 'the whole universe as ONE' in its global mode of spacetime, inhabited only by GPIs. The Arrow of Space runs simultaneously along the two "opposite directions" from  w , and at each and every instant 'now' (see Fig. 1) a newly-born physical universe is being re-created in the local mode of spacetime.

Namely, Eq. 2 reduces to Eq. 1 above, and the finite, Archimedean, 3-D space is born anew by the "spontaneous" broken symmetry, stacked along  w  like Photoshop layers.

We cannot look at the "gaps" of re-creation: the local (physical) mode of spacetime is being re-created as a perfect continuum, thanks to the "speed of light".

Perhaps the global mode of spacetime can be presented with four segments (notice the favicon of my web site) in which two atemporal quantum-gravitational waves run against each other, re-creating asymptotically flat spacetime at the 'collapse over infinity' instant. Also, the fundamental phenomenon called "spin" should be explained as topological property of 3-D space. As Peter Rowlands suggested (arXiv:0912.3433v1, Sec. 3, p. 5), “Space and time are simply quaternions multiplied by i, and spin is simply a topological property of space (as Dirac knew), and not quantum or relativistic in origin.”

In the quantum-and-gravitational realm of the local (physical) mode of spacetime, physical objects gradually acquire increasing access to 'the whole universe as ONE'. They become bootstrapped by their "gravitational field", due to opening a "red window" to their GPIs residing in the global mode of spacetime. Which is why a quantum particle can be in a superposition of its GPI states (say, a superposition of |cat> and |dog>, Erich Joos), and all (not just "small") bodies follow quasi-local geodesics: at each point from such quasi-local geodesics we can install a local Lorentzian frame, by going into "freefall" at such quasi-local point, and imagine that the effects of gravity have re-disappeared.

All this is a very brief and incomplete effort to amend the Finite Infinity, introduced by George F R Ellis. Needless to say, I will be happy to elaborate. Details here.

D. Chakalov
October 28, 2010
Last updated: Saturday, 25 February 2012, 12:53:14 GMT
 

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

Subject: The Cauchy problem in General Relativity, Proceedings of ICM, Vol. III, 421-442, 2006
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 03:54:22 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Igor Rodnianski <irod@math.princeton.edu>, irod@math.mit.edu
Cc: Henk van Elst <hvanelst@karlshochschule.de>,
Hans Ohanian <hohanian@uvm.edu>,
Mark Burgin <mburgin@math.ucla.edu>,
Piotr T Chrusciel <piotr.chrusciel@univie.ac.at>,
Paul Tod <tod@maths.ox.ac.uk>

Dear Dr. Rodnianski,

May I ask you and your colleagues for clarification of the meaning of "implies" (cf. attached) used on p. 422 (emphasis mine).

For comparison, please see an excerpt from Hans Ohanian's arXiv:1010.5557v1 [gr-qc] (cf. attached).

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague
 

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

Subject: GR19 - 2010
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 02:39:23 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Kei-Chi Maeda <maeda@waseda.jp>,
Don Marolf <marolf@physics.ucsb.edu>,
Malcolm MacCallum <m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk>,
Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>,
Jose M M Senovilla <josemm.senovilla@ehu.es>,
Miguel Alcubierre <malcubi@nuclecu.unam.mx>,
Bernard Schutz <bernard.schutz@aei.mpg.de>

Gentlemen:

I mentioned your gathering at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Blanchard

Four years ago, I proposed to convert LIGO tunnels to wine cellars. If you have a better idea, please do write me back.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
 

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

Subject: GR19 - 2010
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 01:49:18 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Gabriela González <gonzalez@lsu.edu>
Cc: Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
rgambini@fisica.edu.uy,
rgambini@relativity.phys.lsu.edu

Dear Professor González,

Regarding my email from June 8, 2005: I noticed your name at

http://www.gr19.com/scicom.php

Perhaps it will be a good idea if you blow the whistle at GR19 and expose the insurmountable problems of "GW astronomy",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Blanchard

The sooner, the better.

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

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


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

Dear Professor González,

I watched your movie "Gravity: Making Waves", with Ray Weiss and Mike Zucker, and would like to share my concerns regarding the "direction" of detecting gravitational waves
[snip]
-----

Note: Look at the "direction" of GW scattering in the animation below: you might be able to "see" these GWs iff you're a meta-observer capable of monitoring the whole spacetime en bloc.

However, this same "direction" is assumed to exist inside the same 3-D space as well: check out the Mock LISA Data Challenge Taskforce and LIGO-Virgo Mock Data (custom made) Working Group, as explained eloquently in their arXiv:gr-qc/0701026v1:

"The burst “repeater” source was placed at the center of the Galaxy and the performance modulation due to Earth’s rotation has been studied with 24 hours of simulated data."

So, the direction of GW scattering 'from the center of the Galaxy toward Earth' matches the direction of the same GW scattering seen by the meta-observer.

Do you smell a rat? If not, join LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

D.C.
June 4, 2010

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

Subject: 8th International LISA Symposium, Stanford University, June 28, 2010 - July 02, 2010
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 06:13:31 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikjRKN3_IeSejei8qsM8MgY8tOAv0_Mv6ziQe_M@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Vivian Drew <vdrew@stanford.edu>
Cc: Joan M Centrella <Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov>,
Warren Johnson <johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu>,
Stephen Merkowitz <stephen.m.merkowitz@nasa.gov>,
Meredith Gibb <meredith.gibb@nasa.gov>,
Karen Smale <karen.m.smale@nasa.gov>,
iris.t.purcarey@nasa.gov, Catherine.m.Corlan@nasa.gov,
Shau-Yun.Tsai-1@nasa.gov, andreluiz.s.luz@nasa.gov,
notoya.r.russell@nasa.gov, mor.vimmer@nasa.gov,
simon.barke@aei.mpg.de, johanna.bogenstahl@aei.mpg.de,
marina.dehne@aei.mpg.de, Roland.Fleddermann@aei.mpg.de,
antonio.garcia@aei.mpg.de, joachim.kullmann@aei.mpg.de,
benjamin.sheard@aei.mpg.de, gudrun.wanner@aei.mpg.de,
frank.steier@aei.mpg.de, Cliff <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>


Dear Dr. Drew,

The reason why LIGO, LISA, etc. will fail miserably is explained at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#mantra

Hundreds of millions U.S. Dollars and Euro -- taxpayers' money -- have been wasted so far by LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and even more are scheduled to be wasted with the "enhanced" and "advanced" LIGO and LISA.

I seriously urge you and your colleagues to examine your problems professionally. Please feel free to pass this email to all participants of your 8th International LISA Symposium.

NB: Should you or any of your colleagues have *professional* questions, please do write me back. Notice I will not reply to insults nor to emotional statements.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
 

 

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

Subject: The Averaging Problem in GR
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:48:51 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37361003230448y8c3d28fr19844c193638a2ab@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Robert van den Hoogen <rvandenh@stfx.ca>
Cc: Juliane Behrend <jbehrend@stfx.ca>,
Masumi Kasai <kasai@phys.hirosaki-u.ac.jp>,
Naoshi Sugiyama <naoshi@a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp>,
Frank Steiner <frank.steiner@uni-ulm.de>,
Claus Gerhardt <gerhardt@math.uni-heidelberg.de>,
Eduardo Guendelman <guendel@bgu.ac.il>,
Thomas Buchert <buchert@obs.univ-lyon1.fr>,
Yi Zhang <zhangyia@cqupt.edu.cn>,
Lau Loi So <s0242010@gmail.com>,
Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>,
Marco Spaans <spaans@astro.rug.nl>,
Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>,
Volker Runde <vrunde@ualberta.ca>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Dear Professor van den Hoogen,

Your recent paper [Ref. 1] is a joy to read, and also a tough challenge to study. I haven't yet completed the second part, but since you acknowledged that Problem C (determining the gravitational correlation) is unresolved, may I offer some thoughts on the subject matter.

It seems to me that many physicists are unaware of the fundamental puzzle in differential calculus, as shown with the Thompson Lamp paradox,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson's_lamp

They write textbooks and teach GR like a bartender [Ref. 2]. Other "bartenders" suggest various ad hoc solutions to the "dark" constituents of the universe in the following fashion:

Q: What is green, lives underground, has one eye, and eats stones?
A: The One-Eyed Green Underground Stone Eating Monster!

I believe both dark matter and dark energy are artefacts of our essentially incomplete presentation of 'the infinitesimal', which may in turn be resolved with some pre-geometric plenum "connecting" x' and x [Ref. 1] dynamically, along an 'arrow of spacetime',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#quiz

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Bahn

I also believe the Thompson Lamp paradox has a quantum version: the UNdecidable KS state,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS

The latter may act as the 'pre-geometric plenum' mentioned above.

Your critical comments and suggestions, as well as the feedback from your colleagues, will be greatly appreciated.

May The Force be with the inhomogeneous cosmologists [Ref. 3].

With all good wishes,

Dimi Chakalov

---------

[Ref. 1] R. J. van den Hoogen, Averaging Spacetime: Where do we go from here? arXiv:1003.4020v1 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4020

p. 1: "Can there be an alternative description for these observational effects that does not assume the existence of these mysterious dark quantities?

"One possibility is that both dark matter and dark energy are artefacts of some effective averaged theory of gravitation.
....
Problem A (How does one Average tensor fields on a manifold?)
Problem C (What is the nature of the gravitational Correlation , C_ab?)
....
p. 7: "3.2. Choice 1: Parallel Transport along Geodesic

"To begin, we must first select a unique curve that connects the points x and x' and a connection: for our purposes, we choose the geodesic and the Levi-Cevita connection. The geodesic is a “natural” choice as there are no other “natural” curves that connect x' and x. In Riemannian space, the geodesic is the shortest and straightest path connecting points x' and x. A weakness in this approach is the assumption that a unique geodesic exists connecting x' and x.
....
p. 8: "We have illustrated a covariant averaging procedure for tensor fields addressing problem A. We have not averaged the Einstein Field Equation’s of General Relativity, and therefore have not addressed problem C of determining the gravitational correlation, so much more work to do."


[Ref. 2]
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~runde/jokes.html

An infinite crowd of mathematicians enters a bar. The first one orders a pint, the second one a half pint, the third one a quarter pint... "I understand", says the bartender - and pours two pints.


[Ref. 3] Masumi Kasai (23 June 2009): "May the Force be with the inhomogeneous cosmologists. May the Force be with us."
IPMU International Conference dark energy: lighting up the darkness!
June 22-26, 2009, http://web.ipmu.jp/seminar/darkenergy09/MKasai.pdf

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

Subject: Request for opinion
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:47:14 +0300
Message-ID:
<w2jbed37361003311047sdef905d3w938a76121dcdb3c8@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Helena Granström <granstrom.h@gmail.com>

Dear Dr. Granström,

I am respectfully requesting your professional opinion on the interpretation of KS Theorem at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS_details

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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

Subject: arXiv:1005.3767v1 [quant-ph], Sec. 4
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 05:06:16 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinsis_3Uw6F0YjPNVRHwucvJyalu9j3O_6_3GJf@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Diederik Aerts <diraerts@vub.ac.be>

Dear Diederik,

I wonder if your work overlaps with mine:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS

Best regards,

Dimi

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

Subject: arXiv:1006.1552v1 [gr-qc], dated: June 9, 2010
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 04:06:55 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Naresh Dadhich <nkd@iucaa.ernet.in>

Hi Naresh,

Regarding your idea that [lambda] "characterizes the matter free state": the "matter free state" has been discussed at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Geroch_note

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Blanchard

I very much look forward to reading your arXiv:1006.1552 v2 [gr-qc].

Regards,

Dimi
-------

Note: Check out N. Dadhich's arXiv:gr-qc/0405115v1, particularly the discussion of Eq. 4. He also posed the following question (arXiv:0802.3034v5 [gr-qc]):

"It is remarkable that even classical dynamics of gravity asks for dimension > 4. As two and three dimensions were not big enough for free propagation of gravity, similarly four dimension is not big enough to fully accommodate self interaction dynamics of gravity. Then the most pertinent question is where does this chain end?"

It ends at infinitely-dimensional spacetime -- see Fig. 2 below. Every infinitesimal "point" from the local mode is endowed with infinitely-many connections (global mode of spacetime) with 'the rest of points' in the local mode. And since the global mode is hidden by the so-called 'speed of light', the bootstrapped local mode is "self-acting" upon itself along the arrow of spacetime. Not surprisingly, the origin of this "self-force" is not traceable, and some people consider it "dark".

This offers a new interpretation of the old idea of "breathing" (inhaling/exhaling) universe (common knowledge in India), only the duration of the "breathing" cycle is exactly zero in the local mode of spacetime, rendering the latter a perfect continuum. That's the proposal for 'quantum principle for spacetime dynamics', after Schrödinger and KS Theorem.

Perhaps Naresh Dadhich would some day accidentally discover it. All he has to do is to forget about "branes" and other multidimensional superstitious.

D.C.
June 12, 2010

 

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

Subject: The raw potato, http://pirsa.org/09080013
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:57:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Bob Coecke <coecke@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>

Hi Bob,

I trust all my email messages sent in the past three years have been received.

You declared your intentions to make "new models and axiom systems for quantum reasoning", and expressed hopes for "important steps towards quantum gravity",

http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/projects/NewQuantumFormalism/index.html

If this just a hobby? For if you were collecting stamps, while I was suggesting to switch to collecting paper napkins, I could understand your attitude of neglecting the underlying "raw potato" -- the UNdecidable KS state,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS

Try it with your brain at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#context

NB: Category theory cannot -- not even in principle -- model the "raw potato". You and John are wasting your time and FQXi donations: $89,981 for your efforts, and $131,865 for John's "Categorifying Fundamental Physics".

Now, if you (John won't respond) are serious about your business, please reply professionally, and I will elaborate.

If you're doing it as a hobby -- don't bother. Have a beer instead.

Take care,

Dimi

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

Subject: Louis Crane, The category of spacetime regions
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:03:45 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Louis Crane <crane@math.ksu.edu>
Cc: Kavita Rajanna <mail@fqxi.org>,
Bob Coecke <coecke@comlab.ox.ac.uk>,
Prakash Panangaden <prakash@cs.mcgill.ca>,
Peter Selinger <selinger@mathstat.dal.ca>,
ross.duncan@comlab.ox.ac.uk, andreas.doering@comlab.ox.ac.uk,
schumacherb@kenyon.edu, J.Barrett@bristol.ac.uk

Dear Dr. Crane,

Regarding your talk at the 7th QPL workshop "Quantum Physics and Logic" and arXiv:gr-qc/0602120v2, and the $135,247 FQXi award, perhaps you may wish to see my recent email to Bob Coecke,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Coecke

I think $135,247 is a lot of money to be spend for a hobby. What do you think?

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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

Subject: arXiv:0705.2908v2
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 05:43:08 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Yi-Fang Chang <yifangchang1030@hotmail.com>, Yi-Fang Chang <yifangch@sina.com>

Dear Dr. Chang,

I read with great interest your arXiv:0705.2908v2, but couldn't understand the following:

"When the positive and negative matters with the same mass meet, they will become a real vacuum." And also: "The positive and negative matters under some exceeding conditions may be created from nothing at the same time. They will also be main tests of the existence of negative matter."

What could be the ultimate source of positive and negative matters (called "nothing"), such that it can "meet" them as "a real vacuum"?

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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

Subject: Re: The shape of space
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:05:42 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Graham Nerlich <Graham.Nerlich@adelaide.edu.au>

Dear Graham,

You said (Thu, 23 Dec 2004) that the affine structure "is a further primitive (not definable from mere differential structure) structure which you can postulate using some representation or other of it" -- please see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Force

I will appreciate your critical comments.

All the best,

Dimi

--------
Subject: Re: The shape of space
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:38:15 +1030
From: Graham Nerlich <graham.nerlich@adelaide.edu.au>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>

I meant something pretty simple by what I wrote in Shape of Space. Consider a space which has the structure only of a differential manifold. Then, so far, no affine structure, no geodesics, no curvature, no Christoffel tensor. The transition from this to affine structure is not given by or extruded from Christoffel symbols or the 3-tensors which they represent. The affine structure is a further primitive (not definable from mere differential structure) structure which you can postulate using some representation or other of it. You can postulate it as a covariant derivative, a connection, or a tensor which can be represented in coordinates by a Christoffel symbol. But that representation makes sense only if the affine structure is already there, so to speak. True, in GR, the fundamental equation
tells us (among other things) that the curvature and the "matter distribution" are co-determinate. That doesn't mean that the curvature is caused by the matter tensor. A simple analogy shows the catch in that way of thinking. The distance relations between London, New York and Sydney entail that the cities aren't on a flat surface. But the distances don't cause the shape of the surface. These places couldn't have those distances if the surface wasn't curved in the first place. The basic equation of GR places a mutual constraint on the tensors on
each side of it.

I guess you know that the tensor as represented by a Christoffel symbol isn't straightforwardly like other tensors. If you don't, B. Schutz A First Course in General Relativity sec. 5.5 gives a clear account of it.

Best wishes

Graham Nerlich
 

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

Subject: Dreaming about LISA, arXiv:1011.2062v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:07:11 +0200
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinqa4NF+vAwZm1m_Mb8vYRiGhKcDyW40Y7V+eGU@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Babak <stba@aei.mpg.de>,
jgair@ast.cam.ac.uk,
antoine.petiteau@apc.univ-paris7.fr,
alberto.sesana@aei.mpg.de
Cc: Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>


Dear Mr. Babak,

You wrote (p. 2): "we will use the fact that LISA will observe about 30 events per year..."

But it isn't a *fact*. The fact of the matter is that people are not stupid, and are fully aware of the errors in your hypotheses:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf

It is manifestly pointless to dream about LISA, because you won't get it.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
------
Overfunded research is like heroin: It makes one addicted, weakens the mind and furthers prostitution.
Johann A. Makowsky, The Jerusalem Post, 19.4.1985

 

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

Subject: Pornography at the NSF and GW parapsychology
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:34:37 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Carlos <carlos@hotmail.com>
Cc: Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
Peggy Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>,
OIG <oig@nsf.gov>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
contact.lrr@livingreviews.org
[snip]

Dear Carlos,

> I forgot about these funny news : 75% of the people who work at the National
> Science Foundation (NSF) have been found to be surfing at Porno in the web

Here's the link:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/29/workers-porn-surfing-rampant-at-federal-agency/

I've been trying to contact NSF since July last year, but the only response I got so far was from Mr Berger (email printed below).

The forthcoming scandal about LIGO will be enormous:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

Nobody cares. NOBODY.

All the best,

Dimi
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB


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

Re: LSC: Aggressive professional negligence
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:51:16 -0400
Message-ID:
<A74B5B2C42009044AD35C5490049DAE7011BA3A6@NSF-BE-01.ad.nsf.gov>
From: Berger, Beverly K. <bberger@nsf.gov>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>

I will be on vacation until Sept. 8 and will have no email contact for
most of that time. If you cannot wait until I return, please contact
Denise Henry (dshenry@nsf.gov) .

-----------
 

Note: At the age of 57, my hair is getting lily-white, and I may claim that it is sufficiently white to enjoy surfing at porno in the web, yet still sufficiently black to attract real blond girls. Likewise, LSC members deeply believe that GW strain, which might hit LIGO some day, would be sufficiently weak to be modeled with the linearized approximation of GR, yet sufficiently strong to be detected with the so-called Advanced LIGO (cf. J. G. Pereira et al., arXiv:0909.4408v1).

But LSC can't have their cake and eat it. As Hermann Weyl demonstrated in 1944 (Hermann Weyl, How Far Can One Get With a Linear Field Theory of Gravitation in Flat Space-Time? American Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 1944), pp. 591-604), the linearized approximation of GR is "a shadow without power".

Notice that LSC cannot describe smooth bi-directional transitions from strong GWs to very weak GWs, as they approach asymptotically their sudden death at the stage of "a shadow without power". Joshua Goldberg is manifestly silent on this crucial problem, and Kip Thorne didn't even mention Hermann Weyl's article in his lecture "Gravitational waves in flat spacetime". Instead, he tried to defend the so-called "invariance angle" of LIGO's arms with an article by Eugene Winger, which he has read as a student "around 1960". Just look at the L-shaped tunnels of LIGO: isn't this 'graviton parapsychology'?

The persistent "evolution" of the beliefs of LSC members is really amazing. Back in 1981 (cf. Daniel Kennefick, p. 1), Kip Thorne had no difficulty in "finding a taker for a wager that gravitational waves would be detected by the end of the last century. The wager was made with the astronomer Jeremiah Ostriker, one of the better-known critics of the large detectors then being proposed. Thorne was one of the chief movers behind the largest of the new detector projects, the half-billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO. He lost the bet, of course."

Now LSC members are effectively saying 'just gives us a couple of billion dollars more, and we gonna make it'. Exactly how much more? The Advanced LIGO Cost Estimating Plan (M990310-05.pdf, updated 05.27.2003) is here, but is hidden to 'mass society' taxpayers.

Notice that LSC have already prepared 'Plan B', in case they fail miserably again. In their latest "science white paper", submitted to the Astro2010 Decadal Survey (Bernard F. Schutz et al., arXiv:0903.0100v1 [gr-qc], p. 3), they wrote:

"It is worth reminding ourselves why and where GR might fail." (...) "Any such failure of GR should point the way to new physics."

Once the "Advanced LIGO" fails in 2015, they will celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein's GR with their "way to new physics", claiming that their total failure is actually of fundamental importance, like the negative result for the ether drift in the experiment of Michelson and Morley ... but with just a few billion dollars more for LISA and Einstein Telescope, everything will be just right.

Are NSF officials going to risk a devastating embarrassment from their blind support of GW parapsychology?
 

D. Chakalov
October 2, 2009
Last update: October 26, 2009

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

Subject: Re: The schizophrenic behavior of gravity (SBG)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:45:13 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37361003130545u33d426e5x13c85680c8df766c@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Nikolai Mitskievich <nmitskie@gmail.com>
Cc: Ludvig Faddeev <faddeev@pdmi.ras.ru>, Viktor Denisov <denisov@srd.sinp.msu.ru>, kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
weinberg@physics.utexas.edu, LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>, Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>, Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>, Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>, GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov, Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>, Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>, Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
danielk@uark.edu, c.isham@imperial.ac.uk, luca@phy.olemiss.edu,
Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>, Lynne Hillenbrand <lah@astro.caltech.edu>, Donald C Shapero <dshapero@nas.edu>, Adam Riess <ariess@pha.jhu.edu>


Dear Dr. Mitskievich,

You wrote (arXiv:1002.1421v1): "I am regretful not to tell these considerations to Kip S. Thorne more than two decades ago, simply because of a kind of awkward modesty."

I think Kip Thorne should have been aware since mid-1980s that the whole idea of some "dimensionless GW amplitude" acting on physical objects is wishful thinking,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Jones

The rigorous proof was delivered by Denisov and Logunov in 1982; English translation in 1984,

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tr05r2853123/
?p=2f6d7ad5e83047baab73de519b1007f4&pi=0

Sec. 6, pp. 1728-1734,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4227857n075h92h/
?p=6191681b74ad428f9ebf0f883311fbcf&pi=6

Please notice that the crucial *asymptotic* expression r --> [infinity] at the link above is mathematically unclear, that is, pure poetry.

Physically, it is also totally unclear due to the so-called "dark" energy from empty space,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#quiz

So, even if we assume that Kip Thorne has somehow missed the monograph by V. Denisov and A. Logunov, he is most certainly aware that the whole "GW astronomy" is in murky waters since the discovery of "dark" energy in 1997 by Adam Riess,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#facts

How did he manage to drag so many people into this nonsense, I wonder.

Notice that LIGO Scientific Collaboration might have prepared 'Plan B', in case they fail miserably again. In their "science white paper", submitted to the Astro2010 Decadal Survey (Bernard F. Schutz et al., arXiv:0903.0100v1 [gr-qc], p. 3), they wrote:

"It is worth reminding ourselves why and where GR might fail." (...) "Any such failure of GR should point the way to new physics."

Once the "Advanced LIGO" fails in 2015, they will celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein's GR with their "way to new physics", claiming that their total failure is actually of fundamental importance, like the negative result for the ether drift in the experiment of Michelson and Morley ... but with just a few billion dollars more for LISA and Einstein Telescope, everything will be just right.

I am afraid NSF officials are indeed taking the risk of devastating embarrassment after their blind support of GW parapsychology. And they will get it:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

Perhaps you can help your US colleagues. You know the work by Viktor Denisov, Anatol Logunov, and Ludvig Faddeev. I hope you have some spare time to write up a brief paper and post it on arxiv.org server, to prevent the abuse of Einstein's GR with the 'Plan B' above.

Nobody should blame GR for the forthcoming failures to detect GWs with some "enhanced" or "advanced" LIGO. Einstein's errors regarding energy transport by GWs were identified even before Kip Thorne was born. I will be happy to provide you the references.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
-------------

Note: The staggering problem of "GW astronomy", encoded in the asymptotic expression r --> [infinity] , can perhaps be explained by an ancient Greek in the following fashion. Suppose Achilles is throwing his famous spear in one direction along the radius of the universe,  r , starting from its center at Athens. He isn't familiar with the wisdom of present-day cosmology, but is a staunch relativist and knows that the universe is like an unbroken ring with no circumference, for the circumference is nowhere, and the "center" is everywhere.

How can Achilles prove the 'no circumference' conjecture? Suppose that, at some advanced stage from his exercise, he finds out that cannot throw his spear anymore, because he has reached some (asymptotic) limit of being 'too far away from Athens'. Namely, the increasing distance (r) between Achilles and Athens somehow blocks his spear at  r --> [infinity] , placing the circumference of the universe at some "effective infinity" from all "centers", Athens included. But because Achilles is smart relativist, he will be immediately puzzled by the privileged (if not absolute) location of Athens in the universe and its influence on his spear, such that he cannot replace Athens with some closer point from his path (say, just one point behind the last location of his spear) and throw his spear further, ad infinitum.

This is very unclear, isn't it? As Adam Helfer put it (arXiv:0903.3016v1 [gr-qc]), the asymptotic spacelike regime is "less well understood mathematically at present". English translation: it's pure poetry, as stated above.

The situation with the alleged null infinity isn't better either: "From a physical point of view, null infinity is very far away." (Bernard F. Schutz, Mathematical and Physical Perspectives on Gravitational Radiation, August 2, 2002)

To paraphrase Woody Allen, infinity is very long, especially towards the end. People tend to indulge themselves with some "rescaling metric" recipe (Ted Newman), but it is totally unclear how to "rescale" the metric during its accelerated expansion, as driven by the "dark" energy from empty space.

In this gloomy situation, may I offer some optimistic speculations. John Stachel mentioned a seminal paper by Niels Bohr and Leon Rosenfeld, Zur Frage der Messbarkeit der elektromagnetischen Feldgrssen, published in 1933: Because EM charges "occur with two signs that can neutralize each other, a charge-current distribution acting as a source of an electromagnetic field can be manipulated by matter that is electrically neutral and so not acting as a source of a further electromagnetic field; and one can shield against the effects of a charge-current distribution." Then he added: "A glance at Bohr and Rosenfeld 1933 shows how important the possibility of neutralizing the charges on test
bodies is for measurement of the (averaged) components of the electric field with arbitrary accuracy, for example. This difference may well have important implications for the measurement of gravitational field quantities."

So, we need some entity that is charge-neutral to the two signs of mass: potential reality. Also, because GWs are sheer coordinate effects, they might "propagate" with any velocity desired by the human imagination, included 'the speed of thought' (Arthur Eddington, The Propagation of Gravitational Waves, 1922). We have to stick to the full non-linear GR, because its linearized approximation is "a shadow without power" (Hermann Weyl; see above).

Yes, GWs exist, and can be detected. All we may need is a "device" that can also detect quantum waves without any "collapse" whatsoever: a human brain.

All this has been said many times at this web site; sorry for repeating it here. The only correction I need to make concerns my statement above: "Einstein's errors regarding energy transport by GWs were identified even before Kip Thorne was born." But I was wrong. Hermann Weyl's article was published in 1944, at the time when Kip Stephen Thorne was 4 year old. Sorry, I was wrong. Mea culpa.

D. Chakalov
March 14, 2010




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

Subject: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:50:10 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37361003160650s3e298c86r5b67c848fa6db72c@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: CEOFOP <G.tHooft@uu.nl>,
"Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
"Dupre, Maurice J" <mdupre@tulane.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>
Cc: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
"C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>,
Merced Montesinos Velásquez <merced@fis.cinvestav.mx>,
Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>


On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:22:24 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CEOFOP: All you need to prove me wrong is at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Jones
>
> Go ahead Gerardus. Don't be shy. Make your best shot.
>
> D.


Dear Laszlo, Maurice, Norbert, Domenico, Luca, and Adam,

May I ask you to share your opinion on the following issues concerning GR.

Dr. G. 't Hooft, the Chief Editor of Foundations of Physics (CEOFOP), has posted a silver-tongued essay on what he calls "gravitating misconceptions":

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/

"Gravitating misconceptions: response on claims by a group of self proclaimed scientists concerning the validity of the theory of General Relativity."

These "gravitating misconceptions" are explained at

STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY,
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html


Please note CEOFOP's claim that "a true, real stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity does also exist!", provided "all of the metric is handled as "dynamical" " [Ref. 1]. The result is that "the energy in gravity and that in matter always balances out to zero" (ibid).

This reminds me of Merced Montesinos' paper [Ref. 2] on 'the right answer to the wrong question' (MTW p. 467).

NB: I wonder how you would comment on CEOFOP's "true, real stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity", given his statement that "Einstein's equations are non-linear, and this is why gravitational fields can be the source of additional amount of gravity, so that a gravitational field can support itself." [Ref. 1]

Surely we don't see "the ether" coming back to GR textbooks [Ref. 2], but would you please explain your viewpoint on the above-mentioned "true, real stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity" ?

Please also check out CEOFOP's interpretation of the "radial coordinate r " used in the Schwarzschild (actually, it is Hilbert-Droste-Weyl) solution [Ref. 1], and compare it with the interpretation offered by Angelo Loinger [Ref. 3].

A penny for your thoughts!

All the best,

Dimi


References


[Ref. 1] Excerpts from "STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY",
by G. 't Hooft
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

"What does L say about this? "I have proven that dynamical solutions do not exist, so your solution is wrong". What is wrong about it? First, he ignores the wave packets and focuses on the plane wave solutions. These have infinite extension in space and time and represent infinite energy. That, indeed, is problematic in gravity. If the energy in a given region with linear dimensions R exceeds R in natural units, a black hole is formed so that space-time undergoes a
subtle change in topology. This might arguably be called unacceptable. The problem is manifest in our explicit solutions, and this is why it is important to use wave packets instead. The wave packages are identical to the ones in Maxwell theory, and since they represent only finite amounts of energy (per unit of length in the z direction), these solutions are indeed legitimate. I showed L how to construct explicit, analytical examples of such wave packets."
.....

"Actually, a true, real stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity does also exist! If all of the metric is handled as "dynamical" one finds that the Einstein tensor G_µv itself acts as the gravitational part of the energy-momentum. Adding this to the energy and momentum of matter one finds a quantity that is trivially conserved: the addition gives zero, according to Einstein's equations. Thus, the energy in gravity and that in matter always balances out to zero. In practice, this is not a very useful definition; it would imply that gravity carries a gigantic amount of energy, most of which is invisible, and no further physical information is obtained, but it is the matter of principle (Sic! - D.C.) that counts here. In practice, we may wish to ignore the large contribution from the background, and this is why a "pseudotensor" emerges. One can add to this that, by construction, the pseudotensor should only depend on first derivatives, whereas the "true tensor" G_µv contains second derivatives, which makes it physically counter intuitive."
.........

" "Black holes do not exist; they are solutions of the equation for the Ricci tensor R_µv = 0, so they cannot carry any mass. And what is usually called a "horizon" is actually a physical singularity."

"Mr. C. adds more claims to this: In our modern notation, a radial coordinate r is used to describe the Schwarzschild solution, the prototype of a black hole. "That's not a radial distance!", he shouts. "To get the radial distance you have to integrate the square root of the radial component grr of the metric!!" Now that happens to be right, but a non-issue; in practice we use r just because it is a more convenient coordinate, and every astrophysicist knows that an accurate
calculation of the radial distance, if needed, would be obtained by doing exactly that integral. "r is defined by the inverse of the Gaussian curvature", C continues, but this happens to be true only for the spherically symmetric case. For the Kerr and Kerr-Newman metric, this is no longer true. Moreover, the Gaussian curvature is not locally measurable so a bad definition indeed for a radial coordinate. And why should one need such a definition? We have invariance under coordinate transformations. If so desired, we can use any coordinate we like. The Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are an example. The Finkelstein coordinates another. Look at the many different ways one can map the surface of the Earth on a flat surface. Is one mapping more fundamental than another?

"The horizon is a real singularity because at that spot the metric signature switches from (+,-,-,-) to (-,+,-,-)", C continues. This is wrong. The switch takes place when the usual Schwarzschild coordinates are used, but does not imply any singularity. The switch disappears in coordinates that are regular at the horizon, such as the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. That's why there is no physical singularity at the horizon.

"But where does the black hole mass come from? Where is the source of this mass? R_µv = 0 seems to imply that there is no matter at all, and yet the thing has mass! Here, both L and C suffer from the misconception that a gravitational field cannot have a mass of its own. But Einstein's equations are non-linear, and this is why gravitational fields can be the source of additional amount of gravity, so that a gravitational field can support itself. In particle theories (Sic! - D.C.), similar things can happen if fields obey non-linear equations, we call these solutions "solitons". A black hole looks like a soliton, but actually it is a bit more complicated than that.

"The truth is that gravitational energy plus material energy together obey the energy conservation law. And now there is a thing that L and C fail to grasp: a black hole can be seen to be formed when matter implodes. Start with a regular, spherically symmetric (or approximately spherically symmetric) configuration of matter, such as a heavy star or a star cluster. Assume that it obeys an equation of state. If, according to this equation of state, the pressure stays sufficiently low, one can calculate that this ball of matter will contract under its own weight. The calculation is not hard and has been carried out many times; indeed, it is a useful exercise for students. According to Einstein's equations, the contraction continues until the pressure is sufficiently high to stop any further contraction. If that pressure is not high enough, the contraction continues and the result is well-known: a black hole forms. Matter travels onwards to the singularity at r = 0, and becomes invisible to the outside observer. All this is elementary exercise, and not in doubt by any serious researcher."


[Ref. 2] Merced Montesinos, The double role of Einstein's equations: as equations of motion and as vanishing energy-momentum tensor, arXiv:gr-qc/0311001v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311001, pp. 4-5.

"This means that for this type of observers, there is a balance between the 'content' of energy and momentum densities and stress associated with the matter fields [psi] (which is characterized in Tµv) and the 'content' of energy and momentum densities and stress associated with the gravitational field (which is characterized in [XXX])

--->--->--->--->
<---<---<---<---     (23)

in a precise form such that both fluxes cancel, and thus leading to a vanishing 'flux', i.e., tµv = 0. Once again, the vanishing property of tµv for the system of gravity coupled to matter fields is just a reflection of the fact that the background metric is dynamical.

"More precisely, tµv = 0 tells us that the 'reaction' of the dynamical background metric is such that it just cancels the effect of 'flux' associated with the matter fields. It is impossible (and makes no sense) to have a locally non-vanishing 'flux' in this situation. If this were the case, there would be no explanation for the origin of that non-vanishing 'flux'. Moreover, that hypothetic non-vanishing 'flux' would define privileged observers associated with it  (the ether would come back!).

"It is important to emphasize that, in the case of having a dynamical background metric, the vanishing property of tµv = 0 is not interpreted here as a ‘problem’ that must be corrected somehow but exactly the other way around. In our opinion, there is nothing wrong with that property because it just reflects the double role that the equations of motion associated with the dynamical background play."


[Ref. 3] Angelo Loinger, Wrong "idees fixes" in GR, arXiv:physics/0403092v1 [physics.gen-ph],
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0403092

Idem, The Black Holes do not exist - "Also Sprach Karl Schwarzschild", arXiv:physics/0402088v1 [physics.gen-ph],
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0402088

 

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

Subject: Gerard Hooft 't, The Conformal Constraint in Canonical Quantum Gravity, arXiv:1011.0061v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 05:41:05 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: CEOFOP <g.thooft@uu.nl>
Cc: Masato Nozawa <nozawa@gravity.phys.waseda.ac.jp>,
Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
Thibault Damour <damour@ihes.fr>

Gerardus,

After some tantalizing assumptions (p. 4), you boldly declared (p. 11): "Matter and dilaton then join smoothly together in a perfectly conformally invariant theory."

But then you acknowledged (p. 12): "The author believes that quantum mechanics itself will have to be carefully reformulated before we can really address this problem."

Welcome aboard,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS

There is no need to invent the wheel: check out Schrodinger at the link.

As I said six and a half years ago ("energy-momentum flows from matter
to grav. fields and back", see below), you can bring a horse to the water, but cannot make him drink.

Dimi
----

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:17:00 +0100, "Hooft 't G." wrote:
>
> Let me briefly explain. Following the conventional Einstein
> equations, the matter-energy-momentum tensor is COVARIANTLY
> conserved; it is not conserved if you replace covariant derivatives
> by ordinary derivatives. This is how energy-momentum flows from
> matter to grav. fields and back.
-----

Note: Gerard 't Hooft has been generously "casting pearls to the swine" (exact quote -- see CEOFOP_1.pdf in CEOFOP_1.zip) at

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

Check out a snapshot (2.11.2010) from the page above, Gerardus_energy.jpg, and notice the splitting of "the metric g_μν into a background part, g^o_μν, for which we could take flat space-time, and a dynamical part: substitute in the Einstein-Hilbert action: g_μν = g^o_μν + g¹_μν . (...) Just require that the background metric g^o_μν obeys the gravitational equations itself; one can then remove from the Lagrangian all terms linear in  g¹_μν.  This way, one gets an action that starts out with terms quadratic in  g¹_μν, while all its indices are connected through the background field g^o_μν."

It is utter madness indeed. Notice that this person is Chief Editor of Foundations of Physics (CEOFOP), and maybe (hope not!) teaches GR. That's really scary.

As to the latest note by Gerard 't Hooft, entitled "The plane gravitational wave for beginners" (Addendum 18/8/2010), he failed to mention that, for a pp-wave, all curvature invariants vanish (Hans Stephani and John Stewart, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1982; section 15.3). That's 'for beginners'; I've said much more in ExplanatoryNote.pdf. Just a hint: the proper calculation of 'the self force' is not "miniscule" but shows the input of "dark energy" and the mechanism by which GWs transport energy and momentum; as Hermann Bondi stressed many years ago, "the question of the "reality" of the waves essentially concerned whether they transported energy. Such transport is a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon." LIGO is manifestly blind and deaf to this inherently nonlinear phenomenon, and cannot measure anything related to BMS group.

D.C.
November 3, 2010
 

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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:16:04 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: [snip]
Cc: [snip]

P.S. Please try to reconcile CEOFOP's "true, real stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity"

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

with L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, Fourth Edition, 1980, Ch. 11, p. 301,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/p_301.jpg

If you succeed, please do write me back.

D.


2010/3/18 Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> If you wish to be removed from this thread, please say so.
>
> The whole issue about GR is very simple indeed; I managed to explain
> it even to my teenage daughter,
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Bahn
>
> All the best,
>
> Dimi
>
 

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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:01:24 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>
Cc: [snip]

Dear Lo,

> If you read my paper of 1995, you will know that 't Hooft is wrong.

Sure, I've read the Appendix. You also wrote (p. 422): "Note that E is unchanged if the Landau-Lifshitz "pseudotensor" is used in equation (3c)."

I have some comments on your Eq. 12a, but that's a different thread.

All the best,

Dimi
-------
Lo C. Y., Einstein's Radiation Formula and Modifications to the Einstein Equation, Astrophysical Journal 455, 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995).
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Lo_Dec_20_1995.pdf

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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:39:34 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>
Cc: [snip]

Dear Lo,

> Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you.

I opened this thread on March 16th,
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Gerardus

As I said below, my comments on your Eq. 12a will be a different thread, so I'd suggest to discuss it privately. If you find my opinion interesting, please reply to me only. Very briefly:

Firstly, you wrote (p. 421): "It seemed that only a covariant theory could be valid in physics (see Appendix)." But notice that the 'absolute structures in GR', after Anderson,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Brown

can show up in GR *only* as some disguised "gauge-dependent" objects,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Greenberg.html#addendum

Secondly, you grounded your paper on the assumption that Einstein's quadrupole radiation formula might be correct, and tried to modify the filed equations instead (p. 425).

You wrote (p. 423): "In view of the fact that there is no existing gravity energy-stress tensor, it seems simple and natural to assume that the source tensor T_ab is zero in a vacuum."

Then you argued (ibid.) that "Einstein's radiation formula implies that his field equation must be modified so that the source tensor is nonzero in vacuum."


Why not have it both ways? Yes you can: T_ab (the energy momentum stress tensor of all matter and fields) can *completely* vanish/dissolve into the vacuum, and stay available there for any partial, full, or "over unity" recall, if and when needed. All you need is a new form of reality: see my note on the dynamics of GR at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Bahn

Again, all this will be a different thread, so please reply to me only.

All the best,

Dimi

 

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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:25:27 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Cc: CEOFOP <G.tHooft@uu.nl>,
"Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
"Dupre, Maurice J" <mdupre@tulane.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
"C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>,
Merced Montesinos Velásquez <merced@fis.cinvestav.mx>,
Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your prompt reply from Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:15:09 +1000.

[snip]

> Let's not forget that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of
> mathematical symbols because it implies, by contraction, a linear
> invariant that depends solely upon the components of the metric tensor
> and their first derivatives. But G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita
> proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist. Mr. 't Hoof does not
> understand this.

The problem is that he is Chief Editor of Foundations of Physics, and also teaches GR. He can do a lot of damage, mostly to his students.

> Furthermore, 't Hooft concedes that the total energy
> of Einstein's gravitational field is always zero. This implies that
> the the field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and
> momentum so well-established by experiment.

Textbook-level details from Amir M. Abbassi and Saeed Mirshekari, Energy-Momentum Density of Gravitational Waves, arXiv:0908.0286v1 [gr-qc], p. 2,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Gerard.html#Abbassi

I will limit our discussion to its absolute minimum, hoping that your colleagues will also respond professionally.

> Mr. C

Nice done, Mr. C :-) I hope to receive a paper by "Mr. L" soon. Stay tuned.

All the best,

Dimi


> ____________________________________________
>
> On 3/16/10, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:22:24 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> CEOFOP: All you need to prove me wrong is at
>>>
>>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Jones
>>>
>>> Go ahead Gerardus. Don't be shy. Make your best shot.
>>>
>>> D.
[snip]

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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:09:34 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>
Cc: CEOFOP <G.tHooft@uu.nl>,
[snip]

Dear Lo,

Thank you very much for your reply from Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:43:12 -0700 (PDT).

> I read your email and the attachments

Thank you. My initial email is also posted at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Gerardus

> He needs help.

Definitely yes.

> please see my paper attached.

Thank you very much. I posted the abstract from your paper at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Eins_Hooft_Wave.pdf

If you prefer, I can replace it with your full paper, in .pdf format.

With all good wishes,

Dimi
---------
Note: Dr. C. Y. Lo kindly agreed (Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:12:39 -0700 (PDT)) to replace the abstract with the full version of his paper; check out also ref. [20] therein.

D.C.



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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:39:50 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: CEOFOP <G.tHooft@uu.nl>,
"Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
"Dupre, Maurice J" <mdupre@tulane.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>
Cc: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
"C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>,
Merced Montesinos Velásquez <merced@fis.cinvestav.mx>,
Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>


P.S. CEOFOP also wrote at
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

"A third player, DC, strongly supports L and C, and on the side asks me to seriously consider his theories about the 9-11 events: the two planes crashing into the Twin Towers have first been snatched by UFO's, their passengers were abducted, and the planes, without passengers and filled with explosives of an unknown type, were directed into the towers. All of this to explain why the towers collapsed in spite of their impeccable design. I can only try to guess who came up first with this theory, but I now use it to illustrate the level of my discussions with DC. "

To explain the level of my discussions with CEOFOP, I invite you to check out the facts at my 9/11 web page,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/9_11.html#Ward

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/9_11.html#Ritter

D.C.
-------

Note: The only truth in CEOFOP's statements above is that I have indeed asked him (along with Prof. Brian Josephson) to seriously consider my theory about the 9/11 events: see my email from Fri, 25 Dec 2009 printed below.

All the rest -- "two planes crashing into the Twin Towers have first been snatched by UFO's, their passengers were abducted, and the planes, without passengers and filled with explosives of an unknown type, were directed into the towers" -- is untrue.

Why did CEOFOP (G. 't Hooft) write all this crap at his web site, I wonder. He is fluent in English, so we have two alternatives. One explanation could be that he has somehow lost his intellect, but very selectively, only regarding my 9/11 web page. Another explanation would be that he had actually understood the simple text at my web page, but decided to lie about it, for unknown (to me) reasons.

In simple terms: he is either a selective moron, or just a bold liar. But not both.

I will leave the decision to his students in GR. If they come up with a third option, I will immediately post it here.

Meanwhile, check out L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, Fourth Edition, 1980, Ch. 11, p. 301 (snapshot from p. 301 here), and compare it with CEOFOP's "true, real stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity" above.

D. Chakalov
March 17, 2010

----
Subject: Merry Christmas
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 13:45:04 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37360912250345i2673cd82y35e969b267568d43@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Brian <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>, Gerard <g.thooft@uu.nl>

Dear Brian and Gerard,

I wish you and your families a very merry Christmas and all the best for 2010 and beyond.

May I use this opportunity to invite you to save human lives by taking action on the 9/11 issue,

http://tinyurl.com/steel-evaporation

With God, everything is possible.

Cordially yours,

Dimi

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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:01:04 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Cc: [snip]

Dear Stephen,

> Mr. 't Hooft uses the linearised form of the field equations. He is
> evidently ignorant of the fact that Hermann Weyl proved, in 1944, that
> linearisation is inadmissible because it implies the existence of a tensor
> that, except for the trivial case of being precisely zero, does not
> otherwise exist.

Yes, many people ignore Hermann Weyl's 1944 article,

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/weyl-1.pdf

I quoted from it at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#H6

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#SBG_new

Perhaps G. 't Hooft should refer to Hermann Weyl as "Mr. W".

All the best,

Dimi
 

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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:00:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4BA37570.5040601@math.missouri.edu>
From: Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>
Reply-To: helfera@missouri.edu
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>

Dear Dimi,

Please remove me from this thread.

Thanks,

Adam Helfer
 

Dimi Chakalov wrote:

Dear colleagues,

If you wish to be removed from this thread, please say so.

The whole issue about GR is very simple indeed; I managed to explain
it even to my teenage daughter,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Bahn

All the best,

Dimi

--

Adam Helfer
Department of Mathematics
University of Missouri -- Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211

tel. (573) 882-7283
fax (573) 882-1869

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

Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:40:32 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Cc: "C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>

Dear Stephen,

> Concerning the quantity 'r' in the "Schwarzschild solution", Mr. 't Hooft,
> in his lecture notes, calls it the shortest distance to the centre. He also
> calls it the radial coordinate or coordinate radius. He even told me once
> that it is a gauge choice that defines what 'r' is. It has never been
> correctly identified by any proponent of the black hole nonsense. All these
> concepts are false because it is irrefutably the inverse square root of the
> Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the
> spatial section and is thereby not even a distance in the related manifold.
> Here is my detailed analysis of this:
>
> http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF
>
> http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-11.PDF

Unfortunately, Adam Helfer quits:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Helfer

Please remove his email address from this thread.

All good wishes,

Dimi

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

Subject: Stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity: Casting pearls (G. 't Hooft) to the swine
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:58:19 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTin-9GH5asbLdRRpG9zXGEyK1+=D--yByYZSByxy@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: CEOFOP <G.tHooft@uu.nl>,
Tobias Schwaibold <Tobias.Schwaibold@springer.com>,
"Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
"Dupre, Maurice J" <mdupre@tulane.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
"C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>,
Merced Montesinos Velásquez <merced@fis.cinvestav.mx>,
Niall Ó Murchadha <niall@ucc.ie>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Don Marolf <marolf@physics.ucsb.edu>,
Malcolm MacCallum <m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk>,
Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>,
Jose M M Senovilla <josemm.senovilla@ehu.es>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Eduardo Guendelman <guendel@bgu.ac.il>,
Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>,
Richard Price <Richard.Price@utb.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>


Dear Colleagues,

Regarding the stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity, introduced by G. 't Hooft:

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

"One way to see how this works, is to split the metric g_mv into a background part, [X], for which we could take flat space-time, and a dynamical part: [XX].
......
"The stress-energy-momentum tensor can then be obtained routinely by considering infinitesimal variations of the background part, just like one does for any other type of matter field; the infinitesimal change of the total action (the space-time integral of the Lagrange density) then yields the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Of course, one finds that the dynamical part of the metric indeed carries energy and momentum, just as one expects in a gravitational field. As hydro-electric plants and the daily tides show, there's lots of energy in gravity, and this agrees perfectly with Einstein's original equations."

Another quote from CEOFOP:

"Any doubts about these facts are removed once the existence and properties of the Green functions for the linearized theory have been established. These Green functions can then be used to study systematic expansions to obtain the solutions of the complete, non-linear theory, to any required accuracy. Good theoretical physicists completely control the proper use of Green functions. (...) I did construct them, and found that, provided due attention is paid to the gauge freedom in the use of coordinates, these functions are well-behaved."

It is "casting pearls to the swine", says CEOFOP (Chief Editor Of Foundations Of Physics).

This is not a joke: check out the link above. The PDF file from his web page is available, too.

Final quote: "A third player, DC, strongly supports L and C, but his claims are too opaque for me to even address."

My "opaque" claims can be read at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Alice

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf

You'll be the judge.

Yours sincerely,

D. Chakalov

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


Note: URL of the web page at

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

Download "Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity", by Gerard ’t Hooft, version from January 4, 2010 (CEOFOP.zip) from

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/CEOFOP.zip

And version from August 15th (CEOFOP_1.zip) from

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/CEOFOP_1.zip

To get Gerard ’t Hooft's "pearls" of wisdom, all you need is to split the metric g_mv into a "background part" (to obtain "flat space-time"), and a dynamical part that "carries energy and momentum", as "hydro-electric plants and the daily tides show". Just don't forget to use "well-behaved" Green functions.

A colleague of mine offered only a brief comment: "It's madness, utter madness."

Notice another essay by CEOFOP, entitled: "Will the Higgs be found?",

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Gerardus_predictions.pdf

He claims (May 12, 2010) that "theories without any Higgs particle are possible but ugly and have been practically ruled out by observations", but failed to comment on Howard Georgi's unparticles and my prediction from January 9, 2003.

As Howard Georgi explained, “there could be a scale-invariant world separate from our own that is hidden from us”. My comment: we can "see" this scale-invariant world with our brains only, as we know since Plato.

LHC is deaf and blind to the scale-invariant world, hence will only "see" that the number of quarks is jumping to 8 and more, in a Fibonacci sequence.
 

Qui vivra, verra.

D.C.
August 16, 2010
Last update: August 22, 2010




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

Subject: STOP wasting taxpayers' money !
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:20:21 +0100
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>
Cc: Lynne Hillenbrand <lah@astro.caltech.edu>,
Donald C Shapero <dshapero@nas.edu>,
Caryn Knutsen <astro2010@nas.edu>,
bpa@nas.edu,
Tom Prince <prince@srl.caltech.edu>

Roger:

I do hope my preceding email messages have been safely received.

I wonder if you have discussed my objections to LIGO funding at your latest meeting

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/BPA_049810#statement

Keep in mind that the forthcoming scandal about LIGO will be enormous:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NSF

Just don't keep quiet, and don't ever say you knew nothing about it.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU, U.K.

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

Subject: Astro2010 Survey Committee Meeting, January 25-27, 2010
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:43:57 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Martha Haynes <haynes@astro.cornell.edu>,
Fiona Harrison <fiona@srl.caltech.edu>,
Marcia J Rieke <mrieke@as.arizona.edu>,
Lynne Hillenbrand <lah@astro.caltech.edu>,
Caryn Knutsen <astro2010@nas.edu>,
Lars Bildsten <bildsten@kitp.ucsb.edu>,
John Carlstrom <jc@ddjob.uchicago.edu>,
Timothy Heckman <heckman@pha.jhu.edu>,
Jonathan Lunine <lunine@physics.arizona.edu>,
Juri Toomre <jtoomre@jila.colorado.edu>,
Scott Tremaine <tremaine@ias.edu>,
John Huchra <huchra@cfa.harvard.edu>,
Donald C Shapero <dshapero@nas.edu>,
Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>
Cc: Paulett C Liewer <Paulett.C.Liewer@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Bruce Goldstein <Bruce.Goldstein@jpl.nasa.gov>,
NASA Official Thomas A Prince <prince@srl.caltech.edu>,
8th International LISA Symposium <vdrew@stanford.edu>,
Curt Cutler <Curt.J.Cutler@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Michele Vallisneri <vallis@vallis.org>


Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please terminate the financial support for LIGO,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NSF

The sooner, the better.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU, U.K.



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

Subject: [Copy] Email sent to Living Reviews in Relativity
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:08:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: contact.lrr@livingreviews.org
Message-Id: <20090922020826.C522424C0C3@escidoc2.escidoc.mpg.de>
To: dchakalov@gmail.com

Hello Dimi Chakalov,

This is a copy of the email you sent to Living Reviews in Relativity. If appropriate to your message, you should receive a response quickly. You successfully sent the following information:

   Email: dchakalov@gmail.com
   Phone:
   Website: http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB
   Subject: To make a comment

Message:
   Regarding GW parapsychology:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

Please confirm the receipt of this email.

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov


--------------------------
Other Data and Information:
   Time Stamp: Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009 at 4:08 am

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

Subject: Re: "yes, I do understand GR, but cannot discuss that now."
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:46:37 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu>
Cc: Joel Franklin <jfrankli@reed.edu>,
Richard Woodard <woodard@phys.ufl.edu>,
Andrew Waldron <wally@math.ucdavis.edu>,
Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu>,
John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>,
John W Barrett <john.barrett@nottingham.ac.uk>

Stanley:

On 31 March 2006, you claimed that you "do understand GR, but cannot discuss that now."

If this is indeed the case, then you should be able to find at least one error in my proposal at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

Please demonstrate that you understand GR.

I extend this request to your colleagues as well.

Regards,

Dimi

----------

Subject: "yes, I do understand GR, but cannot discuss that now."
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:54:26 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Deser <deser@brandeis.edu>

No rush, take your time, I'm all yours.

D.C.

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

Subject: Re: "yes, I do understand GR, but cannot discuss that now."
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:32:35 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu>
Cc: Joel Franklin <jfrankli@reed.edu>,
Richard Woodard <woodard@phys.ufl.edu>,
Andrew Waldron <wally@math.ucdavis.edu>,
Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu>,
John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>,
John W Barrett <john.barrett@nottingham.ac.uk>

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Sir,
> I cannot spare the time for your proposals; why not submit to a journal &
> see what happens? sd

Gladly.

Would you, or any of your colleagues, endorse the submission of my manuscript

http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement ?

The basic arguments are at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

I will be happy to send you, or any of your colleagues, my manuscript, entitled: "A Taxpayer's Perspective On GW Astronomy".

Regards,

Dimi

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


Subject: Re: "yes, I do understand GR, but cannot discuss that now."
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:20:01 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu>
Cc: Joel Franklin <jfrankli@reed.edu>,
Richard Woodard <woodard@phys.ufl.edu>,
Andrew Waldron <wally@math.ucdavis.edu>,
Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu>,
John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>,
John W Barrett <john.barrett@nottingham.ac.uk>

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu> wrote:
>
> Not I!
>
> http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement ?

But didn't you say that you "do understand GR"? You're the right person.

Would you, or any of your colleagues, like to help U.S. National Science Foundation?

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NSF

Again, the simple arguments are at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

I can write up a polite (not frank) paper and send it to you or any of your colleagues -- you all are experts in GR. I only need endorsement of my manuscript.

BILLIONS of U.S. dollars -- all taxpayers' money -- will be wasted by your LIGO "colleagues".

Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov

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

Subject: Prince of darkness
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:41:14 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Alex Murphy <a.s.murphy@ed.ac.uk>
Cc: rminchin@naic.edu, Jonathan.Davies@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Mike.Disney@astro.cf.ac.uk, LangRH@cardifff.ac.uk, Sarah.Roberts@astro.cf.ac.uk, sabatini@mporzio.astro.it, BoyceP@cardiff.ac.uk, caj@jb.man.ac.uk, Wim.vanDriel@obspm.fr, benjamin.allanach@googlemail.com, s.sarkar@physics.ox.ac.uk, matthew.chalmers@iop.org, Plus@maths.cam.ac.uk, J.D.Barrow@damtp.cam.ac.uk, blanchet@iap.fr

Dear Dr Murphy,

I read with great interest your interview at

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/40654

I wonder if your WIMP hypothesis can tackle the discrepancy between the generic formation of cusps of CDM

http://spacetelescope.org/videos/html/mov/320px/heic0701f.html

and the rotation curves, which seem to favor a constant density profile in the core (Blanchet and Le Tiec, arXiv:0901.3114v2).

Also, may I ask ask you and your colleagues to comment on John Barrow's explanation of the apparent "repulsive force associated with the cosmological constant",

Gravitational Force = -GMm/r^2 + m[lambda]r

http://plus.maths.org/issue51/features/lambda/index.html

It seems to me that his idea is a bona fide case of Murphy's Law No. 15. I suspect that CDM and DDE are due to spacetime acting upon itself, hence the "acting agent" cannot _in principle_ be traced back to any concrete physical stuff,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

BTW you said in your interview that have done a café scientifique in Moscow, "which was pretty scary". Did you meet

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/russian.html ?

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----
Murphy's Law No. 15: Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand
wrong answers.

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

Subject: Re: Prince of darkness
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:22:00 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Alex Murphy <a.s.murphy@ed.ac.uk>
Cc: rminchin@naic.edu, Jonathan.Davies@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Mike.Disney@astro.cf.ac.uk, Sarah.Roberts@astro.cf.ac.uk,
BoyceP@cardiff.ac.uk, caj@jb.man.ac.uk, Wim.vanDriel@obspm.fr,
benjamin.allanach@googlemail.com, s.sarkar@physics.ox.ac.uk,
matthew.chalmers@iop.org, Plus@maths.cam.ac.uk,
J.D.Barrow@damtp.cam.ac.uk, blanchet@iap.fr, michael.banks@iop.org

Hi Alex,

Did you really say, after the failure of XENON 100, that "a clear dark-matter signal could be just round the corner" ?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45697

Would you like to learn why WIMPS are just an artifact from your essentially incomplete "standard model"?

The story begins with KS Theorem:
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Specker_addendum

Shall I elaborate, or would you prefer to leave you waste your time with ZEPLIN III?

Dimi



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

Subject: The Arrow of Time
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 05:55:52 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>
Cc: Laura Mersini-Houghton <mersini@physics.unc.edu>,
Ruediger Vaas <ruediger.vaas@konradin.de>,
Pankaj S Joshi <psj@tifr.res.in>,
H D Zeh <zeh@uni-heidelberg.de>,
Alan H Guth <guth@ctp.mit.edu>,
Jean-Pierre Luminet <jean-pierre.luminet@obspm.fr>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Richard Lieu <lieur@cspar.uah.edu>

Dear Claus,

It seems to me that you are trying to explain one 'unknown' with another 'unknown'.

As you stated in [Ref. 1, p. 2], the topic of your essay -- the origin of the arrow of time -- is based on the singularity theorems of GR. Take Hawking-Penrose theorem, published in 1970. It presupposes some specific energy conditions [Refs. 2 and 3], which cannot hold in a world dominated by "dark energy"; see Rakhi and Indulekha at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#GR

On top of everything, the hypothetical gravitational "collapse" is highly controversial in the first place [Ref. 4].

Perhaps it will be a good idea if you first sort out the unsolved mysteries in the basis of your essay [Ref. 1], as neither S. Hawking nor R. Penrose were anticipating some "dark energy" in 1970s.

I will appreciate your professional reply, as well as the comments from your colleagues.

Kindest regards,

Dimi

-----------

[Ref. 1] Claus Kiefer, Can the Arrow of Time be understood from Quantum Cosmology? arXiv:0910.5836v1 [gr-qc], to appear in "The Arrow of Time", ed. by L. Mersini-Houghton and R. Vaas, http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5836

From the abstract: "Remarks are also made concerning (...) scenarios motivated by dark energy."

p. 2: "The question raised by the presence of all these arrows is whether a common master arrow of time is behind all of them.
...
"As indicated by the singularity theorems of general relativity, a consistent description of the Big Bang may require a new framework such as quantum gravity. The question then arises whether the origin of the arrow of time can be understood there. This is the topic of my essay.
...
p. 11: "Since our present Universe is dominated by dark energy, which for our purpose here can be approximated by a cosmological constant [lambda], ...
...
p. 12: "In the case of a non-vanishing cosmological constant ... "


[Ref. 2] Pankaj S. Joshi, On the genericity of spacetime singularities,
arXiv:gr-qc/0702116v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702116

[Ref. 3] Carlos Barcelo, Matt Visser, Twilight for the energy conditions?
arXiv:gr-qc/0205066v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205066

p. 2: "If you believe the recent observational data regarding the accelerating universe, then the SEC is violated on cosmological scales right now!"

See also: H. Epstein, V. Glaser and A. Jaffe, Nonpositivity of the energy density in quantized field theories, Nuovo Cim. 36(3) (1965) 1016-1022


[Ref. 4] Stephen J. Crothers, Geometric and Physical Defects in the Theory of Black Holes
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/MSAST-Crothers.pdf



----------
Note: Let's try to find out what we know that we don't know regarding 'The Arrow of Time'.

1. Claus Kiefer speculated extensively about 'entropy' [Ref. 1], but we "do not have a rigorous definition of entropy for systems coupled to gravity" [Ref. 5; see also the discussion of Eq. 1 on p. 7 therein].

2. We are also conditioned to believe that, since the Einstein field equations are "local", it would be impossible that "the global topology of the spatial section of an FLRW universe could have an effect on that universe's dynamics" [Ref. 6]. But Einstein field equations themselves are totally inadequate for addressing the main puzzle of non-unitary emergence of 'energy from empty space' -- see above. This opens an opportunity to seek 'the arrow of time' in global topology changes, to at least gather some hints as to how the Einstein field equations should be modified to tackle the source of "dynamic dark energy".

3. If we look at the "expanding" FRW universe above, the first puzzle we should notice is that the cosmological time, as read by our wristwatch, should not be observable: while FRW equations describe the physical time evolution, the "observed" quantities are "not gauge invariant and therefore should not be observable in obvious contradiction to reality", cf. T. Thiemann [Ref. 7].

3.1. Thomas Thiemann has argued that a tentative solution may be offered with some of those "scalar fields" introduced ad hoc [Ref. 7], to bypass the direct approach to the "dark energy" from the quantum vacuum. Unfortunately, all those "scalar fields" are red herring, firstly because there is no symmetry mechanism preventing their strong coupling -- see Sec. 2.2 in [Ref. 8].

3.2. Thomas Thiemann offered an 'either - or' dilemma [Ref. 7], but the answer to the puzzle may be 'both': the new physics that we're missing does affect QED, and of course the predictions for LHC.

4. Notice that the "dark" effects from 'potential reality' have to be camouflaged in GR as "gauge-dependent". This should be expected, as present-day GR cannot handle 'absolute structures' such as the source of 'energy from empty space'. Surely "absolute structures carry no observable content" [Ref. 9]. Perfect!

Pity Claus Kiefer ignored my posting from Dec. 26, 2008 @ 17:01 GMT: the Hilbert space problem (C. Kiefer, Quantum geometrodynamics: whence, whither?", arXiv:0812.0295v1 [gr-qc]) may be solved along with the 'problem of time' en bloc, as it should be done.

D. Chakalov
November 2, 2009

References

[Ref. 5] Sean M. Carroll, Is Our Universe Natural? arXiv:hep-th/0512148v1,
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148

[Ref. 6] Boudewijn F. Roukema, Some spaces are more equal than others, arXiv:0910.5837v1 [astro-ph.CO], http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5837

[Ref. 7] Thomas Thiemann, Solving the Problem of Time in General Relativity and Cosmology with Phantoms and k -- Essence, arXiv:astro-ph/0607380v1,
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607380

"Either the mathematical formalism, which has been tested experimentally so excellently in other gauge theories such as QED, is inappropriate or we are missing some new physics."

[Ref. 8] Sean M. Carroll, Dark Energy and the Preposterous Universe, arXiv:astro-ph/0107571v2, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107571

[Ref. 9] Domenico Giulini, Some remarks on the notions of general covariance and background independence, arXiv:gr-qc/0603087v1,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603087

p. 4: "Transition functions relabel the points that constitute M, which for the time being we think of as recognizable entities, as mathematicians do. (For physicists these points are mere ‘potential events’ and do not have an obvious individuality beyond an actual, yet unknown, event that realizes this potentiality.)
...
p. 11: "An absolute structure is a coordinate which takes the same range of values in each Diff(M) orbit and therefore cannot separate any two of them. If we regard Diff(M) as a gauge group, i.e. that Diff(M)-related configurations are physically indistinguishable, then absolute structures carry no observable content."

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

Subject: How to quantize spacetime without affecting relativity
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:25:10 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Giovanni Amelino-Camelia <amelino@roma1.infn.it>
Cc: Richard Lieu <lieur@cspar.uah.edu>,
Jonathan Granot <j.granot@herts.ac.uk>

Hi Giovanni,

Regarding (i) you speculation from August 1998,

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6724/abs/398216a0.html

(ii) my email messages sent in the past three years (no reply from you), and (iii) the latest confirmation of Lieu & Hillman's direct evidence against Planck-scale fluctuations in spacetime by Jonathan Granot,

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091028/full/news.2009.1044.html

see
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

Please don't ever say you knew nothing about it.

Dimi

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

Subject: Re: How to quantize spacetime without affecting relativity
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:13:16 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Giovanni.Amelino-Camelia@roma1.infn.it
Cc: Richard Lieu <lieur@cspar.uah.edu>, Jonathan Granot <j.granot@herts.ac.uk>,

Hi Giovanni,

> the first point is that you describe the recent
> Fermi-telescope result as a test of "Planck-scale
> fluctuations in spacetime"

Nope. The common issue is the end result from two very different approaches, by Richard and Jonathan. That is what matters.

If you wish to say something, first read the story at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

> I repeat: I shall be happy to offer more help
> if the requests are respectful and reflect a serious
> investment in the relevant literature

Please go ahead. The refuter of your speculations is one click away.

Take care,

Dimi

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

Subject: Re: How to quantize spacetime without affecting relativity
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:59:10 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Richard Lieu <richardlieuuah@gmail.com>
Cc: Giovanni.Amelino-Camelia@roma1.infn.it, amelino@roma1.infn.it,
"Kouveliotou, Chryssa (MSFC-VP62)" <chryssa.kouveliotou@nasa.gov>,
"sylvain.guiriec@lpta.in2p3.fr" <sylvain.guiriec@lpta.in2p3.fr>,
"Veronique.Pelassa@lpta.in2p3.fr" <Veronique.Pelassa@lpta.in2p3.fr>,
"ohnomasa272@gmail.com" <ohnomasa272@gmail.com>, rdb3@stanford.edu,
James A Miller <millerja@uah.edu>, fixj@uah.edu, Rob Preece <Rob.Preece@nasa.gov>, Jonathan Granot <j.granot@herts.ac.uk>

Dear Richard,

> I am truly grateful to all of you who wish to vindicate our 2003 work,
> but note also that our paper was six years ago and times were
> different. The Fermi limit is indeed unique, as they tested
> systematic rather than random 1st order Planck scale effect. Giovanni
> is right - the Fermi test was not about fluctuations, but real
> dispersion.

Of course. What I did say in my preceding email was: "The common issue is the end result from two very different approaches, by Richard and Jonathan. That is what matters."

Maybe I should have added 'that is what matters to the question in the subject line'.

Regrettably, Giovanni can't see the forest for the trees. Details about 'the forest' at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

Kindest regards,

Dimi
 

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

Subject: On the density perturbations of pre-inflationary red herrings
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:38:56 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Dick <richardlieuuah@gmail.com>, Tom <t.kibble@ic.ac.uk>
Cc: rampf@physik.rwth-aachen.de,
thomas.maedler@obspm.fr,
smajor@hamilton.edu,
m.s.brown@soton.ac.uk,
andre.leclair@gmail.com,
jochen.zahn@univie.ac.at,
dougs@csufresno.edu,
mbeneke@physik.rwth-aachen.de,
whzurek@gmail.com


Dick and Tom,

Regarding your arXiv:1212.3290v1 [astro-ph.CO], check out some simple facts at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#red_herring

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS_Mott

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Maia

Any comments?

Dimi

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

Subject: "Specifically, because of the Kocken-Specher theorem, ..." (arXiv:0911.2135v1 [gr-qc], p. 187)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:57:44 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Cecilia Flori <cecilia.flori@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: Jan Plefka <jan.plefka@physik.hu-berlin.de>,
Steven Vickers <S.J.Vickers@cs.bham.ac.uk>

Dear Dr. Flori,

I've been reading your Ph.D. Thesis in the past three hours, and am truly amazed by your professional approach and perfectionism. You are a treasure.

Regarding KS Theorem, I think one can argue that the truth value of the propositions should be YAIN (Chris Isham disagrees, for unknown to me reasons). In your spare time, please see an outline at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

I will appreciate your professional opinion, as well as the feedback from your distinguished colleagues.

With all good wishes,

Dimi Chakalov
------

Note: Watch Cecilia Flori's lecture "Topos formulation of Consistent Histories", 14.01.2009, http://pirsa.org/09010017. She handles the topos theory and the ice hockey stick with agility and unmatched precision.

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

Subject: Re: When are you going to respond professionally?
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:47:42 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Christian Corda <cordac.galilei@gmail.com>
Cc: lsfinn@psu.edu, cornish@physics.montana.edu, vfaraoni@ubishops.ca

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:24:45 +0200, Christian Corda <cordac.galilei@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> YOU DO NOT NOT UNDERSTAND GRAVITATION.

Prove it. My SBG argument is at the link below.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:49:14 +0300, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gentlemen:
>>
>> I mentioned your names and recent papers at
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG
[snip]

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

Subject: Taxpayer's perspective on GW astronomy
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:44:06 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Joel Franklin <jfrankli@reed.edu>,
Richard Woodard <woodard@phys.ufl.edu>,
Andrew Waldron <wally@math.ucdavis.edu>,
Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu>,
John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>,
John W Barrett <john.barrett@nottingham.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

Dear colleagues,

I wonder if you would agree to endorse the submission of my manuscript to [gr-qc],

http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement

The basic arguments are at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

I will be happy to send you my manuscript, entitled: "Taxpayer's perspective on GW astronomy". Will be brief and utterly polite (not frank, as at my web site).

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
-------------

Note: Excerpts from http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement :

"The endorsement process is not peer review. You should know the person that you endorse or you should see the paper that the person intends to submit. We don't expect you to read the paper in detail, or verify that the work is correct, but you should check that the paper is appropriate for the subject area. You should not endorse the author if the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field, or if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area."

Stanley Deser refused to even consider endorsing my manuscript. I do hope some of his colleagues will agree.

If you, my dear reader, have papers "that have been submitted between three months and five years ago" to [gr-qc] or [astro-ph] domains, and would agree to endorse the submission of my manuscript, please contact me by email as soon as possible, and I will send you my manuscript.

D. Chakalov
October 27, 2009

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

Subject: Re: Taxpayer's perspective on GW astronomy
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:24:06 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu>
Cc: Jim Isenberg <isenberg@uoregon.edu>

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for your reply. I regret that you refused to endorse the submission of my manuscript to [gr-qc]. As you put it in lrr-2007-3,

"The event horizon is a global property of an entire spacetime and is defined nonlocally in time: The event horizon in a slice is defined in terms of (and cannot be computed without knowing) the full future development of that slice."

... provided we know the source of DDE,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#GR

Take care,

Dimi

>> I wonder if you would agree to endorse the submission of my manuscript
>> to [gr-qc] or [astro-ph],
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement
>>
>> The basic arguments are at
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

---------

Note: Forty years have passed since Roger Penrose suggested the so-called Cosmic Censorship Conjecture (CCC), and people continue to ground their efforts on it (cf. Jonathan Thornburg and Michael I. Cohen et al., p. 2) and offer bets and drawings of "quantum horizon geometry".

Notice that the methods for finding an accurate history of the so-called event horizon (you need the "event horizon" (EH) in order to speculate about "black holes" viz. "binary black hole mergers" as "one of the most astrophysically common sources of gravitational radiation for detectors such as LIGO", cf. Mike Cohen et al.)  require complete knowledge of "the full future evolution of the spacetime before the EH can be determined exactly" (ibid.).

Which is why you need to address the global dynamics of spacetime: the increasing emergence of energy-of-empty-space due to DDE.

Just one "closed timelike curve" (CTC) or "time-like naked singularity" in the past 13.7B years would have destroyed everything, and since there are no strict bans on such catastrophic events (they simply have never happened, just like the ultraviolet catastrophe), "prohibited" only by people's belief in the current "dynamics" of GR and CCC in particular, recall that those "famous" singularity theorems are from 1970s, when nobody was aware of the flux of DDE.

Two examples: Geroch's theorem regarding CTCs (Robert Geroch, Topology in general relativity, J. Math. Phys. 8, 782-786 (1967)) and Tipler's theorem, which stipulates that, given the (obvious) possitiveness of the energy-momentum tensor, there can be no changes in the topology of spacetime, hence the causal structure of spacetime is secured (Frank J. Tipler, Singularities and causality violation, Ann. Phys. 108, 1-36 (1977)), are from the old days of GR without DDE.

As Alan Rendall stated (p. 14), "The study of these matters is still in a state of flux." Which is why I requested endorsement of my manuscript.

So far two physicists have replied (J. Thornburg and S. Deser), the rest (73) have not even confirmed the receipt of my email (sent between October 26th
and October 28th). Same story in September 2008. I'm talking to a brick wall.

D. Chakalov
November 4, 2009
Last update: April 6, 2011

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

Subject: Re: GR17, Session D1
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:08:46 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Thiemann <tthiemann@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
thomas.thiemann@aei.mpg.de
Cc: lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca,
Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de,
brien.nolan@dcu.ie

Thomas,

I quoted from your astro-ph/0607380 at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#note

Five years ago, you decided to bury my report into an evening poster session, and granted Lee Smolin three oral presentations: on Monday, July 19th ("Background independent approach to M theory", D2), on Tuesday, July 20th ("The low energy behavior of loop quantum gravity", D1), and finally on Friday, July 23rd ("Inflation in loop quantum gravity", B2i).

What you did to me was bloody unfair. Typical for a DDR communist.

Dimi

----------
Subject: Re: GR17, Session D1
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:59:15 +0300
To: tthiemann <tthiemann@perimeterinstitute.ca>
CC: Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de, brien.nolan@dcu.ie

Dear Thomas,

Please inform me about possible upgrade of my poster presentation to talk. I'm encountering tremendous difficulties in transforming my GR17 paper to poster. Feel like having my mouth shut with duck tape.

Best - Dimi

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

Subject: A fourth road to quantum gravity
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:10:45 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mark Buchanan <buchanan.mark@gmail.com>
Cc: Didier Sornette <dsornette@ethz.ch>,
Lee Smolin <lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Dear Dr. Buchanan,

I would like to make two comments on your online article "In search of the black swans" [Ref. 1].

I'm interested in proactive management of emerging risks, type "black swans". With the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that the event of 9/11 could not have been predicted, for reasons entire different than Max Planck's discovery; please see

http://tinyurl.com/steel-evaporation

The second comment pertains to the subject of this email: I believe Lee Smolin [Refs. 2 and 3], and all of his colleagues, have completely missed a fourth road to quantum gravity, from Erwin Schrödinger,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

Please feel free to pass this email to 'whomever it may be concerned'. The direct link:

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Buchanan

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU, U.K.

----

[Ref. 1] Mark Buchanan (April 1, 2009), In search of the black swans
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/38468

"In 1890 an electricity company enticed the German physicist Max Planck to help it in its efforts to make more efficient light bulbs. Planck, as a theorist, naturally started with the fundamentals and soon became enmeshed in the thorny problem of explaining the spectrum of black-body radiation, which he eventually did by introducing the idea — a “purely formal” assumption, as he then considered it — that electromagnetic energy can only be emitted or absorbed in discrete quanta. The rest is history. Electric light bulbs and mathematical necessity led Planck to discover quantum theory and to kick start the most significant scientific revolution of the 20th century.
....
"... it is not the normal events, the mundane and expected “white swans” that matter the most, but the outliers, the completely unexpected “black swans”. In the context of history, think 11 September 2001 or the invention of the Web."


[Ref. 2] Lee Smolin, (June 2, 2009), The unique universe
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/39306

"Time in the Newtonian schema is a parameter used to label points on a trajectory describing the system evolving in configuration space. When the system is small and isolated, this time parameter refers to the reading of a clock on the wall of the observer’s laboratory, which is not a property of the system. When we try to apply this notion to the universe as a whole, the time parameter must disappear (see John Baez - D.C.). Some have attempted to argue that this means that time itself does not exist at a cosmological scale, but that is the wrong conclusion. What disappears is not time, but the clock outside of the system -- which would be an absurd object since the system is the whole universe."


[Ref. 3] Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Phoenix, 2000;
Ch. 14, What chooses the laws of nature?,

p. 205: "One of the biggest mysteries is that we live in a world in which it is possible to look around, and see as far as we like."

p. 206: "God is nothing but the power of the universe as a whole to organize itself."

----------

Note: Nothing from the text above is original. The legacy of Erwin Schrödinger and Henry Margenau is anything but some unpredictable "black swan". For comparison, if someone has been offering the guiding principles for HTTP protocol to the people at CERN, but they were refusing to develop it, the invention of the Web [Ref. 1] would have never happened.

One can only hope that the upcoming sixth consecutive failure of LSC to detect GWs with the "Enhanced LIGO" will shake up the established theoretical physics community. If not, we will have to wait for the seventh consecutive failure of LSC in 2015, with their "Advanced LIGO".

What a terrible waste of time. And money.

Does anyone care?

D. Chakalov
November 16, 2009

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

Subject: Re: Tue 24 Nov 13:30pm - 14:30pm
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:06:09 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@ic.ac.uk>
Cc: Roland Omnes <roomnes@wanadoo.fr>,
Amihay Hanany <a.hanany@imperial.ac.uk>,
Helen Fay Dowker <f.dowker@imperial.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

Dear Jonathan,

It was a pleasure to attend your talk.

I'm also glad you quoted Roland's monograph, "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", in which he demonstrated that by introducing the decoherence functional you're automatically confined to Boolean logic -- a clear indication for Murphy's Law No. 15, "Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers."

Since you mentioned in your talk the case depicted on Fig 1 from your arXiv:0909.2597v1 [gr-qc], I wonder whether you would, in such kind of "space", be able to look around and see as far as you like (Lee Smolin, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity", Phoenix, 2000, p. 205). The test of the pudding, you know.

Fay: I'm glad you chose (synchronicity?) to sit next to me. If some day you decide to talk about the topology of space (with or without its "dark energy"), please drop me a line. I'll be delighted to attend.

Lastly, may I use this opportunity to invite all of you to join the new research program outlined at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

I believe it strictly follows Chris Isham's program, Type IV (arXiv:gr-qc/9310031v1).

If you have questions, please do write me back.

Wishing you all the best,

Dimi
--------
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
SW1V 4JU

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

Subject: Re: Tue 24 Nov 13:30pm - 14:30pm
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:38:33 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: J M Yearsley <james.yearsley03@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: Roland Omnes <roomnes@wanadoo.fr>,
Amihay Hanany <a.hanany@imperial.ac.uk>,
Helen Fay Dowker <f.dowker@imperial.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@ic.ac.uk>

Dear Dr. Yearsley,

I attended Jonathan's talk, and a few hours later emailed him a proposal to verify the Decoherent Histories (DH) hypothesis [Ref. 1]; please see 'the proof of the pudding' at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Halliwell

Suppose you have a clear night sky, and fix your eyes, for 1 min, on a star that is/was 4M light years away. The star looks the same during the whole time of 1 min, and is always at the place you see it.

Now, if the spacetime were governed by DH hypothesis [Ref. 1], what kind of irregularities MUST have been imposed on photon's pathway? I suppose you can perform the calculations and find it out for yourself.

Please feel free to join the research project outlined at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
SW1V 4JU
---

[Ref. 1] J.J. Halliwell, The Interpretation of Quantum Cosmology and the Problem of Time, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208018

"Central to both the classical and quantum problems is the notion of an entire trajectory. At the classical level it appears to be the appropriate reparametrization-invariant notion for the construction of interesting probabilities. At the quantum level, the decoherent histories approach appears to handle the problem in a natural way, perhaps because it readily incorporates the notion of trajectory."
-----------

D. Giulini and C. Kiefer, The Canonical Approach to Quantum Gravity,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0611141