The so-called 'God's thoughts' refer to a web of correlations
of all physical systems, which occur in a hypothetical
'global mode of spacetime' produced by the Arrow of Space.
Relative to a physical (inanimate) clock, the global mode
of time will inevitably look "frozen".
 



0.47-0.52: "Relative to the platform,
time on the train completely stops."


This "frozen" time pertains to 'the whole universe as ONE'
and to the so-called BrainMonad. The "speed" of gravity
is dual: both "instantaneous", in the global mode of
spacetime, and finite, in the local mode. The end
result is a quasi-local mass and quasi-instantaneous
correlations, resembling those in a school of fish.

Relative to the local mode of spacetime, the global mode
is at 'absolute rest', and serves as the reference fluid of
General Relativity. It is located ]between[ any two
neighboring "points" from the spacetime manifold, and
renders its local mode a perfect continuum: due to the
so-called speed of light, the "separation" of the spacetime
points (local mode of spacetime) is in fact zero.

There is no direct link between the local and global
modes of spacetime, i.e. between 'physical reality' and
'potential reality': the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state
must not be included in the set of its color-able explications.

The 3-D projection(s) of the global mode of spacetime are
both
an infinitesimal "point" and 'the infinitely large universe'.
It is a dual object which wraps up the local (physical) mode
of spacetime, and produces finite 'templates' for spacetime.

The cosmic vacuum/quantum aether, called here
 global mode of spacetime, is an absolute reference
frame pertaining to the whole universe as ONE:
the physical world there is in absolute rest, in the
sense that its proper time is zero, as "seen" from
such luxonic reference frame.

Thanks to the Arrow of Space, 'the universe as ONE'
is not "frozen". In the quantum realm, it exists as
'potential reality' or UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state.
As to the current GR, 'the universe as ONE' is the
absolute reference frame in which space "expands".
It is also the atemporal medium for bootstrapping
the physical world and generation of Machian inertia.

More on the errors in GR literature here.



 

The current GW detectors are manifestly blind and deaf to
the ripples of spacetime. Their proper detectors must
be endowed with the faculty of 'self-acting', resembling
the human brain. Ditto for the so-called "dark energy".

I hope to explain the drawing below on 25.11.2015.
Notice my "crackpot index": 80 points.


 

  Notice the favicon of this web site:


 


The aim of the so-called Scale Relativity Principle (SRP) is to suggest (i) new kinematics of space, compatible with the Arrow of Space, and (ii) relativistic treatment of the fundamental attributes of space, such as Large and Small, and and left and right.

SRP originates from the idea that the macroscopic world, at the length scale of tables and chairs, is located around the middle section from of the horizontal red line (four asymptotic sections) in the drawing above. In this macro-world reference frame, the space is 'finite' and the structure of space is FAPP 'local', which provides exact distinction between Large vs Small and left vs right. The latter begin to conflate and "penetrate" each other along the horizontal red line, in a hypothetical global mode of spacetime. An observer placed at the macro-world reference frame (horizontal red line) will evaluate volumes of space toward  S  as "small", and volumes of space toward  L  as "large", and will face the conundrum of differential calculus. The four asymptotic sections along the vertical black lines refer to 'the universe as ONE' and its dual image, as viewed along the direction toward  S , and along the opposite one toward  L . The intersection point of the red lines is considered unobservable in principle; it only separates the consecutive "flashes" of physical reality (local mode of spacetime) along the Arrow of Space. Details on SRP and its possible applications will be presented (Deo volente) in Munich on 25.11.2015.


D. Chakalov
Good Friday 2011


 

 

LIGO tunnels should be converted to wine cellars. Any other ideas?

 

Latest entries:

about.html#GR
Margenau.html
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Einstein_Prague
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Cecilia
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Heraclitus
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Macavity
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#LIGO_LISA
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Leydesdorff
 

 

 


"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.



 



We haven't the money, so we've got to think!
Lord Rutherford, 1962 Brunel Lecture, 14 February 1962

Overfunded research is like heroin: It makes one addicted, weakens the mind and furthers prostitution.
Johann A. Makowsky, The Jerusalem Post 19.4.85

 
 



Does a fish need a bicycle?


 

Latest update: November 26, 2009

Printable copy (current version) from
 

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 'scale relativity 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):

Alex Vilenkin, $63,000


... 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:  "Dynamics of General Relativity" -- articles or manuscripts ?
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:20:36 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Robert Beig <robert.beig@univie.ac.at>, esi2011.gravi@univie.ac.at

Dear Dr. Beig,

I wonder if one can read articles or manuscripts from the Workshop at ESI, entitled: "Dynamics of General Relativity: Numerical and Analytical Approaches", July 04 - September 02, 2011.

My work on the dynamics of General Relativity is posted at

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

I believe (and hope) it is drastically different from your approach, and need to be very well prepared for your conference in December this year.




Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov

 



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



Printable version (Saturday, 25 February 2012, 12:53:14 GMT) is available from here
(FI.pdf, 24 pages). Scribd version (old) at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77244777/FINITE-INFINITY-Second-Edition

 


FINITE INFINITY (Second Edition)



 

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 'scale relativity principle' (SRP) 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 Scale Relativity Principle, SRP.) 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 spaceL , and minimal volume of 3-D spaceS , 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 gij 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 'scale relativity principle' (SRP). 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 'scale relativity principle' (SRP). 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 SRP. 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 SRP and its dual spacetime metric, one could alter the "distances" in 3-D space in such a way that a "reactionless" alien visitor 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 SRP, 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.

 



Fig. 4.3
The horizontal line shows the axis  w  in terms of two directions in 3-D space, toward  S  and  L . The points denoted with  b  (from ‘bartenders’) are the fleeting explications of GPIs in the local (physical) mode of spacetime: John’s jackets.

The black horizontal line (asymptotically flat 4-D spacetime, see Fig. 5 below) cannot reach the realm of  S & L (Thompson Lamp paradox).



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 gμν into a background part, goμν, for which we could take flat space-time, and a dynamical part: substitute in the Einstein-Hilbert action: gμν = goμν + g1μν . (...) Just require that the background metric goμν obeys the gravitational equations itself; one can then remove from the Lagrangian all terms linear in  g1μν.  This way, one gets an action that starts out with terms quadratic in  g1μν, while all its indices are connected through the background field goμν."

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 gmv 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: "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

"What about the semiclassical approximation and the recovery of an appropriate external time parameter in some limit? (...) The discussion is also connected to the question: Where does the imaginary unit  i  in the (functional) Schrödinger equation come from? The full Wheeler-DeWitt equation is real, and one would thus also expect real solutions for [PSI]."
-----------

M. Bojowald, Canonical Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4874

"If the theory does not allow us, even in principle, to extend solutions arbitrarily far in one direction, it may be difficult to view this direction as a dimension of the world."

 

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


Subject: "Einstein gravity is an emergent phenomenon" (Harvey R. Brown, arXiv:0911.4440v1 [gr-qc], pp. 8-9)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:45:01 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Harvey R Brown <harvey.brown@philosophy.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Oliver Pooley <oliver.pooley@philosophy.ox.ac.uk>,
J Brian Pitts <jpitts@nd.edu>,
Jose Natario <jnatar@math.ist.utl.pt>,
Timothy Adamo <tim.adamo@gmail.com>,
Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu>,
Jacob D Bekenstein <bekenste@vms.huji.ac.il>,
Hans C Ohanian <hohanian@einsteinsmistakes.com>,
Igor Novikov <novikov@tac.dk>,
Dmitri Novikov <d.novikov@imperial.ac.uk>,
Tatyana Shestakova <shestakova@sfedu.ru>,
Natalia Kiriushcheva <nkiriush@uwo.ca>,
S V Kuzmin <skuzmin@uwo.ca>,
Kirill Krasnov <kirill.krasnov@nottingham.ac.uk>


Dear Dr. Brown,

I fully endorse your statement, for reasons explained at

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

Please notice that the source of DDE (see ‘GR with DDE’ at the link above) is assumed to play the role of ‘reference fluid’ and Anderson's ‘absolute structures’ (James L. Anderson, Principles of Relativity Physics, Academic Press, New York, 1967, p. 73). The latter (i) do not obey the ‘generalized principle of action and reaction’ (ibid., p. 339), and (ii) can be revealed in Quantum Theory as ‘potential reality’,

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

It seems to me that all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of quantum gravity snap to their places -- effortlessly.

Should you or any of your colleagues disagree, please bark back. The "curious incident" with my web site is that nobody is willing to comment on these very simple (and certainly not original) ideas.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--------
"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident."

Sherlock Holmes, "The Adventure of Silver Blazes"

 

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


Subject: A New Scenario, by Sergio Doplicher
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:23:42 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>
Cc: Luciano Maiani <luciano.maiani@roma1.infn.it>,
Ray Streater <raymond.streater@kcl.ac.uk>,
Owen Maroney <o.maroney.physics@gmail.com>,
Bogdan Damski <bogdan.damski@gmail.com>,
Haitao Quan <quan@lanl.gov>,
Wojciech Hubert Zurek <whzurek@gmail.com>


Dear Professor Doplicher,

I have deep respect and admiration for your perfectionism and scrupulous intellectual honesty.

Regarding your Scenario (arXiv:0911.5136v1 [math-ph], pp. 29-30; arXiv:hep-th/0608124v1, p. 7), and the puzzle identified by Lee Smolin,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Buchanan3

please notice my proposal at

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

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

May I ask a question. I noticed that you'll teach QM,
http://www.mat.uniroma1.it/mat_cms/pres_corso.php?corso_da_presentare=1259

Would you discuss my interpretation of QM with your students?

I believe kids have the right to know everything we know. If you consider Nevill Mott's paper (arXiv:0911.5136v1 [math-ph], p. 18) and the alleged "time-dependent decoherence factor" (W.H. Zurek et al., arXiv:0911.5729v1 [quant-ph]), I believe your students will grasp the ultimate puzzle of our good old asymptotically flat spacetime, and will never waste their life with chasing ghosts.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
------


Note: Contrary to what you may hear from Jonathan Halliwell, it is impossible to explain the trace of a charged particle in a bubble chamber, after Nevill Mott (see S. Doplicher, p. 18), with the current QM and GR textbooks. The problems from QM (A. Teta, arXiv:0905.1467v1, "possible histories", pp. 12-14) are swept under the carpet. Moreover, the problems from 'GR without DDE' are overwhelming. One is that we can't explain 'the energy-momentum density of generic background quantum states' (see below): "points become fuzzy and locality looses any precise meaning" (S. Doplicher, p. 21). More puzzles from M. Consoli and E. Costanzo, arXiv:0709.4101, Sec. 3: Is the vacuum a preferred frame? Could be. But if we model the vacuum as 'potential reality', there is no way to observe motion with respect to it: the usual expression from 1930s -- "the only Lorentz-invariant tensor" (ibid., Eq 13); see also G. Marsh, arXiv:0711.0220v2, Eq 2 -- does not apply to 'potential reality'. The latter is needed to explain 'GR with DDE'.

In the textbook version of 'GR without DDE', the 'coordinate time' read by your wristwatch, and the very notion of 'energy conservation' during some interval from that 'coordinate time', cannot be rigorously defined. The tacit presumption is that 'space' itself does not "move" anywhere, simply because there is no "outer space" in which our 3-D space could "expand into". But only the second part from this tacit presumption is correct, since our 3-D space can indeed "move" or rather "emerge" (C. Isham, gr-qc/9310031, Option IV): the intrinsic dynamics of space -- here we enter 'GR with DDE' -- can only be defined with respect to a hypothetical global mode of spacetime, which is hidden  ]between[  the "points" of the local mode of spacetime. The latter stands as a genuine perfect continuum (the "dark gaps" from the global mode are hidden by the so-called 'speed of light'), and has been studied in STR and in 'GR without DDE'.

If we wish to think as proper relativists, this is the only choice we may have: see my email to Harvey R Brown above. Many people hate it and spit insults on me; other just keep quiet, but nobody has so far offered any viable alternative.

But is there any alternative to 'the arrow of spacetime'?

Back in 1772, on the occasion of the fall of meteorites, the French Academy of Sciences adopted a resolution categorically rejecting such ridiculous phenomena. The obvious reason had been that rocks cannot fall from the sky, simply because there are no rocks there. Likewise, when you look at the sky, you will never think that the space itself could possibly "move", in any way whatsoever. But once the "dark energy" from 'empty space' was confirmed, the intrinsic dynamics of 3-D space, hence 'GR with DDE', are unavoidable. Your good old wristwatch does read the dynamics of "dark energy" along the arrow of spacetime.

E sarà mia colpa se così è? (Niccolò Machiavelli)

D.C.
December 1, 2009
Last update: December 7, 2009


Sergio Doplicher, The Principle of Locality. Effectiveness, fate and challenges. arXiv:0911.5136v1 [math-ph]

p. 18: "The coherence between the different outcomes, in principle still accessible with the measurement of the nearly vanishing interference terms (vanishing exactly only in the limit N --> [inf]), will be totally unaccessible in practice as soon as N is sufficiently large, as the number of molecules in a bubble from the trace of a charged particle in a bubble chamber."
...
pp. 19-20: "The conventional picture of the measurement process in Quantum Mechanics, as an instantaneous jump from a pure state to a mixture, which affects the state all over space at a fixed time in a preferred Lorentz frame, appears, in the scenario we outlined, as the result of several limits:

"1. the time duration T of the interaction giving rise to the measurement (which, in an exact mathematical treatment, would involve the whole interval from minus infinity to plus infinity, as all scattering processes) is set equal to zero;

"2. the number of microconstituents of the amplifying part of the measurement apparatus is set equal to infinity, thus allowing exact decoherence;

"3. the volume involved by the measurement apparatus in its interaction with the system (thus occupied by the microscopic part of the apparatus) tends to the whole space, allowing the reduction of wave packets to take place everywhere;

"In the conventional picture, some form of nonlocality is unavoidable, albeit insufficient for transmission of perturbations (hence not contradicting local commutativity) or even of information [58]: for a given observer, a coherent superposition of two possibilities might be changed, instantaneously in some preferred Lorentz frame, to a state where only one possibility survives, by the measurement performed by another observer in a very far spacelike separated region.
...
p. 21: "Thus points become fuzzy and locality looses any precise meaning. We believe it should be replaced at the Planck scale by an equally sharp and compelling principle, yet unknown, which reduces to locality at larger distances.
...

p. 27: "But locality is lost. There is no meaning to "E1 and E2 are spacelike separated", unless we pick a point _o_ in E, and limit ourselves to a special wedge W associated to _o_ and its spacelike complement -W. In this special case locality survives for free fields, but is bound to be destroyed by interactions on QST.

"That remnant of locality has been exploited to construct deformations of local nets for which the two particle S matrix is notrivial [70, 71], at the price of loosing locality in terms of fields localised in bounded regions. The various formulation of interaction between fields, all equivalent on ordinary Minkowski space, provide inequivalent approaches on QST; but all of them, sooner or later, meet problems with Lorentz covariance, apparently due to the nontrivial action of the Lorentz group on the centre of the algebra of Quantum Spacetime.

"On this point in our opinion a deeper understanding is needed.
...

p. 29: "The common feature of all approaches is that, due to the quantum nature of spacetime at the Planck scale, locality is broken, even at the level of free fields, and more dramatically by interactions. Which, as far as our present knowledge go, lead to a breakdown of Lorentz invariance as well.
...

"One might expect that a complete theory ought to be covariant under general coordinate transformations as well. This principle, however, is grounded on the conceptual experiment of the falling lift, which, in the classical theory, can be thought of as occupying an infinitesimal neighborhood of a point. In a quantum theory the size of a "laboratory" must be large compared with the Planck length, and this might pose limitations on general covariance. One might argue that such limitations ought to be taken care of by the quantum nature of Spacetime at the Planck scale.
...

"But the energy distribution in a generic quantum state will affect the Spacetime Uncertainty Relations, suggesting that the commutator between the coordinates ought to depend in turn on the metric field. This scenario could be related to the large scale thermal equilibrium of the cosmic microwave background, and to the non vanishing of the Cosmological Constant [79, 80].

p. 30: "This might well be the clue to restore Lorentz covariance in the interactions between fields on Quantum Spacetime."
-------------

ref. [80]: Sergio Doplicher, Quantum Field Theory on Quantum Spacetime, arXiv:hep-th/0608124v1.

p. 7: "A New Scenario. The Principle of Gravitational Stability ought to be fully used in the very derivation of Space Time Uncertainty Relations, which would then depend also on the energy-momentum density of generic background quantum states; this leads to commutation relations between Spacetime coordinates depending in principle on the metric tensor, and hence, through the gravitational coupling, on the interacting fields themselves. Thus the commutation relations between Spacetime coordinates would appear as part of the equations of motions along with Einstein and matter field Equations.

"In other words we may expect that, while Classical General Relativity taught us that Geometry is dynamics, Quantum Gravity might show that also Algebra is dynamics.

"This new scenario [12] appears extremely difficult to formalise and implement, but promises most interesting developments."
---------------

 

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


Subject: The Hamiltonian formulation of GR is wrong.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:28:31 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Hanno Sahlmann <sahlmann@particle.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Jacob D Bekenstein <bekenste@vms.huji.ac.il>,
Mordehai Milgrom <moti.milgrom@weizmann.ac.il>,
J M Pons <pons@ecm.ub.es>,
D C Salisbury <dsalisbury@austincollege.edu>,
K A Sundermeyer <ksun@gmx.de>,
George F R Ellis <George.Ellis@uct.ac.za>

Dear colleagues,

If we accept the challenge of "dark energy" and "dark matter", I believe it will be wrong to use the Hamiltonian formulation of GR. It is not possible to quantize Einstein gravity in four dimensions either (Hanno Sahlmann, arXiv:1001.4188v1 [gr-qc]).

The problem is that we need to unravel a new degree of freedom pertaining to the NEW dynamics of spacetime: see R. Rakhi & K. Indulekha and S. Carroll, "more space comes into existence",

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

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

Only people like George F R Ellis would ignore these bold facts.

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

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note 1: I really cannot understand why people believe that the source of "dark energy" should necessarily have positive energy density ("Treated as a fluid, this component has negative pressure (assuming positive energy density), ... "
T. Padmanabhan), and be "invariant under Lorentz transformations" (E. Santos).

In the model presented here, these two self-imposed presumptions are dropped, and the source of "dark energy" is non-existent in the local mode of spacetime. None. Zero. Zilch. You can safely set it to zero, just as you usually treat the vacuum energy density in QFT.

Yet the source of "dark energy" can take any value in the global mode, depending on the particular cosmological stage of the universe, because  T  (the energy momentum stress tensor of all matter and fields other than gravity, with positive energy density) can completely vanish/dissolve into the vacuum, and stay available there for any partial, full, or "over unity" recall, if needed.

How? Because it is potential reality. Only people like George Ellis cannot grasp it.

All we can physically observe is that 3-D space is acting upon itself. We cannot trace back this 'energy from empty space', which is why some people called it "dark". In the same vein, the human mind would be considered "dark", because all we can observe is that the brain is being acting 'upon itself', by thinking about the brain, with the brain.

Gerard 't Hooft had a brilliant guess about the negative energy states, but his Ph.D. student Stefan Nobbenhuis ruined it, upon his guidance, by assuming that "there is no coupling other than gravitational (emphasis added - D.C.) between the normal matter fields and their ghost counterparts, otherwise the Minkowski vacuum would not be stable" (arXiv:gr-qc/0411093v3, p. 10). But the quantum vacuum can be stable without any gravitational coupling whatsoever, because gravity applies only to the explicated/physical form of reality, while the absolute value of energy stored in the vacuum is potential reality.

The misleading adjective "dark" (Mike Turner) comes from treating the potential vacuum reality as 'physically real'. In the case of John Wheeler's 'cloud', only this last explicated physical reality will be subject to gravitational interactions, like the explicated Casimir energy. The 'cloud' has been explicated by an emerging context, while in the case of the "dark" energy from the quantum vacuum we encounter an emerging boundary: the energy here is not "boundary sensitive". It is 'the whole universe as ONE' (global mode of spacetime) that fixes the "boundary terms", so that we can only see a "cloud" with strictly positive mass. Surely the explicated "cloud" changes along the cosmological time arrow, but its "dark" driving force cannot be unraveled from the fleeting "cloud" (denoted with  a  in [Ref. 1]), just as we cannot unravel the UNdecidable Kochen-Specker quantum state from its colorizable projections. This is the legacy of Schrödinger and Margenau (see below), which I was hoping to explain on November 27, 2002.

Notice that in GR you inevitably need to introduce some additional structure [Ref. 2] compensating for the absence of the global mode of spacetime. To understand the origin of these of additional structures, recall the prerequisites that necessitate 'time' regarded as 'change': we need two different and distinguishable states of a physical system, and some background w.r.t.w. the difference between the two states can be identified. In STR, the task looks quite easy: take two consecutive, instantaneous, point-like states of a Frisbee along its continuous trajectory, defined w.r.t. the fixed background of Minkowski space, and you're done. In 'GR without DDE', the background is the 3-D space itself, which is allowed to change its "curvature" only, following the bi-directional "talk" between matter and space: "Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve" (John Wheeler). But because of the Equivalence Principle adopted in GR, gravity must be able to vanish completely "inside" an infinitesimal "point", hence there is no localizable point-like gravitational energy density in such "point" and across its infinitesimally small neighborhood, to compute derivatives (Bjoern Schmekel). Hence the notion of 'time', conceived as 'change' from point-like state A to point-like state B (defined w.r.t. a background of 3-D space), becomes terribly complicated because of its dual, non-linear duties: "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at the same time - D.C.) affected by, the other fields" (John Baez). Notice the notion suggested by Viktor Denisov and Anatol Logunov: 'physicogeometric dualism'.

Under these circumstances, people need to introduce some additional structures to define some "boundaries" of the whole spacetime; for example, some "fall-off conditions of the curvature in appropriate coordinate systems at infinity" [Ref. 2], because, in the case of the Einstein equations alone, "there are no physically motivated boundary conditions" (Alan Rendall). But notice that the background of 3-D space is still always there, in the sense that in 'GR without DDE' the space itself doesn't "move" (Robert Geroch). But once we endow the space itself with an additional degree of freedom, as in 'GR with DDE', it acquires new dynamics (arrow of spacetime), and those 'additional structures' that were introduced by hand [Ref. 2] should be derived from the "dark" ("no observable content", Domenico Giulini) global mode of spacetime.

Don't try to bridge the two "mirror" worlds (introduced by symmetries or quasi-symmetries [Ref. 2]) with any physical stuff whatsoever. Don't try to explain the self-acting faculty of 3-D space with the physical, "colorizable projections" that can only show up with positive energy density. You will be baffled by the driving force of the cosmological time arrow [Ref. 1] and the cosmological "constant" problems forever (cf. Amedeo Balbi), or at least until you quietly retire.
 

D.C.
January 27, 2010
Last update: February 2, 2010


[Ref. 1] T. Padmanabhan, Why Does the Universe Expand? arXiv:1001.3380v1 [gr-qc]

 


[Ref. 2] J. L. Jaramillo, E. Gourgoulhon, Mass and Angular Momentum in General Relativity, arXiv:1001.5429v1 [gr-qc]. To appear as proceedings in the book "Mass and Motion in General Relativity", eds. L. Blanchet, A. Spallicci and B. Whiting

p. 6: "Once the non-local nature of the gravitational energy-momentum and angular momentum is realised, the conceptual challenge is translated into the manner of determining the appropriate physical parameters associated with the gravitational field in an extended region of spacetime. An unambiguous answer has been given in the case of the total mass of an isolated system. However, the situation is much less clear in the case of extended but finite spacetime domains.

"In a broad sense, existing attempts either enforce some additional structure that restricts the study to an appropriate subset of the solution space of General Relativity, or alternatively they look for a genuinely geometric characterisation aiming at fulfilling some expected physical requirements. In this article we present an overview of some of the relevant existing attempts and illustrate the kind of additional structures they involve.
...
pp. 9-10: "The characterisation of an isolated system in General Relativity aims at capturing the idea that spacetime becomes flat when we move sufficiently far from the system, so that spacetime approaches that of Minkowski. However, the very notion of far away becomes problematic due to the absence of an a priori background spacetime. In addition, we must consider different kinds of infinities, since we can move away from the system in space-like and also in null directions. Different strategies exist in the literature for the formalization of this asymptotic flatness idea, and not all of them are mathematically equivalent. Traditional approaches attempt to specify the adequate fall-off conditions of the curvature in appropriate coordinate systems at infinity. (...) The whole picture is inspired in the structure of the conformal compactification of Minkowski spacetime.
...
pp. 35-36: "But it must be acknowledged (...) that the status of the quasi-local mass studies is in a kind of post-modern situation in which the devoted intensive efforts have resulted in a plethora of proposals with no obvious definitive and entirely satisfying candidate.
...
"The moral of the whole discussion in this article is that the formulation of meaningful global or quasi-local mass and angular momentum notions in General Relativity always needs the introduction of some additional structure in the form of symmetries, quasi-symmetries or some other background structure."
----------



Note 2
: Recently, J. M. Pons, D. Salisbury, and K. Sundermeyer (PSS) tried to solve the paradoxes of “frozen time” and “nothing happens” (arXiv:1001.2726v1 [gr-qc]), stressing the difference b/w the gauge generator and the Hamiltonian (p. 5):

"These gauge transformations define equivalence classes within S, which we call gauge orbits. A gauge orbit represents a unique physical state (footnote 5), and its different points correspond to different coordinatizations.
--
Footnote 5: "Note that this state is the whole spacetime."

"... in the space of on-shell field configurations the gauge generator moves from one point p to another p', whereas the Hamiltonian works within every point p, which already represents an entire spacetime (emphasis added - D.C.)."

In another paper (arXiv:0902.0401v1 [gr-qc], p. 4), PSS illustrated their ideas with a "spatially homogeneous isotropic cosmological model", and acknowledged that "this model possesses the curious property that the only physical variable that changes in time is time itself!" (emphasis added - D.C.).

Which makes this "time" unobservable, or rather 'observable only with respect to itself'. Pity PSS didn't ask Karel Kuchar to comment on their speculations, nor mentioned the new dynamics of 3-D space due to its "dark" energy acting on the whole spacetime en bloc.

When will the Hamiltonian formulation of GR address this task? When pigs fly.

D.C.
January 31, 2010
 


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


Subject: The schizophrenic behavior of gravity (SBG)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:16:20 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Nikolai Mitskievich <nmitskie@gmail.com>
Cc: 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


Dear Dr. Mitskievich,

I think you shouldn't regret that you missed the chance to educate Kip Thorne [Ref. 1] about the inevitable failure of his LIGO project and the whole "GW astronomy". Arguments similar to yours have been spelled out by Steven Weinberg seven years ago (25 Feb 2003), after which he added: "I often find that people who say silly things actually do correct calculations, but are careless in what they say about them."

Not just Kip Thorne, but the whole LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) are saying silly things, but because they use the linearized approximation of GR, they do "correct calculations".

However, if you use the same linearized approximation of GR, you can prove "GW astronomy" wrong by reductio ad absurdum:

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

Either way, with GR or with its linearized approximation, LIGO is for the birds.

Trouble is, some people from NSF continue to dump hundreds of million U.S. dollars -- all taxpayers' money -- into this GW nonsense.

Typical for a socialist country.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov

--------

[Ref. 1] Nikolai V. Mitskievich, On a new category of physical effects, arXiv:1002.1421v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1421

"The gravitational deformation in general relativity does in fact belong to the kinematic effects, when it is described without the use of geodesic deviation equation. Thus, for example, the interferometric detection of gravitational waves cannot give a non-zero result, since the scales of all types of equally oriented lengths do change in gravitational fields in the same proportion, and the numbers of light wavelengths fitting along the alternative arms of interferometer cannot suffer changes in a passing gravitational wave.

"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."
-----

Note: See what happens if you don't tell your students everything you know.

Example: Jim Hartle. Recently, a young theoretical physicist, Gareth Jones, defended his Ph.D. Thesis on "Searching for gravitational waves... ". He looked at Ch. 23 from Jim Hartle's textbook, "Gravity, an introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", to eventually understand the dimensionless GW amplitude (Eq. 1.64, p. 15) that would "cause a periodic strain (i.e., stretching and contraction) of the proper distance between points (Sic! - D.C.) in spacetime" (ibid., p. 182).

But you can't hide the dimensionality of GW amplitude in 3-D space: check out SBG here. In order to prove LSC (at least 679 people) wrong, all you need is to drive the "background" in the linearized approximation of GR to its absurdity, as with the SBG argument. Not sure?

Please explain the dimensionality of GW amplitude (h) in Kip's mantra:



Something with [meter] maybe? Or some "creative analogies" from EM radiation?

If you look at Wiki, GW amplitude "is not the quantity which would be analogous to what is usually called the amplitude of an electromagnetic wave (...)."

The alleged GW has frequency, wavelength, and speed -- all defined with proper dimensionality. Only the action of geometry on matter, embodied in the mantra above, is a dimensionless ghost that shows up only with ... "2.3×10-26" , say.

How can Gareth Jones change his Ph.D. brain, to think as a physicist? Surely the entity that fixes a 'meter' cannot itself be defined with what it produces -- a 'meter'. Can he notice the intrinsic parapsychology of statements like "our best (lowest) upper limit on gravitational wave amplitude is 2.3×10-26" ?

I think Jim Hartle (along with Bernie Schutz) should be blamed for Gareth Jones' professional career. It may be wasted by chasing ghosts with real, taxpayers' money.

In my opinion, the "dimensionality" of GW amplitude is just like that of quantum waves. And just like the de Broglie waves (cf. Franco Selleri above), in present-day GR these GWs cannot show up either, simply because they cannot transport energy-momentum to any physical system in the spacetime of GR textbooks.

Neither quantum waves (recall the quantum vacuum) nor gravitational waves are "empty" by themselves. Pity nobody cares.
 

D.C.
February 10, 2010
Last update: March 17, 2010


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

Subject: Re: The schizophrenic behavior of gravity (SBG)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 04:55:21 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37361003011855j1eb9c7f1rca2fa10ef89ac6c1@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: kip@tapir.caltech.edu, weinberg@physics.utexas.edu,
marx_j@ligo.caltech.edu, bberger@nsf.gov, tcarruth@nsf.gov,
dshenry@nsf.gov, rwinkelb@nsf.gov, GW_comp@olegacy.gsfc.nasa.gov,
takahasi@th.nao.ac.jp, matthew@astro.gla.ac.uk,
gareth.jones@astro.cf.ac.uk, Curt.J.Cutler@jpl.nasa.gov,
vallis@vallis.org, sigg_d@ligo.caltech.edu, Holger.Pletsch@aei.mpg.de,
Bruce.Allen@aei.mpg.de, bernard.schutz@aei.mpg.de,
info@ligo.caltech.edu, LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
IGUS Jim <hartle@physics.ucsb.edu>


P.S. Update at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Jones

D.C.
 

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


Subject: arXiv:1002.1410v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:57:41 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ronnie Hermens <ronnie.hermens@gmail.com>
Cc: landsman@math.ru.nl, maassen@math.ru.nl

Dear Mr. Hermens,

It is a real pleasure to read your Thesis.

Just a brief comment. You wrote (p. 46): "The claim of Meyer that the Kochen-Specker Theorem has been nullified leads to the question what it is exactly that the Kochen-Specker Theorem states. A common notion is that the theorem states that (at any given time) not all observables can be assigned definite values that are independent of the measuring context."

Long before John Bell, Schrödinger explained the crux of the matter (November 1950),

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

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

I suppose none of your senior colleagues have mentioned to you anything about my numerous email messages, with links to my web site. And that is not fair.

If I'm wrong about them, please write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
------


Note 1:
All kids, Ronnie Hermens included, have the right to know everything we know. This doesn't mean that they should accept our opinions. But in order to make educated decision about their professional career, we should kindly offer them all our knowledge and opinions. Otherwise it's just not fair.

Ronnie, here's a story from Uncle Dimi. Suppose you're in a pitch dark room. You hold a torch in your hand, but want to "see" how the darkness itself looks like before you observe it with the torch. As you might have guessed, 'the darkness itself' stands for the 'UNdecidable quantum potential reality' that cannot be fitted into any Hilbert space whatsoever; more from Uncle John.

Obviously, your task is not feasible. With your torch, you can only "see" the classical presentations of 'the dark room', which have been "filtered" through the classical spacetime at the scale of tables and chairs. So, what do you do? You use some QM textbook recipes for calculating probabilities for observing the dark room with your torch. NOT the dark room itself. And if you "look" with Hilbert space with dimensions 2, you may never notice any problems with your torch observations, as you can always infer what sorts of objects should have been in the dark room, before you turned on the torch and brought them into the classical spacetime of tables and chairs (recall the "quantum computing" mess).

The real fun with QM starts when KS Theorem comes to play: your torch observations do not make sense. You cannot infer anymore what kinds of objects should have been in the dark room before you turned on the torch. (In the context of "quantum computing", quantum states both 'partly exist' as context-evoked latent observables and 'partly do not exist', being UNdecidable quantum state (never in plural) as well. It's an "eigentümlichen, klassisch nicht beschreibbaren" (W. Pauli), indivisible bundle of 'both ONE and many'. Capiche?)

The essential ONE-"part" from the objects in the dark room will always remain unaccounted for. You can say NOTHING about it. It is UNspeakable. You just can't fit it into any Hilbert space on which you make your torch observations. It is the ultimate quantum reality 'out there', which I simply call 'potential reality'.

You can say nothing about it, because any statement of yours refers exclusively to what you can "see" with your torch. This is my answer to your question "what it is exactly that the Kochen-Specker Theorem states", as you put it.

Your mentor, Nicolaas Landsman, has tried some toposification of quantum theory, but notice that this is just another torch. Chris Isham also plays with that topos torch. Other people try another, 'non-commutative spacetime torch'.

The math jungle is staggering. Don't go there, it's endless. How do I know?

Because there is only one way to solve both the measurement problem of QM and the cosmological "constant" problem. Both problems, en bloc. Just recall the basic tenet of Copenhagen [Ref. 1], and compare it with the interpretation of QM discussed here and the arrow of spacetime: the instantaneous state of Die Bahn (trajectory) of all physical objects, at all length scales, is nothing but the local mode of spacetime, as it evolves from "point" A to "point" B, following the expansion of space due to the "dark" energy of the vacuum.

Locally, Die Bahn [Ref. 1] is like a single flash or "point" with infinitesimal duration. The whole 'local mode of spacetime' is comprised of such already-correlated "points" with infinitesimal duration, all of which are explicated with a carpe diem unit probability, in line with the PR interpretation of QM. If you can imagine an instantaneous cross-section of the arrow of spacetime, the local mode will be a frozen flat 3-D space with total gravitational energy precisely zero (see above): the potential reality itself (the infinite "shop", see below) does not gravitate (cf. "yes you can"). Any of these 3-D "snapshots" constitutes a legitimate 'universe' by itself, but as the arrow of spacetime "moves" forward, we are led to consider a chain of such snapshots, and then it looks like the universe is somehow 'acting upon itself', because the "dark gaps" from the global mode are precisely sealed off, making the local mode a perfect continuum (notice the emergence of "waves" below). Of course we cannot locate the source of this "dark energy", call it  X , inside the very thing that is being produced by  X : the 3-D space of the local mode of spacetime. Which is why some (otherwise serious) people called it "dark", while other speculate about some mysterious "dark flow" and "axis of evil", as pictured here.

A few days ago, I tried to explain Die Bahn [Ref. 1] to my teenage daughter (she is the 'test bed' for my DVD video tutorials) as follows. Picture the quantum vacuum as an infinitely "large" cash-and-carry shop, from which you can get everything and anything (that caught her attention, as expected). You buy some stuff for your diet, but you can shop (i) only if you're "off the train", and (ii) only for your one-day meal. This 'one-day meal' is just one point from a perfectly legitimate universe --  the local mode of spacetime at the global instant 'now'.

Such "horizontal" cross-section of the arrow of spacetime takes only one sliding point 'now' from the ("vertical") arrow of spacetime. But because you inevitably chain your 'daily points' along a perfectly continuous trajectory (the "dark gaps" of the global mode of spacetime are completely sealed off due to 'the speed of light'), you get an emergent Bahn with 'potential future' and 'irreversible past', as it emerges due to the arrow of spacetime, while the infinite shop, with all its (latent) stuff that you did not buy, will always remain "dark".

Imagine also that every day you're buying more stuff: if some theoretical physicists compare only your daily meals during a week (they can't glance at the "dark gaps"), they will claim that you've been getting 'more stuff' throughout the whole week from some "dark source". (If they include the infinite shop in their calculations, they will inevitably face their cosmological "constant" paradox.)

Also, notice that all people in the universe are shopping from the same "dark shop": they shop for their 'one-day meal' to cook up their common 'local mode of spacetime', but have to do it relationally (there is no background whatsoever in the local mode of spacetime), and also in a pre-correlated (EPR-like) fashion, in line with the Bootstrap Rule 'think globally, act locally'. The result is a (quantum-gravitational) wave of pre-correlated 'one-day meals' that also emerges during Die Bahn. Nothing is "waving" to emit these waves. They just emerge. Capiche?

Okay, let me try it this way. Do you remember how we played Frisbee on the beach? That poor Frisbee was too large and heavy to take advantage of its potential UNdecidable KS states, and since it also managed to ignore the effects of gravity, we could imagine some fictitious "fixed grid" (Minkowski spacetime) on which we can draw its Bahn. Had the Frisbee been a quantum-gravitational object, it would have all its instantaneous one-point "meals" correlated (recall the two hands) with 'everything else in the universe' ("off the train", in the global mode of 'the Frisbee per se'). Then the real Frisbee would be flying like a fish from a correlated shoal of fish, only you can't see the rest of fish from the shoal, and therefore can't see its wave-like movement, like the waves of the correlated centipede's legs. Simple, no?

I didn't try to explain why LSC may only unravel the blueprints from relic GWs cast in the distant past, but cannot observe 'the emergent wave' online, as it evolves along the arrow of spacetime. That would have been too much for her.

Finally, notice that if you take the whole stack of "Photoshop layers" (all your 'one-day meals') and flatten them onto one (.JPG) image, you will end up with a timeless "trajectory" immersed in a dead frozen 4-D "block universe", in which "time" can evolve just as much as "space" can: "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes" (R. Geroch). Our (mischievous) wristwatches do in fact read the global cosmological time of 'Die Bahn', but because you can only use a physical "torch", you are deceived by a flatten image of all 'one-day meals': in Fig. 1 below, there are three consecutive 'one-day meals' or "points" from Frisbee's trajectory, connected by the pre-geometric plenum, while Fig. 2 shows the stack of "Photoshop layers" consisting of three different, re-created 4-D universes in their local mode, as they evolve along Die Bahn (the red arrow of spacetime, w ). The quantum-and-gravitational waves "travel" along  w  (Fig. 2), which is why they cannot be detected on the flatten image (Fig. 1): regarding GWs, the linearized approximation of GR is a "shadow without power" (Hermann Weyl).

 

Fig. 1
Notice the misleading "dark" energy and "curvature" of spacetime

 

Fig. 2
Notice the three red
'one-day meals', or three 'sayings', being
connected by the pre-geometric plenum; its quantum version
is the UNdesidable KS state. In GR, the pre-geometric plenum
"connects" all points from the local mode of spacetime with
'the undivided universe as ONE', which is being multiplied as
infinitely many
points in the local mode.
 

With the current GR and diff geometry textbooks, you can explore only one instant 'now' from the arrow of spacetime. Even if you try to introduce some "infinitesimal coordinates shift" [Ref. 2, Eq. 4.1], as in today's GR textbooks, you will nevertheless be dealing with a frozen one-instant "trajectory", and can never solve the Cauchy problem for the Einstein equations: the "dark background" of 'the reference fluid' of GR is missing from GR textbooks. You can use such 'calculated-from-one-instant trajectories' only in classical physics and STR (e.g., the trajectory of a Frisbee, calculated from some of its instantaneous states).

To resolve the genuine dynamics of GR, we need to make the 3-D space dynamical: the global cosmological time originates from the dynamics of space. First of all, we have to replace the familiar expression 'with respect to the rest of the Universe' [ibid., p. 263] with a Machian "absolute" reference frame, which works as 'the reference fluid' of GR -- the global mode of spacetime. Recall also the idea of "breathing" (inhaling/exhaling) Universe, and imagine the elementary step/cycle of the arrow of spacetime (cf. Fig 2 above) as the "negotiation" of the two hands in Escher's drawing below: an inhaling ("offer") quantum-gravitational wave is being emitted in the global mode of spacetime from each and every "point" from the local mode, followed by an exhaling ("confirmation") quantum-gravitational wave converging on the next point from the next horizontal layer.

What is the duration of this "breathing" cycle in the local mode of spacetime? ZERO. This is the meaning of the phrase 'Your Global Time is ZERO'. The local mode of spacetime is a perfect continuum. But that's too much for you, isn't it?


D.C.
February 10, 2010
Latest update: March 30, 2010





[Ref. 1] W. Heisenberg (23 March 1927): "Die Bahn entsteht erst dadurch, daß wir sie beobachten", in: Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Z. Phys. 43, 172-198 (1927).


[Ref. 2] Patrick Marquet, The Generalized Warp Drive Concept in the EGR Theory, The Abraham Zelmanov Journal, vol. 2 (2009) 261-287.

http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/html/zj-2009-12.html
http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2009-12.pdf

p. 263: "The principle of space travel while locally “at rest”, is analogous to galaxies receding away from each other at extreme velocities due to the expansion (and contraction) of the Universe.

"Instead of moving a spaceship from a planet A to a planet B, we modify the space between them. The spaceship can be carried along by a local spacetime “singular region” and is thus “surfing” through space with a given velocity with respect to the rest of the Universe.
........
§1.2.1, 'The (3+1) Formalism: the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) technique'

p. 265: "In 1960, Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner [5] suggested a technique based on decomposing the space-time into a family of space-like hypersurfaces and parametrized by the value of an arbitrarily chosen time coordinate x4.

"This “foilation” displays a proper-time element between two nearby (emphasis added - D.C.) hypersurfaces labelled x4 =const and x4 + dx4 = const. The proper-time element must be proportional to dx4.
........
p. 267: "The main advantage of the ADM formalism is that the time derivative is isolated (emphasis added - D.C.) and it can be used in further specific computations.
........
p. 275: "This horizon first appears for the occupants of the spaceship, who are unable to “see” beyond the distortion, and therefore cannot communicate with the outer universe.
........
p. 280: "Let us consider the infinitesimal coordinates shift

x'a = xa + Na,      (4.1)

 

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


Subject: The infinitesimal coordinates shift -- with respect to 'the rest of the Universe'
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:31:11 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Patrick Marquet <patrick.marquet6@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Larissa Borissova <borissova@ptep-online.com>,
Tatyana Shestakova <shestakova@phys.rsu.ru>,
Natalia Kiriushcheva <nkiriush@uwo.ca>,
Dmitri Rabounski <rabounski@gmail.com>,
Serge Krasnikov <gennady.krasnikov@pobox.spbu.ru>,
Michael Kuntzman <MichaelKuntzman@hotmail.com>,
Miguel Alcubierre <malcubi@nuclecu.unam.mx>,
Michael Pfenning <mitchel@cosmos2.phy.tufts.edu>,
Larry Ford <ford@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu>,
Allen Everett <everett@cosmos2.phy.tufts.edu>,
William A Hiscock <hiscock@physics.montana.edu>,
Chris Van Den Broeck <vdbroeck@nikhef.nl>,
Thomas A Roman <roman@ccsu.ctstateu.edu>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@midway.uchicago.edu>


Dear Professor Marquet,

I greatly admire your Extended formulation of GR (EGR), particularly the so-called “residual” (true) field tensor. Yet it seems to me that the infamous "infinitesimal coordinates shift" in ADM presentation, which you used in your latest article cited below, is seriously flawed, as hinted in the subject line.

As an alternative to ADM speculations, please see

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

Details at

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

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

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
------
Patrick Marquet, The Generalized Warp Drive Concept in the EGR Theory, The Abraham Zelmanov Journal, vol. 2 (2009) 261-287; cf. Eq. 4.1.
http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/html/zj-2009-12.html
 


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


Subject: Re: PTI, by Ruth Kastner
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 04:54:05 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ruth <rkastner@umd.edu>, John <jcramer@uw.edu>
Cc: Adrian Kent <a.p.a.kent@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Joseph Berkovitz <dwyer@umbc.edu>,
Tim Maudlin <maudlin@rci.rutgers.edu>,
Huw Price <huw@mail.usyd.edu.au>,
Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
Sergiu Klainerman <seri@math.princeton.edu>,
Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>

Dear Ruth,

You said (Feb 16th) that "will take a look" at my note on KS Theorem, yet in your latest arXiv:1001.2867v3 [quant-ph], co-authored with John Cramer, there is not even a hint to it.

Regarding the UNabsorbed offer wave, you and John argued (footnote 9) that "it is the uncommitted (to a particular basis) nature of the offer wave which gives it its flexibility and thus its ability to explore “all possibilities at once.” "

How would you (and John) tackle these 'all possibilities at once' if they pertain to the UNdecidable KS state? How can you, or anyone else, derive the Born Rule in the case of KS state?

Can you possibly derive *anything* resembling 'probabilities' in the case of KS state?

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

I will appreciate the opinion of your colleagues as well.

All the best,

Dimi

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:04 PM, <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks Dimi! I will take a look.
>
> Best
> Ruth
>

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

Subject: Re: PTI, by Ruth Kastner
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:43:10 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ruth <rkastner@umd.edu>
Cc: John <jcramer@uw.edu>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:03 AM, <rkastner@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> OK, it's the Peres-Mermin version of KS.

Excuse me?

I wrote: "Nothing -- not even some "contextuality" -- can save Harry (or Dick, or Tom) from the case in which he (or Dick, or Tom) must not possess any hands."

And also: "NB: There is nothing "probabilistic" or "stochastic" in the quasi-local UNdecidable quantum state that neither 'is' nor 'is not'. Can't fit it in any Hilbert space."

> This is similar to the GHZ example, These are all "no hidden variables" proofs.

It isn't about "hidden variables" of any kind whatsoever. It is about how TI/PTI would address this KS state: please read my email from Fri, 5 Mar 2010 04:54:05 +0200.

> I certainly did read this when you first sent it to me, as I said that I did

Then please prove my interpretation wrong:

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

John: Would you please help Ruth?

D.


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


Subject: Footnote 15, arXiv:1107.1678v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:01:31 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkHd9-O6WROr=xW02LX=dvHkVNpwfcSjZWM5Q5Gb3Br2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ruth <rkastner@umd.edu>
Cc: Huw Price <huw@mail.usyd.edu.au>,
John <cramer@phys.washington.edu>,
Tim Maudlin <maudlin@rci.rutgers.edu>,
Abner Shimony <abner.shimony@gmail.com>,
Philip Pearle <ppearle@hamilton.edu>,
Peter Evans <peter.evans@sydney.edu.au>,
avshalom.elitzur@weizmann.ac.il


It won't work for GR, Ruth.

The "infinite" velocity of the "phase wave aspect" corresponds to the *global mode of time* in which the "talk" b/w matter and space "take place": "Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve" (John Wheeler),

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

Physically, we observe a continuum of 'end results' (local mode of time) from this "talk"; details at

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

Check out the UNspeakable substance of spacetime with your own brain at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Leydesdorff_101

All the best,

Dimi


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



Note:
Nothing in the local mode of spacetime can (nor have to) wait  "... until the conserved quantities are transferred and the potential quantum event becomes real", as John Cramer put it.

We see only the end result from already-completed atemporal "handshaking" transactions, and of course we cannot trace it "back" to the global mode of spacetime -- all the negotiations between the offer-and-confirmation wave is one single event in the local mode of spacetime. In the local mode of spacetime, its "duration" is zero  -- just like the proper time of photon's flight "between" its emission-and-absorption; see Kevin Brown.

In the local mode of spacetime, all this "happens" over a "point". Which is why there is no "source" of the quantum-gravitational waves that is “waving”, as stressed by Anthony Zee.

The second case of fixing the physical constituents at this same "point" concerns GR: we need to examine the "negotiations" of matter and geometry, which also "take place" in the global mode of spacetime: "Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve" (John Wheeler).

In GR, the offer-and-confirmation wave pertains to the "dipole radiation", and as it "converges" on the next point from Die Bahn above, it fixes the positivity of mass in the local mode of spacetime. According to SRP, we can imagine "two" such waves only in the global mode, as they "run" in two opposite "directions: from the macro-world of classical mechanics toward  S  and  L  , and vice versa.

In my (perhaps very biased) opinion, these "two" (offer and confirmation) waves should determine the instantaneous inertial reaction "forces" as well. Currently, GR says nothing about the origin and mechanism of (Machian) inertial "forces".

Nobody likes "miracles" in GR, so I very much hope we can find 'the right answer to the right question', to paraphrase MTW, p. 467, and understand the origin of inertia and the affine structure of space.

Regarding the geodesic hypothesis, Alan Rendall acknowledged: "In elementary textbooks on general relativity we read that the Einstein equations imply that small bodies move on geodesics of the spacetime metric. It is very hard to make this into a mathematically precise statement which refers to actual solutions of the Einstein equations (and not just to some formal approximations)." Notice that Alan Rendall didn't even mention those 96% of the stuff in the universe, which is "dark" and moves on some weirdly modified geodesics.

 


Yes, Sidney Harris is right: the re-creation of the local mode of spacetime, along the arrow of spacetime, does look like a "miracle", perhaps because we know nothing about the so-called 'speed of light' that is hiding the global mode from any direct view from the local mode. All we can observe is 'the world of facts' with unit probability, which has already, post-factum being cast in the past, as in the example with the Sun: we cannot observe the actual state of the Sun, but only its state that has been 'actual' some 8 min before we looked at the Sun.

The local mode of spacetime is a perfect continuum, because the "dark gaps" from the global mode are completely sealed off by the so-called 'speed of light'. We also have a pocket of propensity-states (KS states; see below) to choose from, which cannot be fully derived from our past only -- this is the lesson from the Free Will Theorem. Sorry for repeating this all over again.


D.C.
March 5, 2010
Last update: March 30, 2010
 

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


Subject: Question 1 (existence): Does there exist any smoothness structure on *any* topological manifold?
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:52:54 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga <torsten.asselmeyer-maluga@dlr.de>
Cc: Carl H Brans <brans@loyno.edu>,
Helge Rose <rose@first.fhg.de>

Dear Dr. Asselmeyer-Maluga,

Regarding your latest arXiv:1003.5506v1 [gr-qc] and the footnote on p. 3 from your book with Dr. Brans, may I offer you my views on the subject at

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

Should you or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
---

Note:  Let me quote from Robert Wald's arXiv:gr-qc/0511073, "Teaching General Relativity", p. 5 (emphasis added): "First, one needs a mathematically precise notion of the "set of points" that constitute spacetime (or that constitute a surface in ordinary geometry). The appropriate notion is that of a manifold, which is a set that (...) but has no metrical or other structure. The points of an n-dimensional manifold can thereby be labeled locally by coordinates ... ."

This last sentence is a total Jabberwocky. How did we get these "points" that can be "labeled locally by coordinates", such that we can, and also have to, shuffle these coordinates to extract some GR observables?

Contemporary relativists begin by postulating a Hausdorff topological space that has been somehow "connected", but usually mention this miracle in footnotes (e.g., Chris Isham, Modern Differential Geometry for Physicists, p. 61, footnote 1). They would denote this connected topological space with  M , and introduce a second postulate: a differential structure on  M , such that  M  is promoted to a four-dimensional manifold. Then the third step is obvious: introduce a metric, and they are ready to teach GR (cf. Diego Meschini et al., Sec. 2.1) and muse over the exotic differentiable structures and the puzzle posed by Carl Brans:
 


 

Perhaps one first needs a mathematically precise notion of the "set of points" that constitute a line (1-D Euclidean space), to elucidate how these "points" are connected in such way that the law of continuity, as defined in the standard calculus texts of the 1800's, is fully obeyed: the consecutive points of the same line should succeed each other without any interval or 'point in-between' them.

However, how should the topological space itself been "connected", in order to evolve into a perfectly smooth manifold? Specifically, does there exist any 'smoothness structure' on any topological manifold? I'm not aware of such beast in differential topology textbooks; hence my email above.

But here's the catch: on the one hand, the 'point-connecting agent' (called here pre-geometric plenum), which makes a Hausdorff topological space "connected", must not be anything that may, in any imaginable way, exist within the line made by "zero-dimensional" points. It can't be some "special middle point" or "special separating interval", because inside a line we have only points, and nothing but points. These points don't have any special hooks or handles that can determine the principle of locality and the so-called "speed" of light.

On the other hand, the pre-geometric plenum must somehow exist in order to "separate" the points and preserve their individual, albeit fleeting, physical content: "For example, \phi is a scalar field on the manifold and $X$ represents the space-time coordinate of a particle, then although \phi(x) has no physical meaning (if x is a point in the space-time manifold) nevertheless $\phi(X)$ *does* have a meaning: ie you can talk in a Diff(M)-invariant way about the value of a field where a particle 'is', and similarly for a trajectory" (Chris Isham, private communication).

The only way out from this conundrum is to use the new (to contemporary relativists) form of reality, as explained in the case of the human brain and the quantum world. The potential reality does not exist in the local mode (cf. Fig. 1), hence the latter is a perfect continuum -- the "gaps" are completely sealed off by the so-called speed of light, because the "duration" of the transition from one "point" to the nearest "point" is zero: check out Kevin Brown above.

All this may sound like some metaphysical exercise devoid of any mathematical implications, but recall that in mathematics you have to follow the obvious and intuitively clear metaphysical ideas, or else will sink in a jungle with no way out.

Not to mention the infinite amount of energy packed in the quantum vacuum.

Now, people from the mathematical community disagree with the arrow of space and pre-geometric plenum. They postulate some "smooth" structure (66 times), and adhere to the "splitting" of spacetime, just like ADM [Ref. 1, pp. 479-486].

But how would you “quantize” a Riemannian manifold [Ref. 1, p. 425] and gravitational "field" represented by Riemannian metric? How would you specify a Poisson structure of the "dynamical system", as driven by [we-do-not-know-it]?

 

D. Chakalov
March 30, 2010
Last update: August 4, 2010


[Ref. 1] Ralph H. Abraham and Jerrold E. Marsden, Foundations of Mechanics, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, 6th printing, 1987. ISBN: 080530102X

p. 31: "The basic idea of a manifold is to introduce a local object that will support differentiation process and then to patch these local objects together smoothly.
....

p. 37: "(W)e obtain a vector bundle by smoothly patching together local vector bundles.
.......

p. 443: "This, or something like it, seems to be the final step in quantization. It is a crucial problem that has not yet found a satisfactory answer."

 

 


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


Subject: International Quantum Foundations Workshop
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:23:06 +0100
Message-ID:
<r2obed37361004200623i76b7e4bbs89ed7b343d1e7aa2@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mike Towler <mdt26@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Karl Svozil <svozil@tuwien.ac.at>,
F David Peat <dpeat@fdavidpeat.com>,
Guido Bacciagaluppi <g.bacciagaluppi@abdn.ac.uk>,
Herman Batelaan <hbatelaan2@unl.edu>,
Andrew Bennett <afbennett@peak.org>,
Jeffrey Bub <jbub@umd.edu>,
Jeremy Butterfield <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
Samuel Colin <s.colin@griffith.edu.au>,
Murray Daw <daw@clemson.edu>,
Maaneli Derakhshani <maanelid@yahoo.com>,
Chris Dewdney <chris.dewdney@port.ac.uk>,
Maurice de Gosson <maurice.de.gosson@univie.ac.at>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@imperial.ac.uk>,
Lucien Hardy <lhardy@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk>,
Adrian Kent <apak@cam.ac.uk>,
Martin Korth <martin.korth@gmail.com>,
Creon Levit <creon.levit@nasa.gov>,
Tim Maudlin <maudlin@rci.rutgers.edu>,
Alberto Montina <amontina@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Wayne Myrvold <wmyrvold@uwo.ca>,
Gillie Naaman-Marom <gilliem@bezeqint.net>,
Travis Norsen <norsen@marlboro.edu>,
Xavier Oriols <xavier.oriols@uab.cat>,
Roger Penrose <penroad@herald.ox.ac.uk>,
Alejandro Perez <perez@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>,
Patrick Peter <peter@iap.fr>,
Nelson Pinto-Neto <nelsonpn@cbpf.br>,
Paavo Pylkkanen <paavo.pylkkanen@his.se>,
Anton Ramsak <anton.ramsak@fmf.uni-lj.si>,
Peter Riggs <peter.riggs@anu.edu.au>,
Carlo Rovelli <rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>,
Simon Saunders <simon.saunders@philosophy.ox.ac.uk>,
Maximilian Schlosshauer <schlosshauer@nbi.dk>,
Lee Smolin <lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Rob Spekkens <rspekkens@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Ward Struyve <ward.struyve@fys.kuleuven.be>,
Jos Uffink <uffink@phys.uu.nl>,
Lev Vaidman <vaidman@post.tau.ac.il>,
Antony Valentini <a.valentini@imperial.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Abner Shimony <abner.shimony@gmail.com>,
Steve <adler@ias.edu>,
Huw Price <huw@mail.usyd.edu.au>,
Sergio <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>,
Landsman <landsman@math.ru.nl>,
Roland <roomnes@wanadoo.fr>



RE: International Quantum Foundations Workshop
Saturday 28th August - Saturday 4th September 2010
The Apuan Alps Centre for Physics @ TTI, Vallico Sotto, Tuscany
www.vallico.net/tti/tti.html

Dear Dr. Towler,

Perhaps you and your colleagues may wish to check out an ontological interpretation of KS Theorem at

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

Please notice that the UNdecidable KS state (called 'potential reality') has been interpreted as 'pre-quantum reality'.

For comparison, a similar task has been undertaken by Antony Valentini, at the expense of introducing some "signal nonlocality" [Ref. 1] and "hidden variables" [Ref. 2].

Unlike Valentini's theory, I trust every physicist can check out the interpretation of KS Theorem at the link above, and find out whether there is an error in it.

Should you or any of your colleagues find an error, please do write me back. If you cannot find such error, please be assured that I would be delighted to attend your Workshop and explain the so-called 'PR interpretation of QM'.

BTW please note that the human brain (not mind) can unmistakably handle such UNspeakable potential reality,

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

Perhaps all we may need is to model the whole universe as a 'brain'.

No need to introduce any hidden ghosts,

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/CausalInterpretationOfTheDoubleSlitExperimentIn
QuantumTheory


The so-called 'potential reality' is known after Plato and Aristotle.

Looking forward to hearing from you and from your colleagues,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
Phone [snip]

References

[Ref. 1] Antony Valentini,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Valentini

"Valentini has been working on an extension of David Bohm's "ontological interpretation" of quantum theory that would allow "signal nonlocality" that is forbidden in orthodox quantum theory. "Signal nonlocality" allows nonlocal quantum entanglement to be used as a stand-alone communication channel without the need of a classical light-speed limited retarded signal to unlock the entangled message from the sender to the receiver. This would be a major revolution in physics ... "


[Ref. 2] When Reality is Real: An Interview with Antony Valentini
By Jill Neimark, Anthony Valentin

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/7405/Default.aspx

"What is so unusual about Antony Valentini? Just this: he's resurrected a theory that undoes the central tenet of quantum mechanics, and gives relativity theory a good punt to left field as well. The theory follows quantum math, but at the same time allows for new possibilities beyond conventional quantum mechanics.. It's a theory that says there is indeed an objective reality behind the things we observe -- that quantum uncertainty is not fundamental. And that somewhere, somehow, time is universal -- not relative. Goodbye, ghostly probabilities, with their strange propensity for collapsing into real things while apparently sort of holding back and remaining always a bit coy and ghostly... hello, hidden variables that are objective.

"And Antony's particular twist on the theory suggests a new explanation for the uniformity of the early universe -- where, he suggests, quantum law might not have applied, where stuff could interact faster than the speed of light -- and where those interactions were actually visible.

"There's no proof, of course -- at least not yet. But it's fun to think about.
......

"Q: How are you going to convince anybody of this?

"A: We need to find a violation of quantum mechanics in the early universe. We need to find a non-quantum distribution of particles. There may be particles floating around in space now which were left over from that very early time. People are looking for particles of dark matter left over from the early universe, and some of these may be good candidates. Another possibility is relic gravitons, particles associated with gravity that are believed to have stopped interacting
with other particles at a very early time. Perhaps these relic gravitons from the early universe don't obey quantum mechanics.
........

"Q: How does the pilot wave theory view time and space?

"A: It goes against relativity theory, because it has faster-than-light processes, and in relativity nothing is supposed to go faster than light. So it seems to me that we may have to revise relativity theory and end up with a notion of universal time. In relativity, different observers at different speeds have their own time and there is no absolute time. But in this theory, distant observers can communicate instantaneously if they have control at this fundamental level of non-quantum particles. So they would be able to synchronize their clocks instantaneously even if they were millions of light years apart. Of course, some people don't like the idea, and that's a problem."
---------


Note: I haven't yet received feedback from Mike Towler and from his colleagues regarding my email sent three days ago. Surely the KS Theorem poses very tough challenges regarding the crux of 'quantum reality'.

Luckily, Chris Isham has recently produced a clear explanation -- check out his arXiv:1004.3564v1, Sec. 5.1, 'The Kochen-Specker theorem and contextuality', p. 20:

"... the implication of the discussion above is that the value ascribed to B (resp. the result of measuring B) depends on whether it is considered together with A1, or together with A2. In other words the value of the physical quantity B is contextual. This is often considered one of the most important implications of the Kochen-Specker theorem."

The immediate question is this: What remains invariant in 'the quantity B' upon changing its "color" (see 'KS Theorem for teenage girls' below), to qualify as 'quantum reality of the quantity B'?

My proposal: pre-quantum reality. In the framework of Chris Isham's approach, the so-called pseudo-states (ibid., p. 16) are ‘as close as we can get’ to the UNspeakable pre-quantum reality (called here 'potential reality'). In the case of the human brain, you can "measure" the latter with three (or more) sayings ("pseudo-states"), yet can never "collapse" the ultimate potential reality from which these "contextual" quantum states emerge.

Regardless of how you tackle such "pseudo-states" with some topos approach, the solution to the measurement problem in QM requires that you offer some 'peaceful coexistence' (Abner Shimony) of this pre-quantum reality and STR, as explained at this web site. Recall its motto: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter. We could have sorted out this bundle of issues eight years ago, but I guess Chris Isham had a different agenda.

Anyway; here's an anecdotal story from 1970s (ibid., footnote 3, p. 6):

"I have a fond memory of being in the audience for a seminar by John Wheeler at a conference on quantum gravity in the early 1970s. John was getting well into the swing of his usual enthusiastic lecturing style and made some forceful remark about the importance of the quantum principle. At that point a hand was raised at the back of the lecture room, and a frail voice asked “What is the quantum principle?”. John Wheeler paused, looked thoughtfully at his interlocutor, who was Paul Dirac, and answered “Well, to be honest, I don’t know”. He paused again, and then said “Do you?”. “No” replied Dirac."

If you, my dear reader, cannot find an error in the interpretation of KS Theorem below, I will be happy to offer you my version of 'the quantum principle' and the origin of the quantum of action.

But if you aren't interested -- that's perfectly fine with me.


"just another crank" D.C.

April 23, 2010
 

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

Subject: Re: International Quantum Foundations Workshop
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:50:32 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mike Towler <mdt26@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: [49 recipients]

Hello Mr Towler,

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:56:55 +0100 (BST), you wrote:

> As I'm sure you are aware, sending unsolicited emails to large numbers of
> famous people asking what they think of your theory is not only widely
> considered to be appallingly rude but to be the hallmark of a crackpot.

It is not about my "theory", as you put it.

I'm afraid there is a large number of "famous people" who ignore the legacy of Schrödinger and Margenau, and cannot grasp the basic basics of KS Theorem and CK Free Will Theorem,

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

If you and the rest of these "famous people" consider this "appallingly rude" and "the hallmark of a crackpot", I can only wish you a quiet a peaceful retirement.

Alternatively, if you and the rest of these "famous people" wish to get professional, please don't hesitate to write me back, with *specific arguments* refuting the interpretation of KS Theorem offered at the link above.

Just please reply professionally.

Thank you very much in advance.

Yours sincerely,

D. Chakalov


> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
>> P.S. An explanatory note, with excerpts from the latest paper by C.
>> Isham, has been posted at
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Towler_note
>>
>> A penny for your thoughts!
>>
>> D.C.
>>
 


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


Subject: Quasi-local Mass and Angular Momentum in General Relativity (November 1981)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:37:45 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Roger Penrose <penroad@herald.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Peter van Nieuwenhuizen <vannieu@insti.physics.sunysb.edu>,
Glenn Starkman <glenn.starkman@case.edu>,
Alex Vikman <alexander.vikman@nyu.edu>,
David Jacobs <dmj15@case.edu>,
Chiang-Mei Chen <cmchen@phy.ncu.edu.tw>,
G Nester <nester@phy.ncu.edu.tw>,
Xiaoning Wu <wuxn@phy.ncu.edu.tw>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Massimo Pauri <pauri@pr.infn.it>,
Luca Lusanna <lusanna@fi.infn.it>,
[snip]


Dear Roger,

Back in November 1981, you acknowledged that "several problems of interpretation remain to be solved". May I offer you some help with an 'arrow of space',

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

Are you still interested in GR?

Regards,

Dimi

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

Subject: Re: "But success, I think, can only be granted by scrupulous intellectual honesty."
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:03:33 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Roger Penrose <penroad@herald.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Thomas Thiemann <thiemann@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de>,
Lee Smolin <lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Henk van Elst <hvanelst@karlshochschule.de>,
Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
Andreas Döring <andreas.doering@comlab.ox.ac.uk>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Carlo Rovelli <rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>


Hi Roger,

Ever since 1988, I've been having great difficulties with our communication, so I left my feedback to your latest essay, arXiv:1011.3706v1 [astro-ph.CO], at

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388

And since some people may delete it, I'll attach it here.

More at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html

All the best,

Dimi


On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:03:37 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlo,
>
> I quoted your statement in the subject line at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html
>
> If you disagree with my critical remarks and/or wish to comment on my
> proposal, please don't hesitate to write me back.
>
> I will be happy to hear from your colleagues as well. Will keep the
> discussion private and confidential -- provided it is professional.
>
> All the best,
>
> Dimi
>



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


Subject: "Hiding quantum information" is b******* .
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:41:44 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTineDYbgszwc6iROtr6gt4nVJyGL8fQO1MlNUWBq@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Todd Brun <tbrun@usc.edu>
Cc: Bilal Shaw <bilalsha@usc.edu>,
Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu>,
Jeffrey Bub <jbub@umd.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
David Schroeren <davidschroeren@cantab.net>,
Spyros Efthimiades <sefthimiades@fordham.edu>,
Norbert Lütkenhaus <nlutkenhaus@iqc.ca>,
baez@math.ucr.edu, david.corfield@tuebingen.mpg.de,
alex@math.ucr.edu, t.leinster@maths.gla.ac.uk,
shulman@math.uchicago.edu, urs.schreiber@gmail.com,
s.willerton@sheffield.ac.uk


Hi Todd:

Pity you didn't take seriously my email from Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:47:38 +0300 (cf. below).

The alleged "innocent cover state" [Ref. 1] and secret "quantum information" may be fused with 'the UNdecidable quantum state'.

In the case of your *brain*, you can grasp the latter by comparing the following two statements:

1. You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.

2. Don't wear polka dot underwear under white shorts.

The UNdecidable quantum state of your *brain* (not mind) is not about broccoli, underwear, milk, or shorts.

More from Schrödinger, Margenau, and KS Theorem at

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

Should you and/or any of your colleagues cannot understand the arguments at the link above, please write me back.

Take care,

Dimi

[Ref. 1] Bilal A. Shaw, Todd A. Brun, Hiding Quantum Information in the Perfect Code, arXiv:1007.0793v1 [quant-ph], http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0793

"The day may come when quantum networks are ubiquitous. An advantage that steganography has over standard encryption schemes is that private information could be transmitted over a long time through a network, completely undetected and even unsuspected by other users. Steganographic techniques may also be useful as a way of authenticating quantum communications in distributed quantum information processing; such uses of classical steganography for authentication are often called “watermarking.” Quantum steganography has far reaching consequences, and may provide a measure of security beyond what classical steganography can afford.
....

"Alice and Bob conceal their communication from Eve, hiding their message as errors in a codeword for an “innocent” cover state |psi_c>, and using the resource of a shared secret random key. (Shared entanglement would work as well, or even better.)"


----------

Subject: Think globally, act locally
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:47:38 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: Todd Brun <tbrun@ias.edu>
CC: adler@ias.edu,
[snip]

Dear Todd:

Reading your recent "Computers with closed timelike curves can solve hard problems", gr-qc/0209061 [Ref. 1], is a real pleasure.

=====

Note: Recall also the elusive Event Horizon -- a global property of an entire spacetime, which should be somehow "defined nonlocally in time" (J. Thornburg, lrr-2007-3). The mythical "black holes" cannot be defined rigorously in GR, so try the global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean time of the UNdecidable quantum state of 'the universe as a brain'. Or trust Chris Isham.

D.C.
July 8, 2010


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


Subject: Weyl’s principle: Comoving reference frame & proper time
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 20:07:23 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: S E Rugh <rugh@symposion.dk>, H Zinkernagel <zink@ugr.es>

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for your clarification of Weyl’s principle [Ref. 1]. I believe it is obvious that the dynamics of space, as being "expanded" by itself (DDE of "empty space"), is missing in GR,

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

I think the human brain may possess such self-acting faculty, but if you try to pinpoint its mind, it will inevitably turn out to be "dark", just like the UNdecidable quantum state,

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

If you know how to model a universe that can act upon itself, please do write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

------

[Ref. 1] Svend E. Rugh, Henrik Zinkernagel, Weyl's principle, cosmic time and quantum fundamentalism, arXiv:1006.5848v1 [gr-qc],
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5848v1

p. 2: "Weyl’s principle: The world lines of galaxies, or ‘fundamental particles’, form (on average) a spacetime-filling family of non-intersecting geodesics converging towards the past.

"The importance of Weyl’s principle is that it provides a reference frame based on an expanding ‘substratum’ of ‘fundamental particles’. In particular, if the geodesic world lines are required to be orthogonal to a series of space-like hypersurfaces, a comoving reference frame is defined in which constant spatial coordinates are
“carried by” the fundamental particles. The time coordinate is a cosmic time which labels the series of hypersurfaces, and which may be taken as the proper time along any of the particle world lines."
----------



Note:
Time does not originate from 'change in space' (coordinate time, Kodama time, etc.; see Julian Barbour), but from chance of space (cf. Fig. 2). Example with the Hubble Law here.

It is the arrow of space (AOS) that makes 'more and more space' to emerge (Isham and Butterfield) from [we-do-not-know-it], hence "the distances between all elements of the cosmic substratum (or, fluid) grow with time" (Michal Chodorowski), and we enjoy 'arrow of spacetime'. Were it possible to physically trace back the entity called [we-do-not-know-it], it won't be "dark" anymore, and the Aristotelian First Cause would be shifted one step further.

Notice that the arrow of space (AOS) leads directly to Machian quantum gravity, as the motion of any individual body is to be defined with respect to the entire universe (E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics (1883), Open Court, 1960, pp. 286-287). It has "infinite extent" (J. Barbour, arXiv:1007.3368v1 [gr-qc], p. 26), being in the state of ONE-ness (global mode of spacetime, cf. Fig. 2) that keeps "the last remnant of physical objectivity" (A. Einstein).

Physicists hate the Aristotelian metaphysics, however. They relentlessly try to picture [we-do-not-know-it] as some physical stuff with positive energy density, and end up with searching for an 'elephant in a china shop', only to find out that the elephant must be many orders of magnitudes larger than the store itself.

The AOS-driven dynamics of living and quantum/gravitational systems will inevitably produce a self-acting action, because the non-linear bi-directional negotiation between every "fish" and 'the rest of fish from the shoal' is "dark" in the local mode of spacetime. Sorry for repeating this again; I know it's boring.

If you disagree with the arrow of space (AOS), just try to define quasi-local quantities in asymptotically flat spacetime wrapped with (flexible?) "boundaries" at spatial infinity, yet keeping the splitting of spacetime (ADM) into two entities, one of which (called 'time') would refer to things that "evolve" with respect to something fixed, called 'space'. As R. Penrose acknowledged in November 1981 [Ref. 2], "several problems of interpretation remain to be solved".

Fuggedaboudit, Roger. Time can "evolve" just as much as space can; hence the arrow of space viz. arrow of spacetime endowing the conservation of quasi-local observables of Type I matter fields (Eq. 1 below), bootstrapped by gravity. Direct observation of "pure gravitational field" (cf. Dupre and Tipler below) is like direct observation of the human mind, while acting on its brain. Gravity makes all matter fields self-interacting, hence the proper GW detector should be endowed with the faculty of self-acting, that is, capable of acting on its own potential states along the arrow of spacetime.

We should drop the “no prior geometry” assumption in GR and derive the ether from Quantum Theory -- the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor (not "pseudotensor") is a quantum-gravitational phenomenon.

According to today's GR (Mario Goto et al., arXiv:1007.4846v1 [gr-qc]), "the Strong Equivalence Principle postulates that at every space-time point in a arbitrary gravitational field it is possible to choose a locally inertial coordinate system such that, within a sufficiently small (notice the poetry - D.C.) region of the point in question, the laws of the nature take the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems in the absence of gravitation. On the other hand, the Weak Equivalence Principle is nothing but a restatement of the observed equality of gravitational and inertial mass."

NB:
When and how does 'the finite small' shift to "sufficiently small", such that (operational definition) you "may erect a locally inertial coordinate system in which matter satisfies the laws of special relativity" (Steven Weinberg, pp. 62-68)? The laws of STR are applicable only if the so-called "sufficiently small" has already become a bona fide geometrical point from the global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean realm. On the other hand, the effects of gravity apply only to the Archimedean realm of finite things, such as 'one second' (see the drawing below) or 'one meter'. The bi-directional "talk" of matter and geometry (
"space acts on matter, telling it how to move; in turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve", John Wheeler) is the ultimate "talk" of the Archimedean (local) and non-Archimedean (global) realms of spacetime. The cornerstone puzzle of GR is that your wristwatch does indeed read this "talk", and the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor does indeed disappear, or rather "dissolves" in the purely geometrical, non-Archimedean realm of "sufficiently small", staying available to re-emerge, as a quantum-gravitational phenomenon.

On September 21, 2008, I suggested 'necessary and sufficient conditions for spacetime': the former condition concerns physical substratum with positive energy density, while the latter condition refers to a global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean state of the whole universe as ONE -- a pre-geometric plenum "connecting" the geometrical "points". It is totally removed from the local mode of spacetime by the so-called 'speed of light', making the local mode a perfectly smooth manifold. Einstein, and many other physicists, called this pre-geometric plenum "ether".

If you disagree with the pre-geometric plenum, try to 'connect the dots' in the drawing of 'one second' by using only Archimedean geometry and physical stuff that is invariant under "active" diffeomorphisms. Or explain the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor. Good luck.
 

D.C.
July 10, 2010
Last update: August 20, 2010



[Ref. 2] R. Penrose, Quasi-local Mass and Angular Momentum in General Relativity, Proc. R. Soc. A381 53-63 (1982); cf. p. 53:


R. Penrose, General-relativistic energy flux and elementary optics, in: Perspectives in Geometry and Relativity: Essays in Honor of Václav Hlavatý, ed. by Banesh Hoffmann, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1966, pp. 259-274

p. 259: "By definition, Tuv(Matter) describes all the local energy, so any energy due to the [Weyl tensor] must be nonlocal in character. The existence of nonlocal energy is also manifest in the fact that the local conservation law

Tuv^v = 0

is a covariant curved space equation. One cannot just integrate Tuv(Matter) over a 3-space to obtain a conserved total energy-momentum. The total energy-momentum of a system must, therefore, involve nonlocal contributions due, perhaps, to the presence of Weyl tensor or to nonlocal interactions (e.g. Newton's potential energy) between the Tuv's at different points (...). The nonlocality of the gravity energy was then exhibited in the local dependence of the pseudo-tensor on the choice of coordinate system."
 

R. Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Physical Universe, Jonathan Cape, London, 2004; ISBN: 0224044478

p. 458: "The contributions of gravity to energy-momentum conservation should somehow enter non-locally as corrections to the calculation of total energy-momentum. (...) From this perspective, gravitational contributions to energy-momentum, in a sense, ‘slip in through the cracks’ that separate the local equation [XXX] = 0 from an integral conservation law of total energy momentum.
....
p. 777: "Thus, any non-constancy in [lambda] would have to be accompanied by a compensating non-conservation of the mass-energy of the matter."


Luca Lusanna et al., arXiv:1007.4071v1 [gr-qc]

"Almost a century after the birth of GR there is yet no universal consensus on how energy, momentum and other conserved quantities should be defined in it from a fundamental viewpoint. (...) The main reason to defend covariant conserved quantities in GR is that, according to the general covariance principle, if conserved quantities were intrinsically non-covariant they would be irrelevant to the description of Nature.
....
"To be precise, the general covariance principle claims that the description of Physics can be done independently of any a priori coordinate fixing. It does not exclude that in particular situations one has a posteriori preferred coordinates, preferred splittings between space and time, or preferred observers; see [2], [3], [4], [5]. One very well-known example of such a situation is Cosmology: in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions one has canonical clocks (e.g. the temperature of the cosmic background radiation) that not only break Lorentz invariance defining a cosmic (global) time but break the Galilei invariance defining observers which are at rest with respect to the cosmic background radiation."

Luca Lusanna and Massimo Pauri (6 March 2005), General Covariance and the Objectivity of Space-time Point-events,
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002224/


Chiang-Mei Chen and James M. Nester, Gravitation & Cosmology 6, 275 (2000);
arXiv:gr-qc/0001088v1

"Via their energy-momentum density, material sources generate gravitational fields. Sources interact with the gravitational field locally, hence they should be able exchange energy-momentum with the gravitational field -- locally. From this physical conception we are led to expect the existence of a local density for gravitational energy-momentum."


Maurice J. Dupre, Frank J. Tipler, General Relativity As an Aether Theory, July 28, 2010, arXiv:1007.4572v1 [gr-qc]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572

"Most of the leading relativists in the early twentieth century, for examples Eddington [18] and even Einstein himself [19], claimed that general relativity was an æther theory, but they gave no mathematical demonstration of their claim.
....

"According to Einstein, in his Autobiography [12], the most natural choice for the tensor Sμv is the stress-energy tensor. Einstein was uncomfortable with adding the term [xxx] to the Ricci tensor, saying it was only introduced for 'technical reasons,' required by the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the
stress-energy tensor.
........

"The vanishing of the divergence of the stress energy tensor is derived in Minkowski space using all the symmetries of Minkowski space. But leaving Minkowski space for a general spacetime means losing the symmetries that allowed the derivation of T [xxx] = 0 to start with!
......

"As MTW emphasize, the requirement that there is no “prior geometry”— that the metric is entirely determined by the field equations for gravity — actually fathered general relativity.
.....

"A central point of Lorentz’s 1904 paper, in which he derived the Lorentz transformations, was that the Maxwell equations — for Lorentz, the equations of the æther — do not allow an absolute time to be defined. This is of course now obvious since the speed of light in the vacuum is a constant, independent of a inertial observer.

"So the æther can be thought of as defining a time direction different from what we may have thought of as Newtonian absolute time.
.......

"If space is not spatially flat, then the spatial Riemannian metric will define a metric connection, and we might thus have two connections, one from the spatial metric, and one in the time direction only.
.....

"We suspect, but do not attempt to prove, that maintaining the distinction between two such connections would be very difficult.

"Essentially, the requirement that the connection arise entirely from the metric is nothing but the “no prior geometry” assumption, which, as we pointed out earlier, is the only assumption that will allow the geometry to be determined by the matter distribution and the boundary conditions. Once again, MTW have emphasized that the “no prior geometry” assumption is the basic assumption of general relativity. It is also an essential assumption of the curved ætherial Newtonian gravity theory we develop here.
......

"The question is, what should we select for the tensor Sμv . According to Einstein in his Autobiography: “On the right side [of the Einstein equations] we shall then have to place a tensor also in place of [the mass density] . Since we know from the special theory of relativity that the (inertial) mass equals energy, we shall have to put on the right side the tensor of energy-density— more precisely the entire energy-density, insofar as it does not belong to the pure gravitational field ([12], p. 75.)."

 

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



Subject: The vanishing of the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor is a quantum-gravitational phenomenon
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:05:20 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikaKMYEERCfKuyv7RxDdYXiYNgRWrx7gTuS0o6Z@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>,
Tiziana Marsico <martiz64@libero.it>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>,
Mihaela Dorina Iftime <miftime@gmail.com>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
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,

It had been suggested to Einstein by Levi-Civita, who had pointed out that, by virtue of Bianchi identities, the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor of matter and fields *has to* be equal to zero, in order to satisfy the dynamical laws of continuous media, as known in 1915:

Angelo Loinger, Einstein, Levi-Civita, and Bianchi relations,
arXiv:physics/0702244v1 [physics.gen-ph]
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702244

However, 'time' in dynamical laws does not come from 'change in space', but from 'change of space',

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

(Example with the Hubble Law at the link above.)

Hence we enjoy 'arrow of space', driven by some "dark" [we-do-not-know-it]. The (covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor of) matter and fields can *completely* vanish/dissolve into the quantum vacuum, and stay available there for any partial, full, or "over unity" recall, if and when needed.

All this requires a new form of reality, after Schrödinger, Margenau, and KS Theorem:

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

My next talk will be in Munich, on Wednesday, 25 November 2015. Meanwhile, check out the implications for LIGO, Virgo, GEO, LCGT, and LISA at

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

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
------


Note:
Since we represent matter by "a wooden nose in a snowman" (A. Einstein), what actually "vanishes" is completely outside present-day GR. Perhaps it is safe to say that the confusion about what becomes 'quasi-local' due to gravity, and exactly how, is enormous -- check out
Carl Hoefer, Roger Penrose, Babak and Grishchuk [Ref. 1], and Einstein's Equivalence Principle (Okon and Callender; Hans Ohanian): the wegtransformierbar faculty of gravity (Hermann Weyl) over a "point", in the non-Archimedean realm of 'the grin of the cat without the cat', as observed by Alice.

 


 


Both the Riemannian space and Minkowski space can only accommodate facts. In the latter case, you have insurmountable problems with reconciling QM with STR. In the former case of Einstein's GR, the only event that can qualify as 'fact' is the already-completed bi-directional "talk" of matter and geometry over a "point". This is the origin of "the laws of an instant" (Karel Kuchar). But we may derive dynamical laws from 'an instant' only in Minkowski space; see what happens in GR here and here.

To be precise: I believe there exists a concealed, yet-to-be-identified object, which plays a dual role in GR, as it shows up as either "components of the metric tensor" or "gravitational field variables" [Ref. 1]. In plain words: "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at the very same instant - D.C.) affected by, the other fields" (John Baez). And from Laszlo Szabados: "the metric has a double role: it is a field variable and defines the geometry at the same time" . Therefore, if you employ some classical space that can only accommodate facts, and try to apply the Equivalence Principle, you are destined to a blind alley: on the one hand, the "ether" must not "come back" (M. Montesinos), but on the other hand -- the gravitational (field) energy "contributes non-locally to the total energy" (R. Penrose), and you're back in murky waters, since November 1915. People are very reluctant to acknowledge that the gravitational "field" is not a classical field. Instead, they either keep quiet (Chris Isham) or offer their "pearls" of wisdom, like Gerard ’t Hooft.

I think the introduction of some "flat space" in GR (CEOFOP, p. 25), as well as a "true, real stress-energy-momentum tensor for gravity" (see above), is not even wrong. Yet such ideas deserve publishing, because students should be made aware how vulnerable the mathematical formulation of GR is to ridiculous ideas -- see CEOFOP's "pearls" above.

Let me try to explain my viewpoint, in the framework of 'the universe modeled as a brain'. I take for granted that matter can interact with matter only. Corollary: any direct action of geometry on matter (e.g., Feynman's “sticky beads”) is banned. It is like direct action of the human mind on its brain or other physical systems. In this context, the action of the alleged GW strain on physical bodies (LIGO's arms) should be considered 'GW psychokinesis'. To avoid such parapsychology, we should investigate how matter interacts with matter in a Machian universe, in which the non-linear negotiation and feedback from 'everything else' is encoded in the emergence of what has been called in GR 'geodesics'.

Regarding GWs: the omnipresent "direction" of GW propagation takes place in the global mode of spacetime; it correlates every "fish" with the whole school of fish, hence such AOS-driven dynamics will produce an emergent quasi-local geodesic of every "fish", and will induce geodesic waves, much like the waves of the legs of a centipede. Of course, we are confined in the local mode of spacetime, and cannot observe these emergent geodesics waves.

In the local mode, no fish could register any "deviation" from anything, just as in the example with four pre-correlated dice; details in 'the quantum principle'.

The "Gespensterfelder" (EPR-like) "action" from 'the whole school' on every quasi-local fish will show up as "dark", because it cannot be traced back from any quasi-local fish. LIGO is not endowed with the faculty of 'self-acting', and cannot detect such "dark energy from empty space".

Recall the game of '20 questions', courtesy from John Wheeler [Ref. 2]. The quasi-local object 'cloud' cannot be represented by a tensor, because it is not an 'objective reality out there'. It brings the quasi-local quantum-gravitational contributions -- just the contributions -- to matter and fields in the r.h.s. of Einstein equation. These contributions are being converted, in the global mode of spacetime, to bona fide type I matter fields; they just acquire an additional degree of freedom due to the bootstrapping faculty of gravity, resembling the geodesic hypothesis (A. Rendall) in today's GR (summary from K. Koehler, B. Mashhoon, and N. Dadhich).

To explain these quasi-local quantum-gravitational contributions, think of the object 'cloud' as a fish from the school of fish: at each and every instant from their collective quasi-local "geodesics", we have local conservation of energy and momentum to every closed (finite infinity, G.F.R. Ellis) system [matter & cloud], but this local conservation pertains only to one "horizontal" snapshot from the arrow of space -- cf. Figs 1 and 2 from 'Die Bahn'.

Thus, "the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor" (Wiki) does indeed vanish, because at each and every instant from the arrow of space (hence arrow of spacetime) the bi-directional talk of matter and geometry (cf. the double role of Einstein's equations, M. Montesinos) has been already completed, and in such already-correlated instantaneous snapshot all "nonlocal" and "dark" stuff has totally vanished.

Hence the "freely falling" bodies can indeed follow geodesics, as "the stress-energy has zero divergence" (Kenneth R. Koehler) at each and every instant 'now' from the local mode of spacetime (cf. Fig. 1). Picture these "horizontal" (local mode) sections of the arrow of spacetime as Photoshop layers stacked on the  w  arrow (cf. Fig. 2 above): the requirement 'stress-energy must have zero divergence' is indeed fulfilled, along with the Equivalence Principle, but only "during" an instant 'now' from the local mode.

However, because we inevitably  flatten  all "Photoshop layers" due to the so-called "speed of light", we see a perfect continuum of already-correlated facts, chained along a perfectly continual trajectory (e.g., the trajectory of a Frisbee on Minkowski space) or perfectly continual geodesic. In order to follow a geodesic (Alan Rendall), the Frisbee will have to obtain all quantum-gravitational contributions to its path from 'the rest of the universe', and then it will move like a fish from a school of fish. Most importantly, such quasi-local fish will always have strictly positive inertial mass.

(On March 27, 2007, Prof. Warren W. Johnson, LSU, wrote: "Ah ha, caught you lying! You do have a radically different "theory" to compete with Einstein's theories." But LIGO fellow Warren W. Johnson is wrong. I strictly follow Einstein's GR, and am trying to remove all "miracles" in GR (resembling the projection postulate in QM), which preclude us from understanding the geodesic hypothesis, as explained by Alan Rendall. If you agree with Warren Johnson, or trust Chris Isham, try to uncover some "total field of as yet unknown structure", and send your proposal to Alan Rendall. I hope he will then re-write his online article.)

Notice that the vanishing property of  tµv  (M. Montesinos)  is manifestation of the so-called ‘problem of time’: nothing can possible "move" in such block universe; cf. G.F.R. Ellis below.


 

If you believe in the Riemannian space of 'facts' and use only Archimedean geometry, you will inevitably encounter insurmountable problems with the conservation of energy and momentum in present-day GR, as well as tug-of-war "dark" effects of gravity, dubbed CDM and DDE.

My suggestion is to zoom on the "infinitesimal variables" [Ref. 3] and reveal the interplay of matter and geometry -- their bi-directional "talk" on the interface of the Archimedean (material) and non-Archimedean (geometrical) realms. The end result is a perfect continuum in the local mode of spacetime.

NB: This can only happen if there is a physical mechanism producing such perfectly smooth spacetime manifold, based on the so-called speed of light: the "duration" of the bi-directional "talk", in the local mode of spacetime, is zero.

This is the meaning of the statement 'Your Global Time is ZERO'. More in my talk on Wednesday, 25 November 2015. My first talk didn't attract the attention of the theoretical physics community, but once the "enhanced" and "advanced" LIGO fail miserably by November 2015, I hope people will get serious about GR:

"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, April 14, 1954)


D. Chakalov
August 6, 2010
Last update: September 6, 2010



[Ref. 1] S. Babak and L. Grishchuk, The Energy-Momentum Tensor for the Gravitational Field, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 024038; gr-qc/9907027 v2.

"The search for the gravitational energy-momentum tensor is often qualified as an attempt of looking for “the right answer to the wrong question”. [cf. C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1973), p. 467 - D.C.]
...
"In traditional field theories, one arrives, after some work, at the energy-momentum object which is: 1) derivable from the Lagrangian in a regular prescribed way, 2) a tensor under arbitrary coordinate transformations, 3) symmetric in its components, 4) conserved due to the equations of motion obtained from the same Lagrangian, 5) free of the second (highest) derivatives of the field variables, and 6) is unique up to trivial modifications not containing the field variables. There is nothing else, in addition to these 6 conditions, that we could demand from an acceptable energy-momentum object, both on physical and mathematical grounds.
...
"In the geometrical formulation of the general relativity, the components gmn(xa) play a dual role. From one side they are components of the metric tensor, from the other side they are considered gravitational field variables. If one insists on the proposition that “gravity is geometry” and “geometry is gravity”, then, indeed, it is impossible to derive from the Hilbert-Einstein Lagrangian something reasonable, satisfying the 6 conditions listed above."



[Ref. 2]
John and Marry Gribbin, In Search of Schrödinger's Cat, Black Swan, London, 1998, p. 209

"There had been a plot not to agree on an object to be guessed, but that each person, when asked, must give a truthful answer concerning some real object that was in his mind, and which was consistent with all the answers that had gone before. With only one question left, John Wheeler guessed: "Is it a cloud?" The answer was "Yes!"


[Ref. 3] Eric Schechter (5 December 2009),
Infinity: Introduction and History.

Comment: Eric Schechter wrote that "if you take a medium-sized number and divide it by an enormous number, you get a number very close to 0."

Since the notions of infinity and infinitesimal are, in some (yet to be explained) sense, reciprocal, the latter can be illustrated with the following expression  (notice that this is just an illustration of the puzzle stressed by Lucretius):


1/∞ → 0


We take a medium-sized number, 1 , to represent a finite Archimedean thing (e.g., one meter or one second), and divide it by ... what kind of infinity? Potential infinity or completed/actual infinity? No matter what we choose, we cannot recover the finite Archimedean thing by multiplying "zero" by "infinity". We are "
bartenders" (recall Thompson's lamp paradox).

That's the puzzle of the finite Archimedean entities called 'space' and 'time' (local mode). Viewed from the local mode of spacetime, the infinitesimal -- the atom of geometry -- is the instantaneous state of Zeno's arrow. It is in 'absolute rest' with respect to all relativistic systems, hence we can define the elementary increment of physical variables (ds and dt) with respect to such "ether". I call it 'geometrical point', and stress that it is a non-Archimedean entity (global mode of spacetime), which builds up 'the grin of the can without the cat' (Alice), in line with the Continuum Hypothesis (CH). The latter is neither provable nor disprovable -- cf. Kurt Gödel. Why? Because the continuum emerges from the non-Archimedean realm of 'the universe as ONE', in which our mundane notions of "zero" and "infinity" do not hold anymore. They are simply not-applicable.

All we can say is that, depending on the "direction" we look at 'the universe as ONE', it looks like either infinitely small or infinitely large, as it wraps up the whole Archimedean 3-D space of present-day GR. Hence we can enjoy “self-contained” isolated systems, the asymptotic spacelike regime included (Adam Helfer).

The recipe is simple and unique. How else can you remove the jejune poetry in mathematical GR and differential geometry textbooks, encoded in expressions like "sufficiently small" and "smooth" (Piotr Chrusciel), and in stipulations that the Hausdorff topological space has somehow been made "connected" (Chris Isham)? There is no matter at the primordial level of 'pure geometry' to enable such "connection", which would show up as the affine connection (Graham Nerlich).

"It is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink warm water", says John Coleman.

I hope these brief (and frank) comments can explain the idea about bi-directional "talk" of the Archimedean (material) and non-Archimedean (geometrical) realms. Forget about tensors.

More on Wednesday, 25 November 2015.  GR "bartenders" are cordially invited.


D.C.
August 9, 2010
Last update: August 11, 2010
---------------

Point set topology is a disease from which the human race will soon recover.
Henri Poincaré


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


Subject: Request for paper
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:57:22 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jochen Rau <jochen.rau@q-info.org>,
Jochen Rau <jrau@th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Cc: Jürgen Audretsch <juergen.audretsch@uni-konstanz.de>,
Klaus Nagorni <nagorni@ev-akademie-baden.de>


Dear Dr. Rau,

If possible, please send me a copy from your paper/slides "How to infer a quantum state from imperfect data", November 19, 2010. I trust you'll mention KS Theorem,

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

Regarding your 1993 article "On the metric structure of space-time", arXiv:1009.5523v1 [gr-qc], and Prof. Audretsch's article "Riemannian structure of space-time as a consequence of quantum mechanics" from 1983 ("quantum mechanics must contain classical particle mechanics as a limiting case", Jürgen Audretsch), please notice my efforts in quantum cosmology,

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

Outline in Sec. Summary, pp. 35-36, in
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf

Perhaps one can define God mathematically. It's all about 'Die Wirklichkeit des Möglichen in der Physik' (Jürgen Audretsch).

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--------

Comments on 'primitive concepts' in spacetime structures, prompted by Jochen Rau's 1993 article [Ref. 1] and
 R = R(t)  from Brian Dolan:

The key assumption, which Jochen Rau calls 'deformability', is that "the event manifold's physical structure is allowed to vary freely" [Ref. 1]. Precisely what is implied by "freely"?

In GR, there are no fixed paths in the "time" variable in R = R(t) from Brian Dolan -- paths are being made by "walking" (Antonio Machado) along the Heraclitean (non-Archimedean) time: "You cannot step into the same river twice, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you." In GR parlance, "more and more space ... appears."

Thus, the event manifold itself should be endowed from the outset with the flexibility to be modified at each and every next event from 'the world lines of galaxies' (Weyl’s principle). Precisely what is implied by such flexibility?

Here Jochen Rau and I agree only on "it depends on the distribution of matter in the universe (and on boundary conditions)" [Ref. 1]. However, in a Machian-type universe the flexibility of the event manifold should not be constrained to Lorentzian metric. We may picture some emergent Lorentzian signature only within/during one fleeting instant from the Arrow of Space.

To cut the long story short, the ‘no-prior-geometry’ demand fathered GR (MTW, p. 431), but by doing so it also fathered a century of confusion. No aspect of the geometry of spacetime should be "fixed immutably", i.e., "cannot be changed by changing the distribution of gravitating sources" (MTW, p. 429). Any fixed background, such as the topology of space (not determined in current GR) and the fixed relations of 'inside' vs. 'outside' in 3-D space (local mode), must be made (i) dynamical and (ii) totally removable in the global mode of spacetime. And that's why we need the global mode of spacetime: the "dark gaps" from the global mode are rendered/reduced to zero in the local mode, by the Arrow of Space and the so-called 'speed of light'. The physical/observable result is a perfect continuum, at all length scales. We don't have any other choice.

To resolve the century of confusion, I plan to suggest a virtual geodesic path formulation of GR on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 -- DeWitt's "many worlds" will be placed in our common 'potential reality', and the selection of 'one among infinitely many' worlds with emergent Lorentzian signature -- one-at-a-time -- will be made by 'the whole universe as ONE', in line with so-called biocausality.

As the old saying goes, you pays your money and you takes your choice; but assume well-defined concepts of (i) energy density in GR and (ii) trajectory of quantum particles (quantum flexibility, not "fluctuations"), your choices narrow greatly. Regarding (ii), all particles simultaneously explore all potential paths (“smells all the paths in the neighborhood”, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II, Ch. 19, The Principle of Least Action) before (=global mode) they jointly make the elementary (dt & ds) step along their trajectories; hence each and every step is unique and irreversible in the Heraclitean (non-Archimedean) time.

As to (i), the energy density is fixed both 'at a point' and 'viewed from infinity'. It's a package, and we can get it only with the global mode of spacetime in which the notions of 'geometrical point' and 'actual infinity' refer to ONE entity. Depending on the "direction" we look at 'the universe as ONE' from within the 3-D space (local mode), it looks either as 'infinitesimal geometrical "point" tending asymptotically toward zero', or as 'infinitely large and "expanding" volume of 3-D space'.

There is no other choice for quantum gravity. We first have to fix the long-standing problems of QM and GR, and then all pieces of the jigsaw puzzle will snap to their places -- effortlessly. Then the proper math will also show up -- effortlessly. I am sure professional mathematicians will understand what I mean.

If you agree with Chris Isham, you'll be playing with the drawing below forever.



 

Again, GR and QM "bartenders" are cordially invited.

Well, as Blaise Pascal says, I have made this note longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Sorry. Will try to do better in November 2015.


D. Chakalov
September 30, 2010
Last update: October 8, 2010



[Ref. 1] Jochen Rau, On the metric structure of space-time, arXiv:1009.5523v1 [gr-qc]. Journal reference: M. A. del Olmo, M. Santander, and J. Mateos Guilarte, eds., Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, Vol. II, Anales de Fisica, Monografias 1, CIEMAT, Madrid, 1993, pp. 483-486

"(W)hich physical assumptions are being tacitly made whenever one postulates the existence of a Lorentzian metric? Only after these assumptions are exhibited can one start to systematically relax them; thus, answers to the above question may be helpful for the study of more general space-time structures.

"Primitive concepts are taken to be events, counting of events, causal relationships and the ability to compare measurements; the corresponding mathematical structures are a differentiable manifold, volume element, causal vectors and affine connection(s), leading to the notion of an 'event manifold'.

"The key assumption, which I will call 'deformability', is that the event manifold's physical structure is allowed to vary freely.

"The proof of the Weyl-Cartan theorem is then reviewed to establish the result that any deformable event manifold must be Lorentzian.

2 Event Manifolds

"I assume that space-time is a connected n-dimensional differentiable manifold M. At x E M, local measurements (e.g., evaluating vector fields) are performed using a basis of the tangent space TxM. In order to have a means to compare local measurements at different points, I require the manifold to be endowed with an affine connection.

"The connection is assumed to be torsion-free.
.......

3 Deformability

"So far my considerations have been very general, and the symmetry group G is by no means uniquely determined. Only now the key idea of General Relativity comes into play: rather than being fixed as in Newtonian theory, the local physical structure on the space-time manifold is itself a variable; it depends on the distribution of matter in the universe (and on boundary conditions)."

 

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


Subject: Virtual geodesic path formulation of GR
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 16:09:16 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikDKpf6TrPVD2=+tQO7qjeVP4DHpzWM01EYJmSz@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: [snip]

Dear Colleagues,

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015, I intend to suggest a virtual geodesic path formulation of GR:

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

It will elaborate on the *emergence* [Ref. 1] of globally valid 3-D space, along an Arrow of Space,

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

Hence 'time' emerges locally, in terms of a 'future directed, time-like unit vector field' (cf. below).

Details in Sec. Summary, pp. 35-36, in

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

Should you find these efforts interesting, please reply by September 25, 2015, and I will gladly send you details about the venue (probably Munich).

May I take this opportunity to thank you all for everything I learned from you, and will (hopefully) continue to learn in the years ahead.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


[Ref. 1] C.J. Isham and J. Butterfield, On the Emergence of Time in Quantum Gravity, gr-qc/9901024
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9901024

p. 25: "Space and time are such crucial categories for thinking about, and describing, the empirical world, that it is bound to be ferociously

 their emerging, or even some aspects of them emerging, from 'something else'.
.....
p. 46: "As we said in Section 1, we intend ‘the emergence of time’ to also cover the emergence of spacetime, and so space."

---------------
Subject: A future directed, time-like unit vector field
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:46:18 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de, Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de

Dear Dr. Friedrich,

You acknowledged that a future directed, time-like unit vector field, for which no natural choice exists in general, is characterized indirectly and becomes explicitly available only after solving the equations (arXiv:0903.5160v1 [gr-qc], p. 17).

I've been trying to argue that this problem can only be solved by recovering the reference fluid in GR.
[snip]


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


Subject: The universe modeled as a 'brain'
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 04:53:03 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Charles L Bennett <cbennett@jhu.edu>,
Gary F Hinshaw <Gary.F.Hinshaw@nasa.gov>,
David Spergel <dns@astro.princeton.edu>,
Lyman Page <page@princeton.edu>,
Ed Witten <witten@ias.edu>,
Richard H Miller <rhm@oddjob.uchicago.edu>,
Stephan S Meyer <meyer@oddjob.uchicago.edu>,
Joshua A Frieman <frieman@fnal.gov>,
Rocky Kolb <Rocky.Kolb@uchicago.edu>,
Robert Rosner <r-rosner@uchicago.edu>,
Carlos S Frenk <C.S.Frenk@durham.ac.uk>,
Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics <bccpcotb@lbl.gov>

Dear Colleagues,

I've been trying to suggest a model of the universe as a human brain -- please check out Sec. Summary at

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

It seems to me -- please correct me if I got it wrong -- that Eqs 1 and 2, pp. 35-36 at the link above, may offer a solution to the ‘most embarrassing observation in physics’ (Ed Witten) and explanation of the apparent finite age of the universe:

"WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) - as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!"

The model suggests a dual age of the universe, such that the evaluation of the statement from WMAP Team will be, in German, YAIN (both yes and no).

Your critical comments will be appreciated, and will be kept private and confidential.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov



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


Subject: The Koch curve and Thompson's Lamp Paradox
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:44:58 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Piero Nicolini <nicolini@th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de>,
Benjamin Niedner <niedner@arcormail.de>
Cc: Karl <svozil@tuwien.ac.at>, Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>


Dear Dr. Nicolini,

I read with great interest your latest arXiv:1009.3267v1 [gr-qc]. May I ask a question regarding the Koch curve in Fig. 1.
 


 

You and Dr. Niedner wrote: "It is an example of an everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable curve. We can construct the Koch curve as a final product of an infinite sequence of steps. At each step, the middle third of each interval is replaced by the other two sides of an equilateral triangle."

Suppose we consider, as a Gedankenexperiment, an infinite sequence of steps, and assume "the presence of a minimal length" (p. 5), such that (operational definition) the initial 'interval' in Fig. 1 at this "minimal length" becomes _sufficiently small_ (the key expression from the Equivalence Principle in GR textbooks), hence can be considered as 'infinitesimal point' -- the very same infinitesimal point "inside" which the state of the Thompson's Lamp becomes _indecisive_ . Namely, a superposition of |on> and |off> state(s), which can never be "collapsed" bzw. observed.

We would have an ultimate cutoff by such (Planckian?) 'sufficiently small minimal length', yet we won't be able to compute the actual length of the whole Koch curve (nor the Hausdorff dimension), because the _sufficiently small_ infinitesimal length will act as 'numerically finite but physically unattainable boundary/cutoff'.
Stated differently, the final curve won't be "infinitely long", as you put it, but _indecisive_ .

I believe the implications for the notion of "delocalization of point like objects" (p. 3), as well as for those depicted in Fig. 4, are obvious, but let me first state my question:

Am I wrong?

More on the crucial issue of 'sufficiently small' at

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

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


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

Subject: Re: The Koch curve and Thompson's Lamp Paradox
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:43:13 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Piero Nicolini <nicolini@th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Cc: [snip]

Dear Piero,

Thank you for your reply.

[snip]

> as far as I understand, I would say that in some sense your comment is
> correct. the conventional computation of the Hausdorff length is modified
> as we showed in our paper.

With the Thompson's Lamp Paradox, I think the situation changes drastically.

> The introduction of a length scale breaks the self similarity property
> of the erratic path of a quantum particle.

Please see above.

> However some points don't seem to be correct in your comments. In
> particular the reference to the infinitely long case, which is the
> conventional case rather than that in the presence of a cut off as shown
> in Eq. 16.

Perhaps you didn't have time to consider my Gedankenexperiment vs. yours (the alleged cutoff in Eq. 16).

Please check out the linked text at

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

I do hope to learn about your professional opinion.

All the best,

Dimi
-----------

Note: The introduction of a minimum length scale as a 'numerically finite but physically unattainable boundary/cutoff' follows from the non-Archimedean nature of the geometric realm of 'the grin of the cat without the cat' (Alice): we cannot reach the "hidden unmoved mover" (Karel Kuchar) and the Aristotelian First Cause from within the local mode of spacetime. Corollary: speculations about some dirty black hole thermodynamics, noncommutative gravity, non-commutative micro black holes, entropic "force" (the latter translates to 'information force'), etc., are unjustified.

D.C.
September 20, 2010




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


Subject: arXiv:1009.3559v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:58:44 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Niall <niall@ucc.ie>, julian@platonia.com
Cc: david.klein@csun.edu,
yang@euclid.math.temple.edu,
lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu,
Roger Penrose <penroad@herald.ox.ac.uk>


Dear Niall and Julian,

In your latest paper, you stated the following:

"The time at which wave-function collapse occurs is ill defined in relativity; however the simultaneity associated with the shape-dynamic CMC foliation could bring interpretational clarity. This is also true for the ‘problem of time’ [14], which arises from the ambiguity in the time evolution in superspace if foliation invariance (many-fingered time) is made inviolate."

May I request some interpretational clarity: please tell me how you plan to resolve the quasi-local mess in GR,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Zinkernagel2

If your colleagues have some insights, I will appreciate their feedback as well.

Regards,

Dimi
-----------

Note: The only way I could think of "the time at which wave-function collapse occurs" is by speculating about Weyl's Principle being applied to some preferred foliation of spacetime into 3-D spacelike hypersurfaces, to fix the temporal order for spacelike separated "points" -- simultaneity-at-a-distance -- hence 'simultaneity surfaces' along which quasi-local effects propagate among the "school of fish", in which every "fish" follows pre-correlated quasi-local geodesics.

The present-day GR explicitly forbids such luxury, as well as some 'nondynamical time parameter' (Unruh & Wald).

Niall Murchadha and Julian Barbour claim that have found "the configuration space of general relativity" that "could bring interpretational clarity", and I offered them 'the test of the pudding'. Are they implying some null surfaces backward in time to resolve the quasi-local mess in GR? Check out the 1982 paper by R. Penrose; the problem has been agonizingly clear since the inception of GR.

Apart from that, Niall Murchadha and Julian Barbour have brains, which could not have worked in any "timeless world" from GR, nor with some 'time variable' in STR, used to explain the energy conservation during that 'time variable', after Noether's Theorem.

The human brain needs an arrow of spacetime. Otherwise the human mind must act on its brain, which is sheer parapsychology. The latter has been explored by many people since the Roman Empire, with the same dead-end result.

If you seriously believe that the flow of spacetime is within the framework of the theory of relativity "an illusion", you have a choice: fix the quantum theory and theory of relativity by incorporating its "dark energy", or do parapsychology.

Or simply ignore this web site, and pretend that you've never learned anything from it, like Julian Barbour does.

D.C.
September 21, 2010


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


Subject: The Design and Validation of the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey, arXiv:1007.2015v1
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:37:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Sarah McKagan <sam.mckagan@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>,
Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
David Schroeren <davidschroeren@cantab.net>,
Ronnie Hermens <ronnie.hermens@gmail.com>,
Landsman <landsman@math.ru.nl>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>


Dear Dr. McKagan,

Students are kids, and I think nobody can blame them for being unable to grasp QM, given the fact that their tutors and professors are profoundly confused in the first place ("large variation in faculty views on many topics in QM", as you mildly put it).

Please see my efforts at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS
(updated July 14, 2010)

More on QM and GR at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#shoal

Your professional feedback will be appreciated.

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov


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


Subject: arXiv:1011.2287v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:32:40 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Peter Evans <peter.evans@sydney.edu.au>
Cc: Huw Price <huw@mail.usyd.edu.au>,
John <cramer@phys.washington.edu>,
Tim Maudlin <maudlin@rci.rutgers.edu>,
Abner Shimony <abner.shimony@gmail.com>,
Philip Pearle <ppearle@hamilton.edu>

Dear Dr. Evans,

May I elaborate on John Cramer's idea (p. 4): "repeats until" ... at which point the transaction is completed, and the observer can finally witness the *already*-completed transaction (post factum). I deliberately use temporal notions to show that (i) we're dealing with two kinds of time, and (ii) this language doesn't work. Perhaps if we allow these two kinds of time to co-exist peacefully, the crux of QM can be resolved:

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

I will appreciate your professional opinion, as well as the feedback from your colleagues. Please feel free to disagree, and explain why.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note:
Read Sects 2 and 3 from Peter Evans' arXiv:1011.2287v1 [quant-ph] (emphasis, comments, and links added by me - D.C.):

p. 2: "...the process of electromagnetic radiation should be thought of as an interaction between a source and an absorber rather than as an independent elementary process. (footnote 1)"

Footnote 1, p. 3: "... it is as absurd to think of light emitted by one atom regardless of the existence of a receiving atom, as it would be to think of an atom absorbing light without the existence of light to be absorbed."

p. 3: "... an advanced incoming field that is present at the source simultaneous with the moment of emission. The claim is that this advanced field exerts a finite force on the source which has exactly the required magnitude and direction to account for the observed energy transferred from source to absorber; ..."

p. 3: "The crucial point to note about the Wheeler-Feynman scheme is that due to the advanced field of the absorber, the radiative damping field is present at the source at exactly the time of the initial acceleration. Quite simply, if a retarded electromagnetic disturbance propagates for a time t before meeting the absorber then the absorber will be a distance ct from the source. The advanced field propagates with the same speed c across the same distance and thus will arrive at the source exactly time t before the absorber field is generated, i.e. at the time of the initial acceleration."

p. 4: "The transaction is completed with a “handshake”: the offer and confirmation waves combine to form a four dimensional standing wave between emitter and absorber. (...) Any observer who witnesses this process would
perceive only the completed transaction, which would be interpreted (post factum - D.C.) as the passage of a particle (e.g. a photon) between emitter and absorber."

p. 5: "The process is atemporal and the only observables come from the superposition of all “steps” to form the final transaction. (1986, fn. 14, p. 661)"

In order to employ this beautiful story for the mechanism of inertial reaction "force" in our Machian universe, we need a "mirror for gravitational waves" from Finite Infinity, plus a few other things. Only the math is unknown.

Don't say you knew nothing about it!

D.C.
November 17, 2010
 


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


Subject: Colloquium in Honour of Ernst Specker at his 90th Birthday, October 29-30, 2010
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 06:02:21 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jürg Fröhlich <juerg.froehlich@itp.phys.ethz.ch>,
Gian Michele Graf <gian-michele.graf@itp.phys.ethz.ch>,
Heinz Siedentop <h.s@lmu.de>,
Stefan Wolf <wolfst@inf.ethz.ch>,
Renato Renner <renner@phys.ethz.ch>,
Stephen A Fulling <fulling@math.tamu.edu>,
Robert W Spekkens <rspekkens@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Yeong-Cherng Liang <yeongcherng.liang@unige.ch>,
Howard M Wiseman <h.wiseman@griffith.edu.au>,
Jonathan Oppenheim <J.Oppenheim@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Stan Gudder <sgudder@math.du.edu>


Dear Colleagues,

In the late 1950's, Ernst Specker posed the question of whether the omniscience (total knowledge) of God extends to events which would have occurred if something had happened, which did not, in fact, happen (Ernst Specker, “Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer Aussagen,” Dialectica 14, 239-246 (1960); p. 243).

This leads to the questions of 'the universal truth function', and "why does quantum theory not have this sort of complementarity" [Ref. 1].

My scattered thoughts on KS Theorem and truth evaluation in Quantum Theory can be read at

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

Regrettably, I cannot attend the Colloquium in Honour of Ernst Specker, and can only wish him all the best upon his Birthday 'by distance', although I will be, in some sense, present as well, since we are all entangled.

May I take this opportunity to invite you at my talk on quantum gravity,

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

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


[Ref. 1] Yeong-Cherng Liang, Robert W. Spekkens, Howard M. Wiseman, Specker’s Parable of the Over-protective Seer: Implications for
Contextuality, Nonlocality and Complementarity, arXiv:1010.1273v1 [quant-ph],
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1273v1

p. 3: "(O)ne must imagine that the outcome of a measurement (or equivalently, the property that is measured) is context-dependent — whether a gem is seen or not in the first box depends on whether that box was opened together with the second or together with the third.
.....
"To get this kind of contextuality, it is necessary to find a situation wherein there are very specific sorts of limitations on joint measurability — there must exist a triple of measurements that can only be implemented jointly in pairs. For projective measurements in quantum theory, this sort of limitation on joint measurability does not occur.
......
pp. 27-28: "Specker’s parable provides an interesting new kind of foil, because the kind of complementarity it exhibits — three measurements that can be implemented jointly pairwise but not triplewise – is something that is not found among projective measurements in quantum theory. This prompts the question: why does quantum theory not have this sort of complementarity?"
---------

Note: Just a hint to the question above: suppose the {1,0,1} rule was not broken, and the full catalogue of expectation values for the spin-1 system were present (no "uncolored" section from KS sphere). Then people could develop a relativistic QM that could explain the "collapse" with some "hidden" stuff, and prove Schrödinger wrong, namely, 'a variable would have a definite value before I measure it; then measuring it simply means ascertaining the value that it has.'

D.C.
October 28, 2010



 

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



"Wenn es doch bei dieser verdammten Quantenspringerei bleiben soll, dann bedauere ich, mich mit der Quantentheorie überhaupt beschäftigt zu haben."
(If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved.)

Erwin Schrödinger

"Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.
....
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays, Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 1995
 

 

A brief note on the Kochen-Specker Theorem
(if you aren't familiar with the subject, read the notes here, here, here, and here)

July 21, 2011


Abstract: Any "quantum states" that can be put in Dirac brakets, such as |whatever> , as well as any combination of such "quantum states", cannot be mapped to the UNdecidable Kochen-Specker (KS) state from the uncolored KS sphere. It cannot fit into any Hilbert space whatsoever, being a pre-quantum or rather potential quantum reality. No state vector, in any Hilbert space, can accommodate the potential quantum reality which, from the perspective of our Boolean logic, is 'both yes and no' (YAIN). It cannot fit in the Riemannian manifold of GR either (hypothetical manifold with postulated (i) differentiable structure, (ii) affine connection, (iii) tangent space at each infinitesimal "point", and (iv) metric that can only "expand" with respect to the reference fluid of GR).

 

Suppose you are an Eskimo, and you have never seen, and will never see an elephant in your whole life. Yet you can nevertheless make observations on elephant's trunk by means of two "complementary" devices, 'nose' and 'arm'. You know that Heisenberg relations preclude you from observing simultaneously the "nose" and the "arm" of elephant's trunk (the position and momentum of an electron, say). Then you're struck by Schrödinger's 1935 paper:

"In general, a variable has no definite value before I measure it; then measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value that it has. But then what does it mean?"

It means you cannot observe elephant's trunk with (inanimate) devices at the length scale of tables and chairs. It does not mean that the trunk doesn't exist. Fortunately, the Kochen-Specker Theorem can help you understand the true, UNdecidable quantum "trunk"; check it out with your own brain here. Richard Feynman claimed (12 August 1983): "We can do the arithmetic, but we cannot picture the car!" Yes we can. All we need is a brain.

Carsten Held stated that the KS theorem, "by its mathematical nature, is not empirically testable", and since Ronnie Hermens (and Wiki) seem to have some troubles with it, may I offer a brief, personal, and biased interpretation, ensuing from Ernst Specker's tripod.

Ernst Specker was eager to clarify the answer to a truly fundamental question: is it possible to distill all conceivable quantum states as 'observables in 3-D space', such that (i) there will be no counterfactuals (cf. Karl Svozil) and (ii) the unitarity principle will be uphold, that is, the probabilities for all conceivable quantum observables will sum up to unity. If that were possible, one could make a "reverse engineering" of a quantum system, by exposing all of its localizable observables, after which the cornerstone questions of Quantum Mechanics (QM), posed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 and in November 1950 (cf. below), would have acquired a dead simple answer: hidden variables. Then QM would be just a statistical theory based on the unitarity principle, and will also be marred with the intractable parapsychology of those "hidden variables" (maybe sub-quantum, or maybe noncontextual, but you never know, because all this parapsychological stuff is "hidden" from the outset). Thank God, the Kochen-Specker Theorem proved this whole mess wrong. But it also showed that the notion of 'complete set of observables pertaining to a quantum system' is far more subtle and rich than expected, due to the presence of an UNdecidable KS state that does not belong to this set.

Imagine three quantum guys, Tom, Dick, and Harry, and think of the "spectral decomposition" of their quantum states as being presented by their hands, with the following specifications: upon observation at particular instant, they all have to simultaneously raise their hands (hermitian operators). Thus, each of them can, and have to, raise either his left hand (L), or right hand (R), or both (B). Recall that, unlike probabilities in classical statistical physics, probabilities in QM originate in Pythagoras' theorem in n dimensions (C. Isham, Lectures on Quantum Theory, Sec. 2.1.2, get pp. 16-17 from here), so if one of the quantum guys cannot have orthogonal "states" for his hands, he will ruin the whole system.

The famous KS Theorem (download an explanation by R.I.G. Hughes from here) says that the (spin 1) system {Tom_Dick_Harry} will exhibit the following "paradoxical" (from the viewpoint of classical physics) situation: if Tom and Dick happen to possess context-dependent and well-defined ("an unequivocal true-false value", cf. Isham and Butterfield above) quantum states of their hands (either L, or R, or B), then in that same instant Harry will not have any hands at all. For if the poor guy had 'hands' in that same instant, he would have the opportunity to choose one of his context-dependant quantum states -- either L, or R, or B. He will instead be shifted to the "uncolored" section from KS sphere.

Next time you "measure" the system {Tom_Dick_Harry}, exactly the same thing can happen to Dick. Or to Tom. So, any time you observe some classical presentation of 'quantum state', be aware that nevertheless something essential is missing. It showed up in the case with Harry, yet it "covers" the whole system {Tom_Dick_Harry}, much like the "dark" energy from 'empty space'. Poetically speaking, the case with Harry was the "revenge" of the quantum Noumenon pertaining to {Tom_Dick_Harry} for our efforts to push it at the length scale of (unanimated) tables and chairs. Unlike the measuring devices examined in QM textbooks, the human brain can operate with its presentation of 'potential reality' elevated at the length scale of tables and chairs, as demonstrated with the example of three "measurements" (cf. the three sayings above). If our brains can operate with their UNspeakable potential reality, so can 'the universe as a brain'.

Notice that if we constrain Tom, Dick, and Harry to raise only one hand (either L or R), people would entertain "quantum computing" and "topological quantum computation" (e.g., Michael H. Freedman), because the implications from KS Theorem will be obscured. But as the UNdecidable quantum state is still working in the quantum world, it cannot be harnessed with unanimated devices.

I employ the notion of 'potential reality' to signify the UNdecidable KS quantum state -- the genuine 'quantum reality out there'. Can't fit it in any Hilbert space whatsoever. If you prefer, think of it as Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle.

In summary, the Kochen-Specker Theorem demonstrates the UNdecidable KS quantum state. The latter is far more profound and important than the contextuality alone [Ref. 2] ("not all observables can be assigned definite values that are independent of the measuring context", cf. Ronnie Hermens).

Namely, the conclusion that "only contextual values can be ascribed" [Ref. 2] does not shed light on the implications from the fact that contextuality is invariant to the particular place of the observables in the 3x3 array. As I wrote above, the same thing that happened to Harry can happen to Dick, or to Tom.

Nothing -- not even some "contextuality" -- can save Harry (or Dick, or Tom) from the case in which he (or Dick, or Tom) must not possess any hands.

If at some instant of measurement Harry must not have any classical hands whatsoever, yet at some other instant he -- the same Harry -- can and will obtain some contextual, well-defined, classical-able hands, then we are facing a phenomenon far more important than "contextual hands" alone. Namely, we can tell apart the contextualized classical-able hands, which can be filtered through the classical spacetime as 'classical hands', from those "intact" quantum states that can't. Which does not imply that the latter do not exist. In my view, only some quantum Noumenon can secure the ontological contextuality of quantum objects. The ontological contextuality may or may not provide 'the same Harry' with contextualized classical-able hands. It is also UNdecidable and Unspeakable, and of course 'not empirically testable'. Thus, if you observe the "hands" of some quantum object, be aware that you're only observing its contextualized classical shadows on Plato's cave, emanating from the ultimate quantum potential reality.

Three years ago, I explained to my teenage daughter a similar puzzle in GR, regarding the Hole Argument. With slight modifications, the corresponding 'KS Theorem for teenage girls' would be as follows. Imagine you cannot see your finger nails "bare", without nail varnish. One way to think of such peculiar situation is that your 'bare finger nails' do in fact exist, but are somehow banned from showing up to you. Namely, your 'bare finger nails' can show up to you only after you cover them with your nail varnish, with different colors depending on your mood, but then they won't be 'bare' anymore. They will be "contextualzed", with particular color. Well, KS Theorem (roughly) says that (i) if you use three different nail-varnish colors for each nail, and (ii) if you have to paint three (or more) of your nails, then one of the them would have to show to you its "bare" nature: the UNdecidable KS state. Which would, in turn, ruin your whole manicure. To avoid such disasters, you should use maximum two nail-varnish colors, and then all your "bare" finger nails will be safely covered with some particular "contextualzed" color. The downside of such (seemingly perfect) manicure will be that you may never understand QM nor GR. Capiche?

NB: If the reader wishes to refute the "adult" interpretation of KS Theorem above, please start with converting the "uncolored" section from KS sphere to some Hilbert space (your choice), to match the case in which Harry would obtain some contextual, well-defined, classical hands, at the expense of either Dick or Tom being shifted to the same "uncolored" section from KS sphere. What is the 'time parameter' pertaining to the dynamics of the reversible (KS sphere <--> Hilbert space) transitions, for all observables from {Tom_Dick_Harry}? Please don't hesitate!

In a drastic contrast to the "collapse" and the Eigenvalue-Eigenstate Link from the old Copenhagen School [Ref. 1], the PR interpretation of QM employs the phenomenon of 'emergence' (e.g., Isham and Butterfield): in the case with {Tom_Dick_Harry}, one could only observe, at particular instant of time, the emergence of only one of its latent observables, say, {Tom, R}, just like the end result from the correlation and "negotiation" (global mode of spacetime) that led finally to John Wheeler's 'cloud'. This one final result (one-at-a-time) is 'physical reality' (local mode of spacetime), while the rest of Tom's latent states, plus Dick's latent states, plus Harry's UNdecidable KS state constitute the 'potential reality' of the system {Tom, Dick, and Harry}, which is in turn rooted on the quantum Noumenon -- "The ideal monad has no windows" (Döring and Isham). This is entirely different from any 'modal' or 'contextual hidden variable' theory.

It goes without saying that a rigorous presentation of the ideas in the paragraph above is not available. These are just ideas presented with words. Back in 1935, Erwin Schrödinger also offered some very general ideas, presented with words:

"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."

The second part from the last sentence was totally forgotten by the mainstream theoretical physics community, and only Henry Margenau paid attention to it. Yet even today very few QM textbooks mention KS Theorem, which is rooted on this forgotten (or rather ignored) consideration spelled out by Schrödinger in 1935. As to the first part, "a variable has no definite value before I measure it", perhaps the intact quantum world 'out there' exists as the UNdecidable quantum state.

If this is the case chosen by Mother Nature, the mysterious transition from quantum to classical, which is essential to QM textbooks [Ref. 3], should be explained with the "back bone" of the quantum world -- potential reality.

Notice that the quantum truth functional in QM textbooks (e.g., Ref. 4, p. 314) is not applicable to 'potential reality' due to the presence of the generic "intact" (not limited to KS Theorem) UNdecidable quantum state.

For example, regarding the notion of spin ("klassisch nicht beschreibbaren Art von Zweideutigkeit", Wolfgang Pauli), Bob Griffiths rightly says (ibid., p. 196) that "there is no property (explicable at the length scale of tables and chairs - D.C.) corresponding to Sz = +1/2 AND Sx = +1/2 for a spin-half particle."

Of course not. The whole point is that there must exist something that keeps the "sameness" (Genidentität, Kurt Lewin) of thisspin-half particle, so that it can "pass through" it (the "intact" UNdecidable quantum state, or 'bare finger nails'), and be able to switch between its allowed states, in line with the conservation law known from QM textbooks.

Can we, with our Boolean logic, think of a quantum particle as possessing simultaneously perfectly well-defined position and momentum (ibid., p. 314)? Of course not. Does that mean that we can "impose bans" on such UNdecidable quantum state in the quantum world, just because we cannot think about it? Of course not. The "non-commutative" quantum state is simply not point-like. It may be perfectly well-defined as 'potential reality', yet not point-like. It has to be point-like only in classical mechanics, like the point-like states of a Frisbee along its classical trajectory. (The hypothetical abilities of the human brain to observe and act on the UNdecidable quantum vacuum state requires special considerations.)

Let's not mix apples with oranges, because the 'time' in the quantum world (no time operators in QM) is not like the one at the classical world, and the "intact" UNdecidable quantum state simply cannot get there. With unanimated measuring devices, we can "measure" only one frozen point from the anti-relativistic "time parameter" in the Schrödinger equation, and by imposing such wrong, albeit inevitable, classical filter on the quantum world we may develop distorted and misleading impression about some "time parameter in the Schrödinger equation". The experimental fact that even by detecting electrons one-at-a-time they nevertheless build an interference pattern [Ref. 5] demonstrates their quasi-local nature, yet the probability for detecting individual electrons on the screen, as point-like events, is blind and deaf to their quasi-local nature: the interference pattern can only be produced if the individual electron was able to "sense" the two slits simultaneously, while the probability for its detection on the screen refers to registered events that are inevitably point-like facts.

This should be the starting point for explaining "the central mystery of quantum mechanics" (Richard Feynman): the nature of the quasi-local UNdecidable quantum state. It is not a 'fact', and cannot be presented with any probabilities, as was the case with Harry above. If you teach Quantum Mechanics, start with the double-slit experiments and finish with the KS Theorem, which is grounded on the statement made by Erwin Schrödinger in November 1950:

“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.”

NB: There is nothing "probabilistic" or "stochastic" in the quasi-local UNdecidable quantum state that neither 'is' nor 'is not'. Can't fit it in any Hilbert space.

There are three totally different cases in QM. With just one degree of freedom, we (not Mother Nature) calculate an observable with a single eigenvalue ("an eigenstate of k belonging to an eigenvalue k'," P.A.M. Dirac, p. 154); the second case is confined to 'contextual values' (we constrain Tom, Dick, and Harry to raise only one hand -- either L or R; see above); and the third case deals with the absence of any classical hands whatsoever, after KS Theorem and the Free Will Theorem.

Quantum Mechanics is about this third case. Can't fit it in any Hilbert space.

Tell your students about it, Prof. Doplicher. No kid should end up like A. Connes.

Surely the quasi-localUNdecidable quantum state cannot be filtered through the spacetime of STR and the Boolean logic of propositions: the truth evaluator will be YAIN (both yes and no). Which is entirely different from the "toposification" of quantum theory suggested by Chris Isham  -- neither true nor false, but "somewhere in between" [Ref. 6].

To quote Niels Bohr, "Mathematical clarity has in itself no virtue. A complete physical explanation should absolutely precede the mathematical formulation." And the physical explanation has been spelled out by Schrödinger and Margenau. Only the math is unknown.

To move further (Machian quantum gravity), try to unravel the origin and mechanism of instantaneous inertial reaction "forces", starting solely from Albert Einstein's postulate that "the metrical character (curvature) of the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is determined at every point by the matter there, together with its state" (Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, 1917).

No way. Something inherently quasi-local is again missing (try an experiment with your brain here), as hinted by KS Theorem and CK Free Will Theorem. In the case of GR, the torsional degrees of freedom are excluded from the outset. But I'll stop here, because, as many people complain, the story will (again) become deadly boring.

I think Ronnie Hermens should ask his QM tutor (Nicolaas Landsman) lots of questions about KS Theorem. Perhaps he should also ask Chris Isham, after reading Ch. 9 from his famous textbook.


D.C.
February 12, 2010
Latest update: July 21, 2011


[Ref. 2] Karol Horodecki et al., Contextuality offers security, arXiv:1002.2410v1 [quant-ph]

"We shall use the Peres-Mermin version of KS paradox [23, 24]. The quantum observables and the KS conditions are depicted on Fig. 1." (Emphasis added - D.C.)




[Ref. 3] L. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Quantum mechanics: Non-relativistic theory, 3rd ed., Pergamon Press, 1977, p. 3

"Thus quantum mechanics occupies a very unusual place among physical theories: it contains classical mechanics as a limiting case, yet at the same time it requires this limiting case for its own formulation."


[Ref. 4] Robert B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2003, http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/toc.html

http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/chaps/cqt16.pdf

p. 190: "... when constructing a quantum description of a physical system it is necessary to restrict oneself to a single framework, or at least not mix results from incompatible frameworks.

p. 194: "One cannot use a single framework to answer all possible questions about a quantum system, because answering one question will require the use of a framework that is incompatible with another framework needed to address some other question.

p. 195: "If two or more frameworks are compatible, there is nothing problematical in supposing that the corresponding conclusions apply simultaneously to the same physical system. (...) Consequently one can think of F1, F2, ... as representing alternative "views" or "perspectives" of the same physical system, much as one can view an object, such as a teacup, from various different angles. Certain details are visible from one perspective and others from a different perspective, but there is no problem in supposing that they all from part of a single correct description, or that they are all simultaneously true, for the object in question.

p. 196: "Conceptual difficulties arise, however, when two or more frameworks are incompatible. (...) ... just as there is no property corresponding to Sz = +1/2 AND Sx = +1/2 for a spin-half particle. (...)

"Incompatible frameworks do give rise to conceptual problems when one tries to apply them to the same system during the same time interval. (...) The difficulty comes about when one wants to think of the results obtained using incompatible frameworks as all referring simultaneously to the same physical system, or tries
to combine the results of reasoning based upon incompatible frameworks. It is this which is forbidden by the single framework rule of quantum reasoning."
------

http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/chaps/cqt22.pdf

p. 261: "Each of the nine observables in (22.14) commutes with four others: two in the same row, and two in the same column. However, it does not commute with the other four observables. Hence there is no reason to expect that a single value functional can assign sensible values to all nine, and indeed it cannot.

"The motivation for thinking that such a function might exist comes from the analogy provided by classical mechanics, as noted in Sec. 22.1. What the two-spin paradox shows is that at least in this respect there is a profound difference between quantum and classical physics.

p. 263: "The nonexistence of universal quantum truth functionals is not very surprising. It is simply another manifestation of the fact that quantum incompatibility makes it impossible to extend certain ideas associated with the classical notion of truth into the quantum domain. Similar problems were discussed earlier in Sec. 4.6 in connection with incompatible properties, and in Sec. 16.4 in connection with incompatible frameworks.

p. 268: "Note that quantum truth functionals form a perfectly valid procedure for analyzing histories (and properties at a single time) as long as one restricts one's attention to a single framework, a single consistent family. With this restriction, quantum truth as it is embodied in a truth functional behaves in
much the same way as classical truth. It is only when one tries to extend this concept of truth to something which applies simultaneously to different incompatible frameworks that problems arise.


--------
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/chaps/cqt27.pdf

p. 314: "For the purposes of the following discussion it is convenient to refer to the idea that there exists a unique exhaustive description as the principle of unicity, or simply unicity. This principle implies that every conceivable property of a particular physical system will be either true or false, since it either is or is not contained in, or implied by the unique exhaustive description. Thus unicity implies the existence of a universal truth functional as defined in Sec. 22.4.

"But as was pointed out in that section, there cannot be a universal truth functional for a quantum Hilbert space of dimension greater than two. This is one of several ways of seeing that quantum theory is inconsistent with the principle of unicity, so that unicity is not part of quantum reality."

-----

p. 375:


(Note: Bob Griffiths didn't comment on the Kochen-Specker diagram (see the 17 projections, p. 70, in S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, J. Math. Mech. 17 (1967) 59-87), but instead suggested "the helpful discussion of these and other results" offered by N. David Mermin. Recall that Kochen and Specker used a finite set of spin-1 observables (not spin-2, as in the case examined by Mermin). The essence of ‘the Kochen-Specker Theorem’ is the argument for nonexistence of truth functions on finite sets of projections -- nothing to do with Bell's 1966 paper (cf. p. 452, footnote 19). Bob Griffiths
is to be taken with a grain of salt. The same, of course, applies to my interpretation.  D.C.)
 


[Ref. 5] A. Tonomura et al., Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern, Am. J. Phys. 57, 117-120 (1989)


Bram Gaasbeek, Demystifying the Delayed Choice Experiments,
arXiv:1007.3977v1 [quant-ph]

p. 4: "A remark on assumptions. In the previous section, we supposed the measured observables to be conserved. This is necessary to carelessly time-translate the projection operators. The translated observable here is the idler photon measurement. This determines the beam of photon (so its momentum) and is clearly conserved."

Philip Pearle, Wavefunction Collapse and Conservation Laws,
arXiv:quant-ph/0004067v2

Philip Pearle: "... the collapse postulate of standard quantum theory can violate conservation of energy-momentum and there is no indication from where the energy-momentum comes or to where it goes."
 

Dharam Vir Singh Ahluwalia, Three Quantum Aspects of Gravity,
arXiv:gr-qc/9711075v1

p. 2: "The second observation that I wish to report here is that the collapse of a wave function is associated with the collapse of the energy-momentum tensor. Since it is the energy-momentum tensor that determines the spacetime metric, the position measurements alter the spacetime metric in a fundamental and unavoidable manner. Therefore, in the absence of external gravitating sources (which otherwise dominate the spacetime metric), it matters, in principle, in what order we make position measurements of particles [D.V. Ahluwalia, Quantum Measurement, Gravitation, and Locality, gr-qc/9308007]. Quantum mechanics and gravity intermingle in such a manner as to make position measurements non-commutative. This then brings to our attention another intrinsic element of gravity in the quantum realm, the element of non-locality."


Yuan K. Ha, Is There Unification in the 21st Century?
arXiv:1007.2873v1 [gr-qc]

pp. 8-9: "The result indicates that there is no evidence so far of any quantum nature of spacetime above the Planck length. Spacetime there (distance of 7.3 billion light years from Earth - D.C.) is smooth and continuous."
 




[Ref. 6] C J Isham, Is it true; or is it false; or somewhere in between? The logic of quantum theory, Contempory Phys., 46(3), 207-219 (2005)


 

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


Subject: Dark Energy
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:11:03 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Fred J.G. <jgfredo@gml.com>
Cc: Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman <jurekk@ift.uni.wroc.pl>,
Yi Wang <wangyi@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>,
Miao Li <mli@itp.ac.cn>,
Erik Verlinde <e.p.verlinde@uva.nl>,
CEOFOP <G.tHooft@uu.nl>,
Anthony Zee <zee@kitp.ucsb.edu>

Dear Fred,

Nice to hear from you.

> Did you read this submission from Erik Verlinde?
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

Yup. Do you know what advice Claude Shannon got from John von Neumann?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Quotations

"You should call it entropy, for two reasons. (...) In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage."

> Wiki on this fellow "Dutchman":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde

Someone (Erik Verlinde?) wrote there that "Verlinde's approach to explaining gravity apparently leads naturally to the correct observed strength of dark energy." I respectfully disagree,

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

If some day Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman, or anyone else, explains the notion of "horizon", you will hear about it from CNN Breaking News :-)

All the best,

Dimi
--
http://tinyurl.com/steel-evaporation


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


Subject: arXiv:1002.1390v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:23:05 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Gisin <nicolas.gisin@unige.ch>
Cc: hugo.zbinden@unige.ch, Mikael.Afzelius@unige.ch, Hugues.deRiedmatten@unige.ch, Robert.Thew@unige.ch,
Stefano.Pironio@unige.ch, Nicolas.Sangouard@unige.ch, Bruno.Sanguinetti@unige.ch, Jun.Zhang@unige.ch,
S.Popescu@bristol.ac.uk


N. Gisin: "Finally, one should mention that a way out of our entire argumentation is to assume the existence of one preferred universal reference frame which determines unequivocally one and only one time ordering for all events."

Welcome aboard, Nicolas Gisin. You just discovered John Bell [Ref. 1] and the legacy of Schrödinger and Margenau,

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

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

Have you ever received email from me in the past seven years?

Pity you can't respond ...

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
----

[Ref. 1] J. S. Bell, in The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics, ed. by P.C.W. Davies and Julian Russell Brown, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 49-50.

“The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now, if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time. [This] introduces great problems, paradoxes
of causality and so on. And so, it’s precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether.”

 

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


Subject: Pre-quantum dynamics, ref. [7] in arXiv:0912.2211v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:15:30 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu>
Cc: bassi@ts.infn.it

Hi Steve:

Before wrestling with the CSL model, why don't you explore first the legacy of Schrödinger and Margenau?

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

Notice that the latest reference at the link above, relevant to the modification of Quantum Theory, is from November 1950.

Latest update at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Doplicher1

Regards,

Dimi

P.S. Notice also an update at
http://tinyurl.com/steel-evaporation

D.


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


Subject: A Biased and Personal Description of GR at Syracuse University, 1951-61, by E.T. Newman
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 04:47:39 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ted <newman@pitt.edu>
Cc: tim.adamo@gmail.com, goldberg@phy.syr.edu

Ted:

Perhaps that full-time base-scientist (Josh should know his name) who was trying to understand and develop anti-gravity devices at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base [Ref. 1] will be interested to check out

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

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#H3

Perhaps a Machian-type theory of gravity can explain the origin and mechanism of (instantaneous?) inertial reaction "forces" and their reversible cancellation, so that you can levitate your "anti-gravity device".

As to the McCarthy witch-hunt period [Ref. 1]: would you turn up your collar to read the facts about 9/11?

http://tinyurl.com/steel-evaporation

People are scared to even talk about 9/11. What a sad sad country.

I wish you and your colleagues could at least elaborate on the origin and mechanism of inertial reaction "forces", but I'm afraid you won't do it either. You didn't even respond to my email regarding your lrr-2009-6 and the mythical "future conformal null infinity".

Take care,

Dimi
--

[Ref. 1] E.T. Newman (July 30, 2002 ), A Biased and Personal Description of GR at Syracuse University, 1951-61.
http://physics.syr.edu/faculty/Goldberg/GRHistory3Ted.dvi.pdf

"I point out that Wright-Patterson Air Force Base provided financial support for the Syracuse and King's College groups (among several other relativity groups) from the mid 1950s to the early 1970s - during a most productive period. A question often asked is why did they do so. Though I was not privy to any internal Air Force information, once, when I spent a three month period working at the base, a full-time base-scientist remarked to me that they hoped to be
able to understand and perhaps develop anti-gravity devices. It does seem likely that this idea played some role in their financial support.
.......

"... a few weeks after I arrived in Syracuse I saw that a well-known left-wing journalist, I.F. Stone was giving a public talk. I went to the talk but with considerable trepidation since I had come from a fairly left-wing family background and the time was at the peak of the Joe McCarthy witch-hunt period. In my mild state of paranoia I actually had my collar turned up so that I would not be recognized."

 

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


Subject: Gravity (not "gravitons") knows about everything
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:25:10 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Anthony Zee <zee@kitp.ucsb.edu>
Cc: Iain A Brown <I.Brown@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>,
Lily Schrempp <L.Schrempp@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>,
Kishore Ananda <Kishore.Ananda@gmail.com>,
Edward W Kolb <rocky.kolb@uchicago.edu>,
Lawrence M Krauss <krauss@asu.edu>,
Nima Arkani-Hamed <arkani@ias.edu>,
Paul Federbush <pfed@umich.edu>,
Ronnie Hermens <ronnie.hermens@gmail.com>


RE: Anthony Zee, Gravity and its Mysteries: Some Thoughts and Speculations, arXiv:0805.2183v2 [hep-th] http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2183

Dear Professor Zee,

I greatly enjoyed your essay. It is such a pleasure to get in touch with your sharp mind.

Regarding Secs I and VII, perhaps you may be interested to see

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

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

Since you offered the idea that the universe may be "secretly acausal but only the universe knows about it", please consider the possibility that the universe may not be "acausal" but pre-correlated (Leibnitz) and bootstrapped (Geoffrey Chew): think globally, act locally. Perhaps all we need is to model the universe as a brain,

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

You also wrote: "To move forward, physics had to abandon an apparently ironclad piece of commonsense that “where there is a wave something must be waving.” I would not be at all surprised if it turns out that to move forward, we have to abandon an equally ironclad piece of commonsense. I leave it to the reader to identify that piece."

Have you seen a walking centipede? The legs exhibit a correlated wave pattern. Perhaps only the 'universe as ONE' (global mode of spacetime) can evoke quantum "waves" -- there is no source that is "waving", in QM textbooks.

As to GWs, "we have to abandon an equally ironclad piece of commonsense", as you put it. Please see the first link above.

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

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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


Subject: An “improved” energy-momentum tensor, Eqs 41 and 42, arXiv:0911.1636v3 [gr-qc]
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:19:36 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Brian P Dolan <bdolan@thphys.nuim.ie>
Cc: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>

Dear Dr. Dolan,

I read very carefully your papers on torsion degrees of freedom, but fond it impossible to hear and follow your talk on June 10th last year, PIRSA:09060061. If you have a written version, please send me the link.

May I ask a question. Regarding your latest arXiv:0911.1636v3 [gr-qc] and your Lecture Notes MP476: Cosmology (dynamics of length scale R, p. 43), I wonder how you would pinpoint some dynamics of the so-called "dark energy".

I look at my wristwatch and claim that there is a "global" cosmological time, read by my wristwatch, such that, say, in the past 5 min the global 'length scale' R has been "increased". With respect to what? Can you introduce some Akasha-like "memory" of the whole universe, such that some (global) observer could verify that some "increase" of R has indeed happened w.r.t. some earlier value of R five min ago?

I cannot imagine how anything could be "conserved" in the cosmological time driven by such dynamical "dark" energy of (whatever). Please advise.

My efforts can be read at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#quiz

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
-------


Note:
In one sentence: if something can be 'conserved in the time read by a clock', then it will be 'observable', and won't be "dark", because its source could be traced back and identified (cf. note 3). Again, the (global) time in which something can be 'conserved' is not the (local) time read by our mischievous clocks. It is the global mode of time produced by the dynamics of 3-D space itself (cf. Fig. 2 above). Any approach based on the Hamiltonian formulation of GR is inadequate from the outset, because the intrinsic dynamics of 3-D space, produced by its "dark" energy, cannot be captured within the 3-D space itself. You can never identify some isolated system in GR, and will always be haunted by problems at "infinity" (Paul Tod, 01:19-02:05):
 


 


To clarify the problems mentioned above, I will quote from a well-known text by S. Weinberg (emphasis added), in which the notion of 'torsion' has never been mentioned, and will offer my biased, personal, and frank comments.

Steven Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, Wiley, January 1972; ISBN: 978-0-471-92567-5.

p. 68: "Although inertial forces do not exactly cancel gravitational forces for freely falling systems in an inhomogeneous or time-dependent gravitational field, we can still expect an approximate cancellation if we restrict our attention to such a small region of space and time that the field changes very little over the region. Therefore we formulate the equivalence principle as the statement that at every space-time point in an arbitrary gravitational field 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.

"There is a little vagueness here about what we mean by "the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems," so to avoid any possible ambiguity we can specify that by this we mean the form given to the laws of nature by special relativity, for example, such equations as (2.3.1), (2.7.6), (2.7.7), (2.7.9), and (2.8.7).

"There is also a question of how small is "sufficiently small." Roughly speaking, we mean that the region must be small enough so that the gravitational field is sensibly constant throughout it, but we cannot be more precise until we learn how to represent the gravitational field mathematically. (See the end of Section 4.1.)"

p. 93 (the end of Section 4.1): "There are in general many generally covariant equations that reduce to a given special-relativistic equation in the absence of gravitation. However, because we only apply the Principle of General Covariance on a small scale compared with the scale of the gravitational field, we usually expect that it is only g_mv and its first derivatives that enter our generally covariant equations. With this understanding we shall see in this and the next
chapter that the Principle of General Covariance makes an unambiguous statement about the effects of gravitational fields on any system, or part of a system, that is sufficiently small."

Comment (D.C.): This isn't any mathematical treatment of "sufficiently small". This is pure poetry, spiced with math.

......

p. 106: "Write the appropriate special-relativistic equations that hold in the absence of gravitation, replace n_mv with g_mv and replace all derivatives with covariant derivatives. The resulting equations will be generally covariant and true in the absence of gravitation, and therefore, according to the Principle of General Covariance, they will be true in the presence of gravitational fields, provided always that we work on a space-time scale sufficiently small compared with the scale of the gravitational field."

Comment (D.C.): Such kind of thinking is typical to people like CEOFOP.

..........

p. 149: "Although a freely falling particle appears to be at rest in a coordinate frame falling with the particle, a pair of nearby freely falling particles will exhibit a relative motion (Sic! - D.C.) that can reveal the presence of a gravitational field to an observer that falls with them. This is of course not a violation of the Principle of Equivalence, because the effect of the right-hand side of (6.10.1) becomes negligible when the separation between particles is much less than the characteristic dimensions of the field."

Comment (D.C.): Pure poetry, again.
......

See pp. 146-147, The Bianchi Identities (6.8.4), and also 'The Cauchy Problem', p. 164:

"Thus we cannot learn anything about the time evolution of the gravitational field from the four equations {XXX} (7.5.1). Rather, these equations must be imposed as constraints on the initial data, ... ."

Comment (D.C.): Typical non sequitur. Besides, the Cauchy problem for the Einstein equations cannot be resolved: the global behavior of solutions of Einstein's equations cannot be uniquely defined (cf. Paul Tod's metaphysics at 01:19-02:05, and the discussion of angular momentum at 46:22-46:35).
......

p. 166, Eq. (7.6.7): "the total energy-momentum "tensor" of matter and gravitation" is "locally conserved."

Comment (D.C.): YAIN!  It has to be "locally conserved", but only in the 'local mode of spacetime'; see Fig. 1 above.

.......

p. 155: "The term [lambda]g_mv was originally introduced by Einstein for cosmological reasons (which have since disappeared); for this reason, [lambda] is called the cosmological constant. This term satisfies the requirements (A), (C), and (D), but does not satisfy (E), so [lambda] must be very small so as not to interfere with the successes of Newton's theory of gravitation. Except in Chapter 16 (cf. "the scale factor R(t)", p. 613 - D.C.), I am assuming throughout this book that [lambda] = 0."

Comment (D.C.): After the discovery of the "dark" energy in the fall of 1997, Steven Weinberg didn't re-examine the source of the problem: you get "dark" energy because you presume that it comes from stuff with positive energy density, but if you focus on the puzzle of the physical existence of one "charge" only, you may discover the mechanism by which we see only positive energy densities, and not 'torsion connection' in GR. It should be "dark", of course.

Regarding the dynamics of "the scale factor R(t)", and the meaning of the variable  t  therein, see my email and Fig. 2 above.

But as Chris Isham said eight years ago, ... (no comment).


D. Chakalov
April 27, 2010


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


Subject: Curvature energy vs torsion energy, arXiv:1006.2154v1 [gr-qc], p. 4
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:29:02 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mamdouh Wanas <wanas@frcu.eun.eg>
Cc: [snip]

Dear Dr. Wanas,

May I ask two questions. You wrote, in your latest arXiv:1006.2154v1 [gr-qc], that torsion energy has "a pure geometric origin", and "follows a conservation law, similar to that of the curvature energy (for details see reference [7])".

I looked at ref. [7], Eq. 22 in your arXiv:0705.2255v1 [gr-qc], which deals with "the second Bianchi Identity", and hence cannot understand the *source* of the torsion energy.

Would you consider the other "charge" of mass, along the lines of Hermann Bondi (Negative Mass in General Relativity, Reviews of Modern Physics 29 (1957) 423)? Can you suggest a mechanism by which we can observe only positive mass, hence the physical source of torsion energy is not traceable in GR, and its origin looks like "a pure geometric origin"?

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
 

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


Subject: If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, ...
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:06:42 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Brian Dolan <bdolan@thphys.nuim.ie>
Cc: Sachiko Tsuruta <sachiko@physics.montana.edu>,
Dana Backman <dbackman@sofia.usra.edu>,
Alexander Potekhin <palex@astro.ioffe.ru>

Brian P. Dolan (September 21, 2010), Lecture Notes MP476: Cosmology, Sec. 3.1 Cosmological Constant, p. 45: "In General Relativity R is not a radial co-ordinate,  it is a length scale determining the physical size of lengths in 3-dimensional space. If R = R(t) then when ˙R > 0 space is said to be expanding while when ˙R < 0 space is contracting. We can interpret R as the physical distance between any two fixed galaxies, provided their separation is of the order of 100M Pc, or
more."
http://www.thphys.may.ie/Notes/MP467/Cosmology-Lectures.pdf



Dear Brian,

Regarding the quote from your Lecture Notes, please recall that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may not be necessarily a duck ("the physical distance between any two fixed galaxies"). Details in Sec. Summary, pp. 35-36, at

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

I also mentioned your Lecture Notes and articles by your colleagues at

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

All the best,

Dimi


On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Brian Dolan <bdolan@thphys.nuim.ie> wrote:
>
> Dear Luca and Dimi,
>
> Thanks for your e-mails.
[snip]
 

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

Comments on Jean-Philippe Uzan
 

1. Jean-Philippe Uzan, Les distances de l’univers, Conférence grand public, conseil général de Saint-Brieuc, 18 novembre 2008

The crucial question: à quelle distance? The answer by Jean-Philippe Uzan:



2. Jean-Philippe Uzan, Dark energy, gravitation and the Copernican principle, arXiv:0912.5452v1 [gr-qc]

2.1. "The cosmological principle supposes that the Universe is spatially isotropic and homogeneous. In particular, this implies that there exists a privileged class of observers, called fundamental observers, who all see an isotropic universe around them. It implies the existence of a cosmic time and states that all the properties of the universe are the same everywhere at the same cosmic time. It is supposed to hold for the smooth-out structure of the Universe on large scales.

"We can distinguish it from the Copernican principle which merely states that we do not live in a special place (the center) of the Universe. As long as isotropy around the observer holds, the principle actually leads to the same conclusion than the cosmological principle."

2.1. Comment: Regarding 'fundamental observers', see Eq. 1 on p. 35 here. In the words of Paul Valery, "God made everything out of nothing, but the nothingness shows through."

As to the Copernican principle, recall the old wisdom that the universe looks like an unbroken ring with no circumference, for the circumference is nowhere, and the "center" is everywhere. The topology of such universe is unknown, of course.

2.2. Regarding Sec. 1.1.7, 'The equation of state of dark energy'

Jean-Philippe Uzan: "The equation of state of the dark energy is obtained from the expansion history, assuming the standard Friedmann equation."

2.2. Comment: Perhaps we could rely on the "expansion history" if only we knew the variable denoted by  t  in R = R(t) from Brian Dolan above. The problems are enormous.

2.3. Jean-Philippe Uzan, p. 41: "At the moment, none of these three possibilities is satisfactory, mainly because it forces us to speculate on scales much beyond those of the observable universe."

2.3. Comment: See the answer to the crucial question above. If you employ Archimedean geometry only, there is nothing at your disposal to define ds & dt and 'the grin of the cat without the cat' (Alice).
 

3. Jean-Philippe Uzan, Varying constants, Gravitation and Cosmology, arXiv:1009.5514v1 [astro-ph.CO]

3.1. Regarding Sec. 7.2 (pp. 104-105), Jean-Philippe Uzan wrote (p. 103): "The numerical values of the fundamental constants are not determined by the laws of nature in which they appear."

3.1. Comment: In the same vein, the source of "dynamic dark energy" cannot be located inside the very thing it produces: 3-D space. I tried to explain the puzzle to my teenage daughter here; details and implications here.

Final comments: Previously, I tried to contact Jean-Philippe Uzan on Fri, 06 Jun 2003 15:19:29 +0300; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:39:48 +0200; and Thu, 18 May 2006 14:50:21 +0300. My last effort was made yesterday, regarding his review on varying "constants". We don't need any anthropic parapsychology: check out Pauli's solution from 1948 quoted here, and Eq. 2 on p. 36 here.

This is just business; nothing personal. I could be totally wrong, too.


D. Chakalov
September 30, 2010

 

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


Subject: Re: An “improved” energy-momentum tensor, Eqs 41 and 42, arXiv:0911.1636v3 [gr-qc]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:13:26 +0300
Message-ID:
<l2sbed37361004290713r38b53e76m874be358e208959@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Brian Dolan <bdolan@thphys.nuim.ie>
Cc: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>,
Graham Nerlich <Graham.Nerlich@adelaide.edu.au>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

Dear Brian,

Thanks for your reply.

> Weinberg does not mention it for a very good reason ---
> there is no known source of matter that produces any
> appreciable torsion that could affect the Friedmann
> equation and influence gravitational dynamics, it is
> simply too weak. That is why it usually ignored.

I believe have discussed, at the link sent in my initial email, the problem with the so-called "dark" energy. Its origin may not be confined exclusively to some (i) matter source with (ii) positive energy density (as usually done in the old cosmological problem by addressing the question of whether the quantum vacuum "gravitates", by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930s).

The "dark" energy may be of geometrical origin; hence my interest in the origin of torsion effects.

If we zoom on the affine structure (cf. Graham Nerlich below), I believe one can speculate about two "dark" components (global mode of spacetime), which I call 'torsion' and 'curvature' components of the affine connection. Please note that such two-component affine connection is postulated to explain how some Hausdorff topological space gets "connected" and can be endowed with differentiable structure.

In other words, all this is postulated prior to GR textbooks and review articles on torsion (e.g., how tangent spaces twist about a curve when they are "parallel transported"). It's all about the purely geometric connection "between" (=global mode of spacetime) points; please see Fig. 2 at

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

The putative 'torsion component of the affine connection' may be envisaged by replacing the drawing from Wiki (cf. 'Torsion along a geodesic')

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

with the *cycle* of Escher hands,

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

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

It's a whole new ball game "between" the points of the manifold: the curvature component of the affine connection pertains to the "bridge" between two adjacent points on a 'line', while the torsion component of the affine connection refers to this same "bridge" between two adjacent points, made by a 'cycle' (cf. above). It's the topology of the "bridge" that makes the difference between the two components of the affine connection.

In some ludicrously fictional "flat" (Minkowski) space, these two components of the affine connection should be "flattened", hence made indistinguishable, which would in turn obliterate the affine connection itself.

Going back to the mundane affairs of GR: people read at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Cartan_theory

"General relativity set the affine torsion to zero, because it did not appear necessary to provide a model of gravitation (with a consistent set of equations that led to a well-defined initial value problem)."

Do you believe that GR can eventually produce *any* 'well-defined initial value problem' ? If you do, please show me one example of solved Cauchy problem for the Einstein equations.

All the best,

Dimi
------

Note: Let me quote from an alternative viewpoint [Ref. 1], in which the KS Theorem and Free Will Theorem haven't been mentioned. Notice that your brain has no choice but to follow its states, which are fixed in the "past, present and future all at once." All this explained with lots of advanced math. Enjoy!

D.C.
April 30, 2010


[Ref. 1] Joseph Andrew Spencer, James T. Wheeler, The existence of time, arXiv:0811.0112v2 [gr-qc].

Footnote 1, p. 1: "S. Lloyd tells the amusing anecdote[?], “I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder. I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’

"Indeed, the standard second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the radiation from the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
......

p. 30: "In general relativity, for example, we have an initial value formulation, but can also find global solutions. In the initial value formulation, we can specify the configuration of the world at a given time, then integrate forward to predict how things will evolve. However, in the case of a global solution such as a cosmological model, we are presented a complete description of past, present and future all at once. In this view, the outcomes of measurements are already fixed.

"The best we can do is to think of consciousness as sequentially illuminating certain fixed events, then others, with all the events already right there in the solution."


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

Subject: Re: torsion
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 00:45:55 +0300
Delivered-To: dchakalov@gmail.com
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Brian Dolan <bdolan@thphys.nuim.ie>
Cc: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>,
Graham Nerlich <Graham.Nerlich@adelaide.edu.au>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

Hi Brian,

On Sat, 1 May 2010 14:00:41 +0100 (IST), you wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>>
>> The "dark" energy may be of geometrical origin; hence my interest in
>> the origin of torsion effects.
>
> I guess this comes down to the old chicken and egg problem on Einstein's
> equations, which Einstein himself was not happy about.
> The geometry is determined by the matter distribution, but you
> need the geometry to specify the matter distribution. This is
> just as true in the Einstein-Cartan formulation as in the
> original Einstein formulation.

I think the chicken-and-egg problem and the so-called Buridan donkey paradox

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

encapsulate the *paradox* of time in GR, as a relational/background-free theory: "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at the same time - D.) affected by, the other fields" (John Baez). This paradox is depicted by Escher hands,

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

Hence the dynamics of GR cannot be resolved with the unsolved puzzle of 'time in GR'. It is not surprising to me that people cannot define some 'gravitational energy' that would be conserved in such paradoxical time, and in the case of the Einstein equations alone, "there are no physically motivated boundary conditions" (Alan Rendall). Which brings me to the discussion with Laszlo regarding the precise meaning of his statement that any observable of the gravitational field is "necessarily quasi-local",

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2009-4/articlese1.html#x4-10001

I believe the solution proposed at my web site is based on the only possible option for resolving this bundle of issues, because it seems to me that it solves other "quasi-local" paradoxes as well,

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

> I think you have a specific idea about the geometry in mind,
> involving torsion, that comes from a geometric principle.

It's actually a pre-geometric principle,

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

> If so that should translate into a statement about matter which,
> assuming it has observational consequences, could be tested.
> Historically I think people have worked the other way --- they look for
> types of matter that might give torsion and all the known
> candidates seem to give negligible torsion. If you have
> a geometrical principle in mind that makes torsion significant
> that would surely have observational consequences?

My "theory" is assembled on most general level. I cannot derive quantitative predictions, so it's far too early to say anything conclusive about the "dark" geometric effects of torsion.

Moreover, please bear in mind that everything I've written on my web site could be wrong. After all, I'm just a psychologist,

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

Best regards,

Dimi
------------

Note: Regarding "a statement about matter which, assuming it has observational consequences, could be tested": use your brain to test 'potential reality' here, and check out the UNdecidable quantum state here. It's not about type I matter fields. It's all about quantum gravity.

Pity Brian Dolan didn't have time to check out the links. Your wristwatch does read the standard second defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the radiation from the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom" (reference above). If you apply here GR, "points become fuzzy and locality looses any precise meaning", says Sergio Doplicher. Hence your wristwatch reads a finite time interval, called 'second', based on the miraculously precise timing of the cesium 133 atom. Moreover, the fact that "it is possible to look around, and see as far as we can" (Lee Smolin) is another mystery that GR cannot explain either.

The mystery of these finite intervals of time and space, comprised of infinitely many and infinitely small "points", is the subject of the so-called Scale Relativity Principle (SRP) outlined below. Central to SRP is the hypothetical pre-geometric plenum, which is supposed to act as a connecting-and-separating object that does not belong to this perfectly smooth set of "points". Hence we may describe an emergent and perfect continuum of "points", called 'local mode of spacetime': please see Fig. 1 above. That's 'law and order' at all length scales, from the Planck scale to the sliding cosmological "horizon". Pity nobody is interested.

"just another crank" D.C.

May 2, 2010
Last update: May 3, 2010

 


 






 

Scale Relativity Principle: Equation of Space

 


Final version is expected on 25 November 2015,
commemorating the 100th anniversary of GR
(joint work by Levi-Civita, Einstein, and Hilbert)


Abstract
 
It is argued that the Hamiltonian formulation of GR cannot address the dynamics of space due to its "dark" energy from the quantum vacuum, hence new degrees of freedom should be introduced to the dynamics of space -- an arrow of space. The scope of 'scale relativity principle' (SRP), announced on 21 September 2008, is to introduce "boundaries" on spacetime, such that an isolated system endowed with 'finite infinity' can be constructed. The ontological assumptions in SRP are about 'necessary and sufficient conditions for spacetime': the former concerns physical substratum (positive energy density), while the latter condition refers to a global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean state of the whole universe as ONE.
-------

 


[Excerpts from the 3rd draft version, 2 August 2010]


Let me start with a quiz: Look at the two pictures below and tell the essential difference.

 


 


 

Yes, you got it right: the first picture is a negative image from the original.

You may also say that, unlike Chuck Norris, those people at NASA, who offer a meta-observer view on the "expanding" 3-D space, use lots of math, but that doesn't really matter, because the essential similarity is that both images are jokes. Back in 1963, Roger Penrose offered a recipe for reaching infinity from any location in space, which was also a joke, although spiced with lots of math.
............

Here's the problem of "more space". Some prelims from GR textbooks: unlike STR, the spacetime in GR textbooks is considered "dynamical", such that, to follow a well-know metaphor, the "actors" (matter) and the "stage" (spacetime) engage in a non-linear negotiation (Escher's hands): "Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve" (John Wheeler). But notice that, unlike GR textbooks, the non-linear negotiation between the two sides of Einstein equation is interpreted here as "taking place" in the global mode of spacetime endowed with additional spatial degrees of freedom from the arrow of space.

We all agree that 'time' is no longer a fixed background parameter, but the global mode of time, in which the non-linear negotiation of geometry of spacetime vs. matter "takes place", cannot be read by any wristwatch from GR textbooks. This produces a plethora of "times" in GR textbooks, but "these definitions of time are in general unphysical, in that they provide no hint as to how their time might be measured or registered" (Butterfield and Isham). Here, all these "times" constitute the "eternally present" all time [tau] (Karel Kuchar).
.............

To elucidate the second major difference in treating the 'tangent vectors', recall that in GR textbooks you are invited to take the same meta-observer, bird's-eye view on the whole spacetime as in the NASA picture above: to explain the alleged "curvature" of spacetime, "it is easy to see it in a 2-dimensional surface, like a sphere. The sphere fits nicely in 3-dimensional flat Euclidean space, so we can visualize vectors on the sphere as 'tangent vectors'" (John Baez). Then you've been taught by Bob Wald "to work infinitesimally, using the idea that, on sufficiently small scales (this notion certainly needs clarification in the context of Thompson lamp - D.C.), a curved geometry looks very nearly flat (notice the poetry - D.C.). These departures from flatness can then be described via differential calculus. To do so, one begins by introducing the notion of a tangent vector to describe an infinitesimal displacement about a point  p ." The major differences to the interpretation offered here are in the following. Regarding John Baez, the local mode of spacetime is not embedded in any "higher-dimensional flat spacetime", but in an infinite-dimensional purely geometric manifold (called here 'global mode of spacetime'). Hence 'the infinitesimal' is indeed equipped with 'tangent vectors', but they all "point" to the global mode of spacetime -- not to the local mode.

The new (to GR textbooks) "direction", resulting from the very "expansion" of space due to "dark" energy, is not the mythical foliation time orthogonal to the three Hamiltonian components that are somehow "tangential" to all hypersurfaces (cf. Kiefer and Sandhöfer below).


 

The new "direction" from the "dark" energy is non-existent in ADM presentation, since it pertains to the 'absolute time' of the 'absolute structures'. Small wonder Karel Kuchar couldn't dig it out from present-day GR: you have a plethora of unphysical "times" from the foliation recipe, and no reference fluid (global mode of spacetime), which makes you 'eternity blind' (John G. Bennett).

The crucial "direction" of the so-called "expansion" of space due to the "dark" energy from empty space (Lawrence Krauss) requires a brand new dynamics of GR. In GR textbooks, the flexibility of space is limited to its "curvature" only, and, if you manage to compute a linearized snapshot from Einstein's filed equation, you inevitably end up with a frozen "block" spacetime: "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes" (Robert Geroch). Then the new dynamics of spacetime, due to the "dark" energy, can only spring from something "outside" (the local mode of) spacetime. That is, from "outside" both sides in the Einstein equation -- the global mode of spacetime. It literally creates both "more space" (cf. R. Rakhi & K. Indulekha and S. Carroll above) and "more matter".

The proper dynamics of 'GR with DDE' cannot be unitary. Enter the puzzle of "points": the perpetually re-created world of facts (local mode of spacetime) and its ultimate source 'the ideal monad without windows' (Döring and Isham) contain uncountably infinite points ('the set of all sets', maybe). The cardinality of such "set" (if any) is not even aleph-0. Once created by The Beginning, the local mode of spacetime is wrapped by its special "boundaries" (see SRP below), such that the 3-D space of the local mode is de facto infinite (dual age cosmology).
...........

NB: These so-called points are a special non-Archimedean entity. It was Lucretius who pointed out the unknown mechanism by which these "points" build up any finite domain of space. The task of revealing some pre-geometric plenum which "connects" these non-Archimedean "points" was missed by Felix Hausdorff and Roger Penrose, to name but a few.
............

On the other hand, the 3-D Flatlanders (local mode of spacetime) will only notice that the two 'ideal endpoints' or "edges" of the local mode of spacetime (denoted with S and L, see below) have acquired some 'numerically finite but physically unattainable values' (one of which is the Planck scale), and will recall the old idea that the universe looks like an unbroken ring with no circumference, for the circumference is nowhere, and the "center" is everywhere.

But they will also notice some puzzling "projection" from the dark energy, cast on the 3-D space, just as they can notice, and indeed measure, the "projection" of space curvature, cast on the 3-D space (see Larry Krauss, p. 12). While we don't know the nature of gravity, we are accustomed from GR textbooks to treat it as 'curvature of spacetime', although it shows up more like 'deviation of something from something else that might be "flat" but you can't tell, because you have only one "flat" point'.

The "projection" from "dark" energy, cast on 3-D space, is just as weird and misleading as the 'curvature of space', yet it bothers people much more than the puzzling nature of gravity (the latter has to disappear on "points", so you have only one "flat" point as a reference object for "curvature").

People from NASA may ask, what kind of stuff is "expanding", creating the illusion (see also the misleading picture below) about galaxies "running away" from each other, in line with the Hubble Law?

Wrong question. In the local mode of spacetime, nothing could possibly "expand" or be "curved". The actual illusion is that something is "expanding" (or "curved"). It is the illusion from NASA's meta-observer view.

NB: All such illusions, the absolute structure of space included, should be eliminated by proper relativistic presentations, such that the sole invariant object in space will be an infinitesimal "point". Its 3-D projection or "shadow" does look like a "point", but upon a closer view it unveils its infinite-dimensional nature.

The picture below (as well as the one from NASA above) can only be seen by some meta-observer, who can also see the whole universe, and of course count to infinity (like Chuck Norris). The 3-D Flatlanders can't.



 

Such kind of illusionary "expansion" (much like the "curvature" of space) may be caused by some 3-D "projection" from something, maybe some process or mechanism, which takes place in the global mode of spacetime. How about the old idea of the mutual penetration of the Large and the Small?

Perhaps Einstein would only look at my efforts and say ... well, he was a very polite person. But because he also was, on some occasions, driven solely by his personal taste and instinct, rather than sound physical principles [Note 1], let me try to follow his style.

On 21 September 2008, I suggested a scale relativity principle (SRP) aimed at explaining the nature of space (don't confuse it with Laurent Nottale's scale relativity). If we are to think as proper relativists, I believe we should abandon the absolute structure of 3-D space in today's GR [Note 2], and work out new symmetry presentations of The Large and The Small.

I also admit that SRP is direct prediction of my theory, hence if it turns out to wrong, so will be my whole project, as started in January 1972.

I believe physical objects can be considered "large" bzw. "small" only with respect to the macroscopic length scale of tables and chairs. If a volume of space changes its size toward 'the Large/Small', the metric of space in 'the Large/Small' will be altered accordingly, in such way that the "size" of objects in that sphere or volume will remain unchanged in the volume-determined reference frames of 'the Large/Small', yet will continue to look 'Large/Small' in the initial macroscopic scale frame of classical mechanics. The idea of SRP involves (i) an omnipresent observer (Claudia) endowed with 'the eternally present all time [tau]' (Karel Kuchar), (ii) space inversion producing CPT-invariant presentations of 'volume of space', and (iii) macroscopic observer located at the length scale of classical mechanics, from which the postulated mutual penetration of the Large and the Small starts to unfold.

We have three possible views on 'the length of objects' in 3-D space. First, the viewpoint of a macroscopic observer who can simultaneously see (i) 'the Large' as an expanding volume of space, and herself being located inside such expanding sphere, and (ii) 'the Small' as contracting volume of space, and herself being located outside such contracting sphere.

Consider a table with length two meters, located inside a sphere with diameter two meters, along with the macroscopic observer inside this sphere. If the table is stretching toward the size of a galaxy, it will look like 'getting larger' to the first observer, but its intrinsic length will always remain "two meters" to a co-moving observer in its scale-dependent reference frame evolving toward 'the Large'. The co-moving observer will never, in no circumstances, register any change of the length of the table, as her metric also expands with the same rate as the expanding table toward 'the Large'. Likewise for the journey toward 'the Small': take the first observer and the two-meter sphere at macro-scale, perform space inversion, and now the CPT mirror image (like turning a rubber glove inside-out) of the macro-observer will find out that she is now located outside a contracting sphere, as the table is now running toward the Planck scale, yet a co-moving observer will again see "her" table as keeping its intrinsic length of 'two meters' in her scale-dependent reference frame toward 'the Small'. This is the 'second view'.

And the third view is that of a fixed meta-observer (global mode of spacetime), who will see a table stretched to the size of a galaxy, a table at the initial macroscopic length scale, and a table squeezed to the size of an atom, all of which possessing 'the same UNdecidable (KS-like) length'.

Now, one can offer an operational definition of 'infinitesimal volume of 3-D space' in the local mode of spacetime (in ADM presentation, cf. B. Bolen, it is denoted with ds). Imagine an omnipresent observer being "spread" inside an 3-D Euclidean sphere -- except for the center. She looks at the point-like center of the sphere from infinitely many directions (radii) -- simultaneously.

But the center of the sphere is not a bona fide mathematical point -- it is an 'infinitesimal', such that one can treat it as 'the smallest possible rubber glove' and perform CPT space inversion, by replacing (not 'reversing', as in Wu-Ki Tung's textbook, Ch. 11) all "points" inside 'the infinitesimal rubber glove' with all points outside it, that is, with all points of Claudia. Notice that we cannot use quantitative notions like 'more' and 'less' regarding any "number" of points -- neither those of Claudia nor those inside 'the smallest possible rubber glove'. Were the 'infinitesimal' an abstract mathematical point, the operation 'space inversion/replacement' would be impossible, and then there would be two opposite and privileged views on 'the Small' and 'the Large', and the latter would be 'absolute qualities of space', just like in GR textbooks.

Thus, an operational definition of 'infinitesimal volume of 3-D space' is that which permits space inversion at (i) the minimal, hence infinitesimal, volume of space (S) and (ii) an arbitrarily large (inverse-proportional to S) volume of space (L).

Now an omnipresent observer can simultaneously "see" the very same center of the sphere (infinitesimal volume of 3-D space, S) in a space turned "inside out" as well; one could perhaps say that she is "residing" at two superposed inverted states of 3-D space, as she is able to see both S from L and L from S -- simultaneously. She is not restricted (as we are) to choose one of the 'views'. She is placed at S = L, and is wrapping the whole (seemingly "expanding", according to the first macroscopic observer above) 3-D space en bloc.
............
 

It doesn't matter whether this shrinking or expanding is (or is not) "accelerated": either way, the "number" of points is a non-Archimedean notion that cannot be subject to quantitative evaluations like 'more' vs. 'less'.

What matters is that the good old 3-D space has just been re-created, like a Phoenix Universe, along the arrow of space. The mechanism is the same as in The Beginning, but without the initial "inflationary stage" -- just an elementary step of the arrow of spacetime and an elementary increment of the memory of 'the universe as a brain', which leads to "more points" being emerged in its memory, available to choose from in the next elementary step: the universe only gets smarter, richer in terms of physical content, and more flexible, just like an evolving brain. If some day [John 1:1] decides to halt the arrow of spacetime, the UNdecidable nature of 'the infinitesimal' will be nullified, the Thompson's lamp paradox will suddenly become solvable, the number of "points" will become denumerable (e.g., there will be roughly 1099 "atoms of volume" in every cubic centimeter of space, as claimed by L. Smolin, p. 61), and the 3-D space will cease to exist. From our viewpoint, such development is logically impossible (the vacuum cleaner paradox).
...........
 

The global mode of time runs simultaneously in opposite directions -- in all possible directions in 3-D space -- which will make her (and ours) unanimated wristwatch dead frozen, like the proper time of a photon "between" emission-and-absorption; see Kevin Brown. (This is the exact meaning of 'Your Global Time is ZERO', which was posted on this web site on March 14, 2004, to commemorate Einstein's 125th birthday; see the atemporal "handshaking" medium above.)

Such symmetry over 'space inversion' and the two "superposed" inverted views of Claudia (needed for derivation of three views on 'the length of objects' in 3-D space; see above) reveal the sole invariant object in 3-D space -- the infinitesimal volume of 3-D space, called "point".
...........

After this shaky exercise with the sole invariant object in space, called "point", we need to explain the two 'scale factors' (for the lack of better terms), which create 3-D space: S (from Small) and L (from Large). S refers to 'the infinitesimal point', and L to 'the maximal yet finite volume of an ever-expanding 3-D space'.

We postulate: LS = 1 . This is the recipe for a natural "boundary" (cf. G F R Ellis' Finite Infinity) imposed on L due to the "extension" of the infinitesimal "point" S .

If we think of The Beginning as the case in which L equals exactly S (L = S = 1), we can understand the "inflationary stage" in which a tiny little difference between L and S is being introduced by [John 1:1], after which the two scale factors will run in opposite directions, to produce 3-D space tightly filled -- perfect continuum -- with infinitesimals  S  and bounded by an "expanding diameter"  L . Now Claudia will be placed in the global mode of spacetime -- both inside S  and outside L . She will be able to "see" the whole (infinitely-connected, by Claudia) local mode of spacetime en bloc, and her global mode of time will be just like that of our brains: an atemporal and infinite-dimensional "handshaking" medium by which each and every infinitesimal  S  is simultaneously correlated -- the 'absolute now' of Claudia -- with 'the rest of the universe', as depicted in the Escher drawing below. And since their EPR-like correlation is "spanned over" an infinitesimal "point", in the local mode we will see the blueprint from quantum waves and relic inflationary waves, yet their source will be inevitably "dark". (In order to detect quantum waves "online", one would have to perform a perfect non-demolition measurement avoiding any point-like collapse, by screening the quasi-local wave over extended 3-D domains.)

Notice that Escher's hands can be moved only by an arrow of space, not with the kinematics of L and S alone.



 


Briefly, we can think of The Beginning as some "absolute vacuum polarization" (not necessarily irreversible), and suggest an equation of space:
 

L = S = 1 (John 1:1 ) -->  LS = 1


The equation above contains reference to The Gospel, but I believe St. John wouldn't mind to be removed by those obsessed with different religions, such as anti-theism or "agnosticism" (those who deeply believe, for the lack of scientific proof, that there is nothing to believe in).


In summary, the elementary building block of geometry, presented with a geometrical "point" (explanation and drawings here), is supposed to be 'at the same time' a space-inverted image of 'the whole universe' at  L , and vice versa. An omnipresent observer in the global mode of spacetime (the two "superposed copies" of Claudia) will be able to monitor all the "points" in the whole 3-D space en bloc, since it is ONE single object,  L = S . Our "Claudia" is nothing but the postulated Aristotelian Connection, which binds all "points" by/via their space-inverted image at the level of ONE (the whole universe at  L ).

This is the pre-geometric plenum, which is still missing in differential geometry textbooks. Consider, for example, Chris Isham's Modern Differential Geometry for Physicists, 2nd ed., in which you are advised that the Hausdorff topological space has been somehow "connected" (p. 61, footnote 1; see also Sec. 1.2.1, p. 3, and pp. 59-60 and Fig. 2.1 therein). It is unclear what sort of pre-geometric plenum could do this job. Think of it as 'the universe as ONE', which is being multiplied as infinitely many (uncountably infinite) geometrical "points" ensuing from 'the ideal monad without windows' (Döring and Isham), in such way that all "points" are connected and correlated by/via 'the universe as ONE' at  L = S .

This is a very old idea 'all is in all', which I am trying to cast in some (relatively) comprehensible scale relativity principle (SRP). There are no "genuine" nor "absolute" dimensions of physical bodies, according to SRP. The spatial relations of 3-D space -- inside/outside and left/right -- should originate from a four-segment "lily" spacetime diagram of the global mode of spacetime (notice the fav icon of this web site). Once such four-segment spacetime diagram is properly constructed (we also have to explain rotation symmetry), we should be able to calculate the cancellation of 'all but one' potential states of quantum-gravitational systems, hence show the correlated states that build up the local mode of spacetime, valid for only one frozen snapshot from Die Bahn.

The frozen snapshot from the "film reel" (the arrow of spacetime) will display an already-correlated set of point-like values of all physical variables, in line with the Bootstrap Principle 'think globally, act locally'. The atemporal (with regard to our unanimated wristwatches) correlation "takes place" in Claudia's global mode of spacetime. She is residing in (L = S), and her two "superposed copies", toward L and toward S, contain uncountably infinite "number" of classical-able states from which one correlated and re-created physical universe is being explicated as 'local mode of spacetime': one-at-a-time, along the arrow of spacetime.

Notice, however, that the direction of the arrow of spacetime points only and exclusively only to the global mode of spacetime, but the latter is totally hidden in the local mode: the "dark gaps" are completely sealed off by 'the speed of light', rendering the local mode a perfect continuum.

Another important feature of SRP is the difference between L and S in their postulated relation  LS = 1 : while  S  is "bounded from below" by a geometric "point", the ever-expanding "horizon" of space is bounded by an entirely different geometric object, which is (sort of) 'inverse-proportional' to a geometric "point". Although the "number" of points needed for L and S to 'pass through' in order to reach the exact relation  LS = 1  is indecisive in the local mode of spacetime, there is nevertheless a difference between the "run" toward  S  and the "run" toward  L , which determines the asymmetry of time. After all, in the global mode of spacetime the age of the universe is finite, such that any "run" towards it will have a fixed cut off at The Beginning, while the "end" of the cosmological time is indecisive, which in turn permits the evolution of 'the universe as a brain'.

NB: Notice the nature of the cut off toward  S : it cannot be reached from within the local mode of spacetime due to the inherent teleological structure of 'the world of facts'. This truly fundamental cut off can only be "seen" from the global mode of 'the whole universe as ONE', hence it is considered to be the Aristotelian First Cause. Its action is called The Aristotelian Connection. It acts without being 'acted upon'. Its job is to cast point-like values of physical quantities at the level of 'geometry' -- the grin of the cat without the cat, as Alice would have said regarding the left-hand side of Einstein equation.
 


 

And because The Aristotelian Connection produces not just one "point" (as in the Thompson Lamp paradox) but an infinite "number" (uncountably infinite) of such purely geometrical "points" -- simultaneously, with zero duration according to your wristwatch -- it connects these "points" of the local mode of spacetime as a pre-geometric plenum. It is also the ultimate 'chooser' of particular physical content that would belong to particular geometrical "point": due to the correlation and negotiation (cf. Escher) in the global mode of spacetime of all potential physical content available to the local mode, the 'chooser' of the particular physical content specifying any particular "point" is 'everything else in the universe'. The end result is the cancellation of 'all but one' state from the spectrum of potential states available to the particular "point" to choose from, and we get the local mode of already-correlated facts -- one-at-a-time, along Die Bahn (the arrow of space).

Nobody and nothing "plays dice" here: God casts the die, not the dice. The inherent flexibility (not "uncertainty") of all spacetime points to get dressed with specific physical content is like the flexibility of the human arm to perform any movement. Surely there are constraints, boundary conditions, conservation laws, etc., yet the flexibility of all "points" to choose from their quantum-gravitational spectrum of potential states (God's "die" or rather 'matrix') can never be reduced to zero. For example, Heisenberg's relations can be interpreted as the flexibility of a quantum particle to choose from a spectrum of potential states: if its potential states regarding its next 'position' get shrunk, it will have a corresponding larger spectrum of potential states regarding its next 'momentum' to choose from. Of course, if you "filter" this quantum flexibility through the spacetime of STR, you may claim that it is impossible for a quantum particle to possess simultaneously point-like values of "complementary" observables. But again, these values need not be point-like. They can be perfectly well-defined yet quasi-local. The idea of 'wave-particle dualism' may be correct for QM measurements, but nobody knows, for example, how would an electron look like in an intact quantum world: if it is not forced to behave like a point-like particle since it isn't being "observed" at the length scale of tables and chairs, how would its "wave" look like? Perhaps the quantum "wave" of an intact electron pertains to its quantum flexibility.

Going back to the pre-geometric plenum: perhaps the asymmetry of time is determined by the asymmetry of space, namely, by the difference between the two "runs" toward  L  and  S , bounded by their relation  LS = 1 . All efforts to derive the fundamental asymmetry of time from some physical stuff or 'entropy' are doomed to fail, because such fundamental feature of spacetime can only be determined by 'the grin of the cat without the cat'.

Also, our wristwatches [Note 3] are perfect examples for quantum-gravitational measuring devices, as they can in fact read one 'dynamical instant' from Claudia's absolute time since The Beginning, but because we can "look" at this dynamical instant only with a physical "torch", we inevitably see a dead frozen snapshot, as explained eloquently by Robert Geroch.

Everything said here pertains only to the kinematics of spacetime; to obtain its dynamics (the arrow of spacetime) we need to include the Aristotelian First Cause "by hand", because nothing in this purely kinematical structure can or should point directly to God.

In modern parlance, SRP is expected to "suffer" from Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but because of the fundamental nature of SRP, the additional elements in it, which belong to some 'meta theory', will inevitably come from 'outside science'. To be specific, the introduction of Aristotelian First Cause "by hand" means endowing the universe with the faculty of self-acting: just like the human brain (we think about our brain, with our brain), the universe modeled as a 'brain' should have the faculty of acting on itself, but no physical path toward 'the acting mind of God' (such path may show up with math only) should show up in quantum gravity. Perhaps some of those "agnostic" people may prefer to call Him "dark" -- I don't mind; we all enjoy His gift called free will.

More in my talk in November 2015. Just a hint: look at Fig. 2 in the note about Die Bahn above. The direction of  w  is "dark" to the local mode, and the gravitational effects (global mode) should have 3-D presentations (e.g., the so-called "curvature") in the local mode (Fig. 1). If some day we find out that
the origin and the mechanism of inertial reaction "forces" are indeed produced by the gravitational potential reality, perhaps we will explain the most difficult puzzle: the asymptotically flat space of the local mode of spacetime, produced by the two tug-of-war components of gravity at cosmological scale: CDM and DDE.

Perhaps at the largest length scale,  L , the "dark" geometrical effect from the global mode makes the 3-D space of the local mode 'asymptotically flat'. However, given the basis relation  LS = 1 , an absolute flat and absolute infinite 3-D space would require some mathematically unclear state {S = 0 , L = [inf]} : the two symmetry axes of the infinitely-inflated sphere and torus will coincide, along with their centers (check out a story about a screen saver in Windows 98 here). I intend to argue, in November 2015, that the topology of the local mode of spacetime is being dynamically fixed as 'asymptotically flat' at each and every step of re-creation of the local mode (cf. Die Bahn above), by "passing" through such mathematically unclear state that is neither sphere not torus anymore. Stated differently, I suppose there exist two asymptotical "boundaries" on what looks like an 'asymptotically flat 3-D space': a 3-D sphere and a 3-D torus with the largest possible radii,  L , "between" which a mathematically unclear (and purely theological) state is quietly residing. All this will be a sequence to my previous talk in September 2008.

As to the "expansion" of space depicted in the drawing from NASA, perhaps the projection of the metric in 'the Large' onto the macroscopic scale produces the illusion to the 'first observer' (cf. above) of some "expanding universe". Again, according to SRP, the "expansion" is not caused by any physical stuff. It is an illusion of some "expanding" metric, which can be seen only by the 'first observer'.

As suggested above, the cosmological horizon is 'ever expanding' along the arrow of spacetime, while the Planck scale is fixed. That is, the 'infinitesimal' is fixed (bounded from below) by some 'numerically finite but physically unattainable' values that do not change (e.g., the Planck length), while the 'maximal volume of space for gravity' (L) increases with the age of the universe, like an expanding horizon "bounded" by an ever-sliding  L : Panta rei conditio sine qua non est.

By the way, have you seen an UFO with your very eyes? If these guys can switch off the inertial reaction "forces", perhaps they can fly effortlessly, much like we move our thoughts. And if they can modulate the metric of space, perhaps they can make their pathway in the whole Milky Way just "two meters". From their perspective, they will indeed fly 'two meters', while the space will be "running towards them". Perhaps in such altered-metric space they fly literally 'from point to point', and with a very low speed of, say, just 2 m/s, as recorded by their wristwatch.


Wilbur B. Smith: "... to produce the gravity differential, the time field differentials which were necessary to operate the ship."
 

I wish I knew what is 'space' [Note 4]. There is so much latent energy packed in the quantum vacuum. Perhaps all we may need is access to the global mode of spacetime. The whole SPR may sound unclear and farfetched, but recall Christopher Columbus: If we don't leave for India, how can we discover America?



D. Chakalov
February 18, 2010
Latest update: August 2, 2010



Note 1. In a letter to Paul Ehrenfest from 4 February 1917, Einstein wrote about his 'cosmological constant':

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


Note 2. Recall Einstein's opinion of his theory:

"The right side (the matter part) is a formal condensation of all things whose comprehension in the sense of a field theory is still problematic. Not for a moment, of course, did I doubt that this formulation was merely a makeshift in order to give the general principle of relativity a preliminary closed expression. For it was essentially not anything more than a theory of the gravitational field, which was somewhat artificially isolated from a total field of as yet unknown structure."


Note 3. The problems with 'time in GR', the paradox of time in canonical quantum gravity (Karel Kuchar), and the puzzle of so-called "dark" energy from empty space stem from the absence of the arrow of spacetime in present-day GR. On the one hand, our mischievous wristwatches do in fact read the arrow of spacetime as a "chain of points", as they "filter" only one of the infinitely many "dynamical points" from the global mode of time, and read these filtered points "one-at-a-time" along the "vertical skewer" of the arrow of spacetime (global mode of time), on which all "horizontal snapshots" are stacked. On the other hand, in order to "look" at this arrow with physical (unanimated) devices, we can only use a "torch", which kills the arrow, and shows only one frozen "point" fixed by the calculated values of physical quantities at this dead frozen "point". And here people like Robert Geroch say -- let's try to solve the Einstein field equations, starting from this well-calculated frozen "point", and then move the (canonical) data only on this "horizontal" set of such "points", and end up with the insurmountable Cauchy problem for the Einstein equations. Why? Because the genuine dynamics of GR ain't there (Stanley Deser will undoubtedly disagree).


Note 4.
"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

 

---------

P.S.
Nobody has so far asked, what is the meaning of the phrase 'Your Global Time is ZERO'. The sole question from the readers of this web site has been, 'why don't you publish all this in a book, to explain your ideas' (or something similar).

The criticism is fully justified: reading my web site is anything but fun. I am considering writing a book, but it will be intended to kids age 15+, and will have to be complemented by a DVD with video lectures, to explain the crux of the idea about 'the universe modeled as a brain'.

Why kids? Because the future belongs to them (I will soon hit 58, Deo volente). My work on quantum gravity concerns very few people, all of whom have this utterly negative attitude of 'the worst of criticism is neglect'. Just a few examples: the last time I heard from Claus Kiefer was in 2003, only to tell me that he can't open the CD ROM I sent him by surface mail, because all computers at the University of Cologne run on Unix. The last time I heard from Karel Kuchar was on 8 Jan 2003, and from John Baez on 14 Jan 2002. The case with Chris Isham was even worse. And look what happened with my talk in 2008.

Thinking about the future, I can imagine only two developments regarding SRP. One possible case will be that it is just crap and delusion, so obviously wrong that none of the renowned experts made the slightest effort to show my stupid dilettante errors. Will see. Planck's Law of Thermal Radiation was met with very nasty attitude by the established scientific community [Note 5], as it literally blew away their comfortable world. If SRP turns out to be correct, it will cause far more "damage" to many established scholars studying canonical quantum gravity and "gravitational wave astronomy" (at least 679; see also [Note 6]).

But could SRP be correct, really? Well, as I mentioned previously, the two rules for success are:

Rule #1: Never tell them everything you know.

And nobody is curios anyway. (For those who are: I believe SRP embedded in an arrow of spacetime offer the only possible solution to the mind-brain problem -- the mind has to be both detached from matter, to preserve its ontologically different nature, and linked to it, in order to communicate with its brain via the bi-directional "talk" depicted in the Escher drawing above.)

Therefore, there is no need to use paper -- everything I need to say is, and always will be posted at this web site, available to anyone interested. If some day it turns out that SRP in 'the arrow of spacetime' had hit the right track toward quantum gravity, I suppose people will be interested to explore it (see the download link above).

Besides, we don't live in 18th century:

"When this lowly chap informed the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics that he had formulated the inverse square law of gravitation years before the publication of Principia, Newton is said to have flown into a rage. The two had already sparred over their optical theories, and when Newton took over as president of the Royal Society in 1703 (the year of Hooke’s death), he began erasing all traces of Hooke. Famously, he tossed the only contemporary portrait of Hooke onto a fire."


D. Chakalov
February 26, 2010
Last update: March 2, 2010



Note 5. Max Planck, Philosophy of Physics, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1936, p. 97:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with youth."



Note 6. B F Schutz, Mathematical and Physical Perspectives on Gravitational Radiation, August 2, 2002.


Snapshot at 00:04:20 from video.wmv (156 MB)
 

p. 1: "Equivalence principle implies no local definition possible in any situation: must attempt "regional" definition in regions at least as large as a wave-length.

p. 9:


p. 10: "A more elegant and potentially powerful scheme is to incorporate conformal techniques to bring null infinity to a finite point on the grid (emphasis added - D.C.), then can incorporate infinity into the computational domain (Friedrich, Husa, Lechner, Frauendiener all attending this meeting)."
--------

Comment: I highly recommend B. Schutz' video lecture and manuscript to all Jehovah's Witnesses of Gravitational Astronomy. Compare it to B. Schutz' article "Gravitational Radiation", gr-qc/0003069 v1. More here.

D.C.
March 3, 2010
 

 

 



Subject: Re: What, then, are Qbits good for?
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:43:18 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: N David Mermin <ndm4@cornell.edu>
Cc: Charles H Bennett <bennetc@watson.ibm.com>,
William.K.Wootters@williams.edu,
divince@watson.ibm.com

David:

RE my email from Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:05:22 +0300: I quoted your viewpoint on KS Theorem at

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

You acknowledged in arXiv:quant-ph/0305088 that your "computer science students know very little physics". I am sure you know a bit more quantum physics than your students, and will be able to understand the argument at the link above, which answers the question in the subject line as well.

Take care,

Dimi



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


Subject: The Kochen-Specker state
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 03:20:42 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37361003021720v1fd01861uf28e46b5c4bd1b02@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Michael H Freedman <michaelf@microsoft.com>
Cc: Parsa Bonderson <parsab@microsoft.com>,
Chetan Nayak <nayak@kitp.ucsb.edu>,
Sankar Das Sarma <dassarma@umd.edu>

Dear Dr. Freedman,

I wonder if you could help me understand the topological nature of Kochen-Specker state,

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

It seems to me that this UNdecidable state is protected from "decoherence", simply because it cannot reside in any Hilbert space. It isn't "observable", nor is computable in the sense of Turing (Topological Quantum Computation, 80.pdf). You can grasp it with your brain only.

May I take this opportunity to invite you and your colleagues to join our efforts toward a new relativity principle, outlined at

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

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note: Michael Freedman posted today (November 4, 2010) the 16th version of "Quantum Gravity via Manifold Positivity", arXiv:1008.1045v2 [quant-ph], in which he tried to obtain the dimensionality of space from the notion of 'empty set', and suggested a fleeting "pre-time" (ibid., p. 8). The latter emerges here from AOS.

Notice that the UNdecidable Kochen-Specker state at the first link above is a bona fide empty set from the viewpoint of its observed/actualized "projections" (if you like non-linear modifications of QM, try to attach this particular "empty set" to the manifold of states in geometrical formulation of QM).

To cut the long story short, "quantum computing" is impossible, even if it is "topological" and supported by Microsoft. Look again at the "general principle" in R.I.G. Hughes, The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics, p. 77:


Firstly, this "general principle" does not apply to the case of UNdecidable, not-yet-physical, KS state, as explained by R.I.G. Hughes here. Secondly, because in QM we're dealing with operators, we cannot even imagine that some dynamical variable labeled with the anti-relativistic and "
ideal Schrödinger time" (Jorge Pullin et al.) could possess some pre-existing values, like those we attach to each point of phase space in classical mechanics. Hence it is manifestly pointless to hope that we could control any of those quasi-local dynamical variables from the length scale of tables and chairs -- especially the Kochen-Specker state.

Now, if we look at GR, we have a similar puzzle with the equally incomprehensible "proper time  τ " (Carlo Rovelli), in the sense that our wristwatch does read a continual line (1-D Euclidean space) of already linearized snapshots from the initial "proper time  τ ". Looks like something is doing a linearized and flattening "collapse" of the "proper time  τ " at each and every "sufficiently small" (Einstein) region of the points from our 'time read by a clock'. Hence the confusion in GR.

Not surprisingly, Mike Freedman didn't respond to my email (nor mentioned my efforts at the second link above). Due to the lack of interest, I will only reiterate the startling characteristic feature of 3-D space: finite things. If you wish to explain an elephant, all you need is to "obtain" its unique trunk; likewise finite things for 3-D space.

Details in my note on quantum gravity below. No other choice for self-wrapping of space and self-connecting of spacetime "points" seems possible. But first, one needs to identify an “instant”, such that it can be (i) “multiplied” and (ii) “ordered in time”, with “duration” equal to the infinitesimal separation of these instant(s), or rather one-multiplied-instant. More in Sec. Summary, pp. 35-36 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf.

All this is a tentative answer to Michael Teller's question (The Sunday Times, March 13, 2008): So long as the Universe had a beginning, we can suppose it had a creator. But if the Universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Well, if The Universe does work like a brain, perhaps we may wish to consider an entity resembling our mind and consciousness. Say, [John 1:1].

Is the all-mighty Microsoft interested, I wonder.


D.C.
November 4, 2010
Last update: November 5, 2010

 

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


Subject: Quantum gravity
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:35:23 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>

Hi Chris,

Over seven years ago, on Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:24:15 +0100, you boldly declared the following:

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

You haven't so far produced any evidence in support of your claim.

My latest proposal can be read at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#quiz

Prelims from KS Theorem at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS

I respectfully urge you to defend your (immensely insulting) claim from Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:24:15 +0100. Just show me my errors.

As ever,

Dimi


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

Subject: RE: Update?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:14:09 +0100
Message-ID:
<18BC110D9A023542A41960EE3D066CD402D89B0C@icex3.ic.ac.uk>
From: "Isham, Christopher J" <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>

[snip]
> unfortunately, your current mode of writing suggests to everyone that
> you are just another crank.
[snip]
 

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


Comments on Chris Isham's opinions
 

Look at the following statement, from Stephen Hawking's "Grand Design" (to be published on September 9, 2010):

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. (...) If there are trillions of universes as M-theory proposes, that luck and probability are enough to make our existence feasible, so no God was needed.”

Ignore the second and third sentences (spontaneous creation of an infinite multiverse doesn't make sense at all, or implies a very dumb and sloppy god).

How many factual and logical errors can you identify in the first sentence?

I think our understanding (S. Hawking, C. Isham, and myself included) of gravitation and the origin of inertia resembles my wife's knowledge in electricity, as she can comprehend Ohm's Law only by some analogy of water running in a flexible hose. As to Hawking's conjecture about "singularity", it was formulated as a theorem many years ago, and only after very specific and crucial presumptions, which do not hold in a world dominated by [we-do-not-know-it].

Yet Chris Isham will always praise his colleague, Stephen Hawking, and will never expose the factual and logical errors (non sequitur) in the first sentence above. Moreover, if the so-called Arrow of Space is correct, both his theory and Stephen Hawking's "Grand Design" will be wrong.

But let's see the main ideas in the toposification of Quantum Theory, proposed by Chris Isham.

According to Gerard 't Hooft, “Isham believes another mathematical language may help, but I don’t think so. It sounds a bit as if describing the world in German is better than in Chinese.” Well, at least the "German" approach emphasizes on KS Theorem, which is usually obscured in the mainstream "Chinese" version of QM.

 



Chris Isham: "The interesting question really is, what do you mean by time?"
 

Isham believes that "every physical system, from atomic particles to the universe as a whole, can be viewed through different topoi" (source here), and suggests the notion of ‘pseudo-state’ (Würst); see Slide 28, from his January 2008 lecture "Topos theory in the formulation of theories of physics",

http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/conferences/categorieslogicphysics/clap1/clap1-chrisisham.pdf

From Heidegger’s perspective, there is ‘no way things are’ in QM (Slide 13). My objection is not against Chris Isham's opinion but to its implementation: all topoi he can possibly design cannot exhaust/fully describe the "quantum trunk" rooted on 'the ideal monad without windows', because we are dealing with a new form of reality (dubbed 'potential reality'), which resembles Leibniz' monads and our cognitive structures, in line with 'the universe modeled as a brain'.

One important implication is that, on the one hand, the truth value associated with 'potential reality' is definitely YAIN -- not 'somewhere in between true or false' -- but on the other hand, Heidegger’s "things" are being explicated (as 'shadows on Plato's cave') in the quantum realm as reality 'out there' with unit probability, and their lifetime in the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space is infinitesimal -- just a "point" from the continuum along the  w  axis (cf. Fig. 2).

Thus, we need two modes of spacetime, a global mode for 'potential reality' and a local mode for its fleeting explications along the Arrow of Space. Chris Isham is trying to place everything in one pot, while I separate them from the outset, and claim that their apparent fusion is due to the so-called speed of light, because the duration of their separation, in the local mode of spacetime, is zero.

We have a perfect continuum of such explicated things -- one-at-a-time, along the Arrow of Space -- in the local mode of spacetime, at all length scales.

This is an absolute instant 'now' (cf. Isham's question above) from the Arrow of Space. It isn't physical, but looks like a transcendental tachyon, which is absolutely everywhere at 'no time' and at all length scales. It builds up the cosmological time and should not be 'GR observable', yet your wristwatch does indeed read it -- check out Luca Lusanna and the bewildered Tom Thiemann here.

The paradoxical situation is that I am strictly following Chris Isham's path to quantum gravity, announced in 1993. In my opinion, I am more 'Chris Isham' than he currently is. All differences boil down to the way he and I understand the continuum hypothesis and the quantum of action: dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

This is the motto of my web site, since July 1998. Let me try to explain it, by offering my version of 'the quantum principle'. Then I will try to answer the question about time posed above.

In simple words, the quantum principle is based on the Bootstrap Principle and the rule 'think globally, act locally'. It postulates the rules of the infinitesimal displacement of physical stuff in space and time, along the continuum of events produced by the Arrow of Space (bzw. arrow of spacetime): no "uncertainties" nor "quantum jumps" (verdammte Quantenspringerei, Erwin Schrödinger) exist in the quantum realm. We have continual trajectories of individual quantum particles, as well as emergent geodesics. The stochastic "quantum jumps" are artifacts from the measuring devices at the scale of tables and chairs.

If you examine the Gedankenexperiment with four dice, you will see that the transition from any n-state of the dice to the next n-state is perfectly continual in the local mode of spacetime: the duration of the EPR-like correlation "in the air" is zero in the local mode comprised from such n-states. The same holds for the emergent geodesics: the duration of the matter-geometry talk "takes place" in the global mode, at the interface of the non-Archimedean (geometrical) and Archimedean (physical) worlds, hence its physical duration in 3-D space (local mode) is zero. QM and GR are unified from the outset. Simple, no?

NB: If this quantum principle is correct, all other approaches to quantum gravity (Steven Carlip and Claus Kiefer included) must necessarily be wrong.

As to the question by Chris Isham above: 'time' is provided by the absolute clock of the Arrow of Space, which is external to all physical systems, yet is also "inside" each and every physical system, as it operates in the non-Archimedean realm of 'potential reality'. This absolute clock reads an infinite-dimensional time, which coincides with 'the time read by your wristwatch' (the dualist conception of time) only in the instant 'now' in which the global mode is being "flattened" to the local mode.

Of course, there is no way to find out if someone has found 'the right track', but at least I can think of QM & STR and the cosmological "constant", regardless of Chris Isham's opinion on my intellectual abilities and knowledge in theoretical physics.

As I'm still learning, since January 1972, perhaps some day I could say more on "the bridge"; check out the current version of my note on GWs at

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

What looks really impossible, I'm afraid, is some day Chris Isham to defend his insulting claim from 23 October 2002.

No way. He will keep quiet, and will praise Stephen Hawking.

Apart from that, I must acknowledge that Chris Isham is a very nice person. We met on November 13, 1998, and had many discussions in his Office. At our last meeting on March 9, 2006, he offered me a cup of tea, which was delicious.
 

"just another crank" D.C.
September 3, 2010
Last update: September 7, 2010


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


Subject: Andreas Döring (23 August 2008), Tutorial on Conceptual Issues of Quantum Theory, 1:32:40 - 1:33:00
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 04:55:35 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Andreas <andreas.doering@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

Andreas Döring (23 August 2008), Tutorial on Conceptual Issues of Quantum Theory
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/0808001/

Slide 40, "A contextual theory would allow the value assigned to some operator  to depend on the context considered."
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/talksarchive/clap3/clap3-andreasdoering.pdf

Andreas Döring, 1:32:40 - 1:33:00: "I must really admit it is not clear to me how much sense this could make."
-------


Hi Andreas,

On Friday, 13 November 1998, I met Chris in his Office and suggested to explore the correct _context_, as used by the human brain,

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

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Specker1

Twelve years later (13 November 2010), he still has not used his brain to check up my proposal, but is trying to place everything in one pot (Eintopf gemacht), as I wrote at

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

I trust you can do better -- no topos nor tensors,

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

If you're interested, feel free to write me back.

Regards,

Dimi
 


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


Subject: Translocal connections beneath the smooth surface of classical spacetime
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:45:13 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimeHd+00f43SnnZpB_11mXTuhOjeCf6HMuEJzxk@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Manfred Requardt <requardt@theorie.physik.uni-goettingen.de>
Cc: Petr Hajicek <hajicek@itp.unibe.ch>,
Abner Shimony <abner.shimony@gmail.com>,
Wojciech Hubert Zurek <whzurek@gmail.com>,
Willem M de Muynck <W.M.d.Muynck@tue.nl>,
Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Dorje Brody <d.brody@imperial.ac.uk>,
Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>


Dear Manfred,

I hope you can recall my email from Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:51:53 +0300, regarding your arXiv:gr-qc/0308089v1 (cf. the subject line). Seven years later, I still don't know your viewpoint on the measurement (macro-objectification) problem and the clash of QM with STR (Abner has written a lot on this issue).

In your latest arXiv:1009.1220v1, you offered an alternative to the decoherence/einselection mess from Zurek, but the crux of the task has not been addressed: how do you reconcile QM with STR (Special Theory of Relativity)?

STR (Minkowski spacetime) requires 'objective reality out there', while QM explicitly denies it:

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

This is the famous quote from Schrödinger at

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

In the case of STR, consider an example with the Sun:

1. If you look at it, you will see/observe a state of the Sun, which has been *real* 8 min prior to the instant of your observation.

2. At the *very same instant* of your observation, the Sun does possess a real state 'out there', which will be available to you for observation/recording after 8 min.

This is the meaning of 'objective reality out there'.

In order to reconcile QM with STR, we need 'reality out there', as suggested at the link above. Just drop "objective" and replace it with "potential".

As a bonus, I get your "translocal connections beneath the smooth surface of classical spacetime" (although not from your approach, of course), without any spukhafte Fernwirkungen or Gespensterfelder, plus much more,

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

Please tell me if you can do better.

I extend this request to all your colleagues.

Kindest regards,

Dimi
-------

Note: The so-called PR2 interpretation of QM stands for (potential reality) & (proper relativistic) interpretation1. It explains smooth bi-directional transitions between the classical and quantum realms, does not treat the former as some "limiting case", resolves the temporal solipsism of QM and recovers Bells' aether, and explains the actualization of potentialities as a relativistic process, in line with 'the quantum principle'. As a bonus, you get the physics of the human brain and all living creatures, without any "psi-fields" or other parapsychology: click on the smiling cat above.

Or don't. It's your free will choice, in line with the PR2 interpretation of QM.

I'm just a psychologist, don't need quantum gravity. Even if someone explains the origin of inertia and sorts out the quantum vacuum energy with exact equations, all this will be redundant information, just as I don't need to know the exact biochemistry of food processing in order to enjoy a beef steak, say.

Does a fish need a bicycle?

D.C.
September 8, 2010
Last update: September 30, 2010


J. S. Bell, Quantum mechanics for cosmologists, in: Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2004

Ch. 15, p. 136: "(W)e have no access to the past. We have only our 'memories' and 'records'. But these memories and records are in fact present phenomena. (...) The theory should account for the present correlations between these present phenomena.
....
"The question of making a Lorentz invariant theory on these lines raises intriguing questions. For reality has been identified only at a single time."
-------

1 The 'proper relativistic' interpretation of QM resolves the following problem, from Dah-Wei Chiou:

"The seemingly puzzle is analogous to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, in which a pair of entangled particles are measured separately by Alice and Bob. In the context of special relativity, if the two measurements are conducted at two spacetime events which are spacelikely separated, the time-ordering of the two events can flip under a Lorentz boost and thus has no physical significance. Alice and Bob can both claim that the entangled state is collapsed by her/his measurement and thus have different knowledge about what the physical state should be (should have been - D.C.), yet the predictions by Alice and Bob are consistent to each other."

The UNdecidable state of the entangled/superposed "particle" (never in plural) exist as 'potential reality out there', and can always be traced back to the past light cone of both Alice and Bob -- retrospectively, after their "observations". Neither the "time-ordering" nor the "different knowledge" about what 'the physical state' should has been have any significance whatsoever to 'the base state', since the latter is omnipresent and can never be "collapsed". It is the 'back bone' along which Nature (not QM textbooks) has worked out smooth bi-directional transitions between the classical and quantum realms. Simple, no?

Well, Manfred Requardt doesn't like it, for reason he never explained. Anyway.


 

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


How wonderful that we have met with a paradox.
Now we have some hope of making progress.
Niels Bohr



Note: Please read Ernst Specker's 1960 article and notice [Ref. 1] above. To explain the seemingly mundane notion of 'counterfactual definiteness' from QM textbooks, and then compare it with the brand new situation introduced with KS Theorem (usually not covered in QM textbooks), consider an entangled quantum coin, which is being flipped "in the air". Upon landing on the floor (Hilbert space), there are "two" (in fact, one) observer(s), Alice and Bob, such that Alice can record the entangled quantum coin by viewing it 'from the bottom up', while Bob can see it only 'from above'. In such highly contrived Gedankenexperiment, Alice will know that if she observes 'heads', in the very same instant Bob should have seen 'tails' -- after all, it's one coin. Alice will also suppose that, by virtue of 'counterfactual definiteness', it is meaningful to ask: what would I had seen had Bob actually saw 'heads'?

I will spare the reader the usual excursion to Bell's theorem, EPR argument and its inevitable pitfalls (e.g., "quantum correlations happen without any time-ordering", and "nonlocal quantum correlations seem to emerge, somehow, from outside space-time", Nicolas Gisin), and will only stress that Alice&Bob are confined in the Hilbert space, hence can never "see" the quantum coin "in the air". The UNdecidable KS state shows up only in KS Theorem.

Look carefully at R.I.G. Hughes, p. 164, and notice the difference between the geometrical presentation -- in the 3-D space of the macro-world of tables and chairs -- of spin-1 vs. spin-1/2 systems. In the latter case, the component of the spin per se (a bare finger nail, cf. 'KS Theorem for teenage girls' above) can choose from two alternative observable values, either +1/2 or -1/2, both of which can be accommodated along one axis from 3-D space -- all they need is to choose a "diametrically opposed direction" (ibid.) along that same axis in 3-D space. Therefore, in the case of spin-1/2 systems, the UNdecidable KS state need not, and hence does not show up -- the 3-D space does not force it to reveal all of its contextualized classical-able states.

Not so in the case of spin-1 system: the square  S2  of any component of spin can take three values -- 1, 0, -1 -- which in turn requires all three axes of 3-D space. In other words, even one square  S2  will invade/require all available geometrical degrees of freedom provided by 3-D space -- the classical "filter" for contextualized classical-able states.

Now, Kochen and Specker have shown that, if you consider any triple of such squares  S2 , each of which requiring the three mutually perpendicular directions in 3-D space (cf. Eq. 2.8 on p. 17 from C. Isham's textbook here), the statistical interpretation of QM would imply that you will always find out that "two receive value 1 and the third 0" (ibid.), similarly to the case of 'counterfactual definiteness' from QM textbooks. But the statistical interpretation of QM turn out to be wrong, as anticipated by Erwin Schrödinger in November 1950.

You can't have all the contextualized classical-able states in such {1,0,1} pattern, as proven by KS Theorem. Some of them will always and inevitably fail to comply with your (biased) expectation for "an unequivocal true-false value", as explained eloquently by Isham and Butterfield, p. 3 (see the excerpt above), and will have to be shifted into the UNcolored section from KS sphere (Helena Granström, p. 2). Hence my interpretation of the UNdecidable KS state above.

There is no backward causation nor retrocausality, because 'potential reality' does not live on the local mode of spacetime (cf. Fig. 1 above), hence can act as Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and Leibnitz' harmonia praestabilita along the arrow of spacetime (cf. the proposal for biocausality).

Notice also the logic of propositions regarding the "content" of potential reality, encapsulated with a single YAIN, and compare it to the topos approach by Chris Isham above.

I firmly disagree with the opinion in Wiki that KS Theorem (details in Mladen Pavicic et al., cf. p. 8 and p. 17) were some "complement to Bell's theorem". The latter theorem is based on counterfactual "reasoning", which might eventually be made clear and conclusive only in classical physics.

Regarding Bell's Theorem, Tim Palmer rightly noticed that (p. 7) "in order to establish Bell’s theorem, we need to consider correlations between pairs of measurements when the magnets have different orientations, let’s say n for the left-hand magnets and n' for the right-hand magnets. It is also necessary to assume that it is meaningful to ask: what would the spin of a left-hand particle have been had we actually measured it with magnets oriented in the n' direction (or, conversely, what would the spin of the right-hand particle have been had we actually measured it with magnets oriented in the n direction)?" Counterfactual "reasoning" is a recipe for parapsychology. More from Charles Tresser, Sec. 5.

There is no counterfactual "reasoning" in KS Theorem, ladies and gentlemen. Quite the opposite. Check out Ernst Specker above.

In summary, all quantum, as well as all gravitational "states" are contextualized quasi-local explications from their potential-reality state (never in plural): check out Fig. 2 above.

Any comments? Please don't hesitate, like Chris Isham and his PI colleagues.

D.C.
April 23, 2010
Last update: October 11, 2010

 

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


Subject: How to falsify "decoherence" (if any)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:35:51 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTim+NxSPh6L0BKMYaDoD=p8p8vbuAKYFqmo7aWJk@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Zeh <zeh@uni-heidelberg.de>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Wojciech Hubert Zurek <whzurek@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@imperial.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Larry Horwitz <larry@post.tau.ac.il>,
Friedrich W Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Martin Plenio <m.plenio@imperial.ac.uk>,
Stefan Wolf <wolfst@inf.ethz.ch>,
Friedemann Mattern <mattern@inf.ethz.ch>,
Thomas Gross <thomas.gross@inf.ethz.ch>,
Markus Püschel <markus.pueschel@inf.ethz.ch>,
Dongsheng Wang <wdsn1987@gmail.com>,
Yujun Zheng <yzheng@sdu.edu.cn>,
Xihong Peng <xihong.peng@asu.edu>,
Xiang Hao <110523007@suda.edu.cn>,
Martin Lopez-Corredoira <martinlc@iac.es>,
Bruno Galvan <b.galvan@virgilio.it>,
Maximilian Schlosshauer <schlosshauer@nbi.dk>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@phys.lsu.edu>

Dear Colleagues,

May I offer you an exercise to falsify "decoherence", as I notice that some of you are still haunted by it:

H. D. Zeh, How decoherence can solve the measurement problem
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~as3/SolveMeas.html

The Chinese Nebulae (located at the newly build National Supercomputing Centre in Shenzhen) achieved 1.271 PFlop/s running the Linpack benchmark, and can deliver a theoretical peak performance at 2.98 petaflops per second (FLOPS means floating point operations per second).

Suppose its Intel X5650 processors are "decoherent" quantum systems, such that all quantum fuzziness in the *timing* of their operations is "quite strongly peaked (notice the poetry - D.C.) about one path" (Jonathan Halliwell, arXiv:quant-ph/0501119v1).

Please calculate (roughly) how long your Chinese colleagues may run their Nebulae before it breaks down.

Please don't hesitate to publish your calculations.

I bet 100 EUR (sorry, no US dollars) that *none* of the above will happen, for reasons explained at

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

Do you accept the bet?

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note: 1015 perfectly classical FLOPS, totally protected from the damping of the "tails" (Max Schlosshauer, arXiv:quant-ph/0312059v4, p. 30) -- indefinitely ?

Prove it.

The task is interesting to me because my brain has roughly 1014 synapses, which do not make errors (I do; not my brain). Also, I cannot explain the generation of observable paths in Wilson cloud chambers, after Sir Nevill Mott (cf. Alessandro Teta, arXiv:0905.1467v1 [math-ph], pp. 9-10), with "decoherence". If people believe the latter is better than the Born Rule, they should explain (i) things we can observe, such as the generation of paths in Wilson cloud chambers, and (ii) things we cannot observe, such as 'global and absolute time' (A. Macias and H. Quevedo, gr-qc/0610057v1) along which space "expands". More on 25.11.2015.

D.C.
October 11, 2010
Last update: October 13, 2010

 

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


Subject: Bishop George Berkeley: "In rebus mathematicis errores quam minimi non sunt contemnendi."
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:24:12 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikf4PyjrFkw2-P5Xou=dHr_Gtm=yVNfbbsYJ95A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu>
Cc: Amanda Weltman <amanda.weltman@uct.ac.za>,
Jeff Murugan <jeff@nassp.uct.ac.za>,
George Ellis <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>,
Yuan K Ha <yuanha@temple.edu>,
Roy Maartens <roy.maartens@port.ac.uk>,
Igor Barashenkov <igor@maths.uct.ac.za>,
Thomas Thiemann <thiemann@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de>,
Arkadiusz Jadczyk <arkadiusz.jadczyk@cict.fr>,
Dorje Brody <d.brody@imperial.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Lee Smolin <lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Carlo Rovelli <rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>


Hi Steve:

I trust my email from Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:47:18 +0100, prompted by your notes [Ref. 1], has been safely received.

Regarding your latest essay, I think the notion of 'small enough' [Ref. 2, p. 6] involves an unacceptable degree of poetry in the adjective "enough" -- see NB at

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

Details at

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

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

I'm glad you offered a tentative verification of your general idea, that "even small violations at that scale can be magnified and lead to observable effects at large scales" [Ref. 2, p. 10] -- please see [Ref. 3].

Notice that any viable theory of quantum gravity must pass the reality check of 3-D space: "it is possible to look around, and see as far as we like" (Lee Smolin),

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Buchanan3

In summary, I believe the whole issue (cf. NB at the first link above) is strictly mathematical, which is why I quoted Bishop George Berkeley.

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

Regards,

Dimi

------

[Ref. 1] Steven Carlip, Conceptual problems in quantum gravity
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Text/Carlip.html#problems

"According to general relativity, gravity is a characteristic of the structure of spacetime, so quantum gravity means quantizing spacetime itself. In a very basic sense, we have no idea what this means.
.....
"(For a nice review paper by Chris Isham on some of the conceptual issues in quantum gravity, go here.)"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9310031


[Ref. 2] Idem, The Small Scale Structure of Spacetime; to appear in Foundations of Space and Time, edited by George Ellis, Jeff Murugan, Amanda Weltman (Cambridge University Press), arXiv:1009.1136v1 [gr-qc],
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1136

p. 2: "Over the past several years, evidence for another basic feature of small-scale spacetime has been accumulating: it is becoming increasingly plausible that spacetime near the Planck scale is effectively two-dimensional. No single piece of evidence for this behavior is in itself very convincing, and most of the results are fairly new and tentative.
.....
p. 6: "For a small enough region of spacetime, one might guess that the causal structure is generic, coming from a random causal ordering.
.....
"We then face a rather bewildering question: which two dimension? How can a four-dimensional theory with no background structure or preferred direction pick out two “special” dimensions at short distances?
.....
p. 10: "There is a danger here, of course: the process I have described breaks Lorentz invariance at the Planck scale, and even small violations at that scale can be magnified and lead to observable effects at large scales [2]."


[Ref. 3] Yuan K. Ha, Is There Unification in the 21st Century?,
arXiv:1007.2873v1 [gr-qc]

pp. 8-9: "The result indicates that there is no evidence so far of any quantum nature of spacetime above the Planck length. Spacetime there (distance of 7.3 billion light years from Earth - D.C.) is smooth and continuous."

 



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


Subject: Ask Stephen Hawking
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 02:13:43 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=eKqSxhYR2LiY+fHQaygJHMyT+x8v64NqSs3gM@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: eureka@thetimes.co.uk
Cc: Jim Al-Khalili <j.al-khalili@surrey.ac.uk>


Dear Sir or Madam,

Regarding the public lecture at the Royal Albert Hall in London on October 20, chaired by Professor Jim Al-Khalili: may I ask you to deliver a question to Professor Stephen Hawking,

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/eureka/article2711970.ece

To quote from the link above: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. (...) If there are trillions of universes as M-theory proposes, that luck and probability are enough to make our existence feasible, so no God was needed.”

I have no questions to Professor Hawking regarding the second and third sentences, as spontaneous creation of an infinite multiverse doesn't make sense at all. It rather implies an utterly dumb and sloppy god (hence no capitals), which of course has nothing to do with [John 1:1].

The first sentence, however, clearly suggests that Professor Hawking holds strong opinions on the nature of gravity, quantum cosmology, and quantum gravity. Hence my question:

Q: With all due respect, do you realize that (i) you are a deeply religious person, obsessed by anti-theistic beliefs, and (ii) your book delivers many biased and unprofessional statements?

Should you disagree, please explain (i) the origin of inertia and (ii) your opinion on whether the quantum vacuum energy "gravitates".

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
http://chakalov.net
-----
35 Sutherland St
SW1V 4JU
 

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


Subject: Re: "Preliminary version, comments wellcome", arXiv:1008.2524v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:56:59 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Petr Hajicek ITP <hajicek@itp.unibe.ch>

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Petr Hajicek ITP <hajicek@itp.unibe.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Dimi,
> I cannot understand your comment

Do you have Internet?

> what is missing in my discussion of KS
> (which is standard, see Bub's book)

I have quoted from it: see the letter by Schrödinger from November 1950 at the first link from my initial email.

> Please do not send me to any further texts by you, which are simlarly vague.

If you don't want to read and learn more, there is nothing I can do for you.

I wish you a pleasant and peaceful retirement.

Regards,

Dimi


> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Petr,
>>
>> Apart from the "wellcome" typo in your abstract, the treatment of KS
>> Theorem (p. 64) is incomplete, which drives your efforts to a blind
>> alley: I cannot see how you could possibly reconcile your ideas with
>> STR.
>>
>> Q: What is the "back bone" of your quantum state, such that you can
>> make smooth, bi-directional transitions b/w the word of facts,
>> governed by STR, and the quantum realm?
>>
>> My efforts, which you've been persistently ignoring, are at
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#KS
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Levi_Civita
>>
>> If you cannot answer my question, check out the links above.
>>
>> I will appreciate the professional opinion of your colleagues as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dimi
>>

 

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


Subject: Re: ... approaching the planned level of sensitivity?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:24:55 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Leonid Grishchuk <Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk>
Cc: Stanislav.Babak@aei.mpg.de,
mukhanov@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de


Hi Leonid,

Regarding my email from Wed, 14 May 2003 14:11:49 +0300: I quoted from your gr-qc/9907027 at

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

You and your colleagues are hard-core Russians, and probably will not respond, as you never did so far. Even since August 1981, after my first effort to contact a Russian physicist (David Abramovich Kirzhnitz), I noticed this terribly rigid, Soviet-style thinking.

I also noticed that you are still unable to uncover the blueprints from relic GWs (p. 4 and ref. [4] in gr-qc/9907027). If you're interested in a fresh look at the task, feel free to reply to this email, after reading the text at the link above.

Take care,

Dimi
-----

Note: Recall the correlation puzzle with relic GWs (Scott Dodelson et al., arXiv:0902.3796v1):

"This discovery of the last decade sharpens the classic horizon problem: why does radiation arriving from opposite ends of the Universe share the same temperature? The problem is now even more profound: how were the initial perturbations, with their puzzling synchronization, produced? What physical mechanism could have possibly planted these primordial seeds?"

If you use the 'spherical cow' (linearized) approximation of GR, the "puzzling synchronization" mediated by relic GWs will have to propagate in space, 'from one point in space to another', just like the z-direction toward the L-shaped tunnels of LIGO (e.g., arXiv:1007.3973v1, p. 11, Fig. 5). In the case of relic GWs, with "speed" faster than light.

If you drop the 'spherical cow' (linearized) approximation of GR, you will have to use pseudo-tensors to derive the magic L-shape of LIGO's arms. Try this:

Ed Bertschinger, "Gravitational Radiation Emitted Power", General relativity notes, Sec. 4,
http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr7.pdf

If you succeed, we all will hear about it on CNN Breaking News.


D.C.
October 8, 2010


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


Subject: “A spoken thought is a lie”
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:04:57 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Lev Okun <okun@itep.ru>
Cc: Iegor Reznikoff <xxxxxxx@xxxxx.xx>,
Serge Krasnikov <gennady.krasnikov@pobox.spbu.ru>,
Dmitry Slavnov <slavnov@goa.bog.msu.ru>,
Andrei NB <novikov.borodin@gmail.com>,
Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Stanislav.Babak@aei.mpg.de,
mukhanov@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de

Dear Dr. Okun,

I'm glad you mentioned Фёдорa Ивановичa in your latest arXiv:1010.5400v1: the origin of mass may be UNspeakable,

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

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

In the context of the famous saying in the subject line, E = mc^2 is a "verbalized" lie.

"Никто не обнимет необъятного" (Козьма Прутков), because it is rooted on 'the ideal monad without windows' (Kant's Noumenon). Hence my predictions about that huge Barbie called LHC,

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

Details at

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

I will appreciate your critical comments, as well as the professional opinion of your colleagues.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


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


Subject: Yakov Terletskii
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:43:56 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Edward Kapuscik <Edward.Kapuscik@ifj.edu.pl>
Cc: Lev Okun <okun@itep.ru>

Dear Dr. Kapuscik,

In your recent arXiv:1010.5886v1, you wrote: "It is therefore suggestive to assume that P0(0) is equal to some unknown kind of energy, for example, the dark energy present in the Universe."

I wonder if you intend to elaborate on the three forms of mass,

Yakov P. Terletskii, Paradoxes in the Theory of Relativity,
http://www.directtextbook.com/prices/9780306303296

I suppose you are fluent in Russian and know the original edition. Look at the end of Ch. VI, and will notice that the notorious KGB agent didn't like "black holes".

My recent efforts can be read at

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

I will appreciate your professional comments.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: I read today the fifth version of a very intriguing paper by Den Yerokhin et al., Dynamics of Universe in Problems, arXiv:0904.0382v5 [astro-ph.CO]; 764 problems. My favorite one is about the "dark energy", p. 56, Task 9:

"Show that assigning energy to vacuum we do not revive the notion of ”ether”, i.e. we do not violate the relativity principle or in other words we do not introduce notion of absolute rest and motion relative to vacuum."

I emailed Dr. Yerokhin and said that the task seems impossible (I don't know how to define the stress-energy tensor of the vacuum in the first place, and then make sure that it is "proportional to the metric", J. Baez and E. Bunn), and added: "If you know how to solve it, please drop me a line with some hints and references."

The reply by Dr. Den Yerokhin (answer.pdf), along with his permission to post it on this web site, can be downloaded from Yerokhin.zip. You be the judge.

I am still unable to understand how to "assign" energy to the vacuum, as its contribution must be zero (cf. M. Montesinos); additional puzzled from Luca Lussanna and Thomas Thiemann.

D. Chakalov
November 1, 2010

 


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


Subject: Dual speed of gravity in GR
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:00:52 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Serguei Krasnikov <gennady.krasnikov@pobox.spbu.ru>
Cc: erast@hotmail.com

Serguei,

Regarding your latest essay: I know that you don't care about anything I suggest, as you never did in the past six years.

But since our brains are entangled, I do care about what I say or do *not* say to you. In the latter case, it would be bad if I don't tell you what I think about your latest arXiv:1009.1761v1 [gr-qc], although you will undoubtedly ignore it, since you're Russian.

There are two kinds of distances in the case of deons (Erast Gliner,
arXiv:gr-qc/0006072v1): one is in the Riemannian spacetime of GR (examined in your arXiv:1009.1761v1 [gr-qc]), and the other is in the so-called global mode of spacetime,

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

The first distance is always finite, and the speed of gravity does not exceed the "speed" of light, while the latter distance is exactly zero, hence the speed of gravity there seems to be infinite, like a transcendental tachyon. With such dual speed of gravity, you get correlations *resembling* a school of fish:

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

More at

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

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

Take care,

Dimi

 

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


Subject: Re: Dual speed of gravity in GR
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:55:57 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimSDwyxQryOUOe2hqE=p6fHa206=HxFzf7O+qTi@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>
Cc: Serge Krasnikov <gennady.krasnikov@pobox.spbu.ru>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>, 
Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>, 
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>, 
Anthony Zee <zee@kitp.ucsb.edu>,
Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>, 
Sergiu Klainerman <seri@math.princeton.edu>


Dear Jose,

You and your co-authors stressed that "the electromagnetic wave is unable to transport its own source, that is, electric charge" (arXiv:0809.2911v2 [gr-qc]; cf. p. 4 at the link below).

If I am on the right rack, the true gravitational waves (forget about quadrupole radiation) should be unable to transport their own source either, that is, the entity in the l.h.s. of Eq. 1, p. 35, at the link below.

All the best,

Dimi

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Serguei,
>
> Regarding my email from Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:00:52 +0300: you replied
> by saying that cannot understand the so-called global mode of
> spacetime.
>
> Check out my comment on J. G. Pereira et al., p. 4 from
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf
>
> If you and your colleagues are still unable to understand the crux of
> the matter, it will be entirely my fault, so please do write me back
> with your questions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dimi
>

Note: In addition to the comments on J. G. Pereira et al., arXiv:0809.2911v2, on p. 4 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf, see also Sec. Summary, pp. 35-37 therein, and another paper by J. G. Pereira et al., Does a tensorial energy-momentum density for gravitation exist? arXiv:0812.0034v1. Jose Pereira and his co-authors concluded that "at each point of the world-line, inertia compensates gravitation yielding a vanishing (bit not exactly zero - D.C.) spin connection" (p. 6), and elaborated as follows:

"This means that inertial and gravitational effects are both embodied in the spin connection [XXX] and cannot be separated because of the equivalence principle (notice that inertial and gravitational effects can indeed be separated inside each "point" of the emergent geodesic - D.C.)

"As a consequence of this inseparability, the energy-momentum current in general relativity will always include, in addition to the purely gravitational density, also the energy-momentum density of inertia. Since the latter is a pseudotensor, the whole current will also be a pseudotensor. In general relativity, therefore, it is not possible to define a tensorial expression for the gravitational energy-momentum density. This is in agreement with the strong equivalence principle which precludes the existence of such definition [3]."

If we define the energy-momentum current with the mass-energy conservation equation on p. 35 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf, we may recover the source of gravitational waves, placed in the l.h.s. of Eq. 1, p. 35 therein. It yields a time-conserved "charge" with only one "sign", and allows the cosmological "constant" to show up with different values along the non-unitary evolution of The Universe.

More in my talk on Wednesday, 25 November 2015, about what looks in current GR like "torsion". Forget about tensors.

Let's start from scratch [Ref. 1]. I mentioned above that inertial and gravitational effects can be separated inside each "point" of the emergent geodesic, that is, in the postulated global mode of spacetime (not in present-day GR nor in the kind of teleparallel gravity studied by Jose Pereira -- read Janusz Garecki). The "point" in question is the one at which (or rather "inside" which) the two fluxes (Merced Montesinos) cancel each other completely, hence we may imagine some "locally inertial coordinate system in which matter satisfies the laws of special relativity" (S. Weinberg). To be precise, let me quote again Kevin Brown: "Einstein chose for his field equations a gravitational tensor whose covariant derivative vanishes identically, to ensure local conservation of energy-momentum, and this requirement is essentially equivalent to the geodesic hypothesis."

Now, what is the "size" of this "point" in GR? Infinitesimal (check out Ohanian's error here). We just have to zoom on the infinitesimal, which is considered to be "of small spatial extension" [Ref. 2]. More here.
 

D. Chakalov
September 26, 2010
Latest update: October 14, 2010


[Ref. 1] Kevin Brown, General Relativity and the Principle of Inertia
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm

"However, it’s somewhat misleading to say that the equations of motion emerge from the field equations without having been imposed as a separate assumption. They follow as a direct consequence of the fact that particles follow “straight and uniform” inertial paths in each infinitesimal region of spacetime, and this in
turn is a direct consequence of the local conservation of energy-momentum. It’s true that the field equations of general relativity imply this conservation, as can be seen by the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the Einstein tensor



 

"The field equations simply equate this to the energy-momentum tensor Tmn, so the covariant divergence of the latter must also vanish, hence energy-momentum is locally conserved, hence particles follow geodesics.

"But the local conservation of mass-energy didn’t arise automatically, it was specifically designed into the field equations by the inclusion of the “trace” term (the term with coefficient 1/2) in the Einstein tensor. In fact, one of the early attempts of Einstein and Grossmann to formulate generally relativistic field equations led to the result Rmn = Tmn, but not surprisingly this is unsatisfactory, precisely because the covariant divergence does not vanish. After a great deal of searching (and with the crucial help from Levi-Civita - D.C.), Einstein finally realized that the natural conservation laws – and hence the law of inertia – is recovered if we include the trace term. David Hilbert arrived at this same conclusion almost simultaneously (in November 1915), although his route was much more direct, since he proceeded from a Lagrangian, which automatically leads to conservation laws.

"In view of this, it’s surely disingenuous to claim that the field equations of general relativity allow us to dispense with the independent assumption of equations of motion; the equations of motion essentially were imposed as a separate assumption, corresponding to the assumed conservation of energy-momentum that was intentionally built into the equations by the inclusion of the trace term.
......

"It’s possible for the inertial mass of an electrically charged particle to be accelerated in a variety of ways while still conserving electric charge and current. In contrast, the conservation of energy-momentum fully constrains the motion of a massive particle (in the absence of non-gravitational forces), because the inertial mass is identical to the conserved gravitational “charge”. The principle of inertia is really just another name for the conservation of energy and momentum.
......

"So, despite Einstein’s hopes, general relativity does not in any way explain or obviate the principle of inertia. Granted, if the field equations didn’t include the trace term (so that the covariant divergence didn’t vanish), the resulting theory would have many problems and be subject to many objections, but this goes without saying. No one disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely well-founded in observation. It is an extremely well-justified postulate – but it is still a postulate. General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal theories on the topology and morphology implicit in the principle of inertia and the associated distinguished coordinate systems."



[Ref. 2] A. Einstein, Autobiographical Notes: "In a gravitational field (of small spatial extension) things behave as they do in a space free of gravitation, if one introduces into it, in place of an “inertial system”, a reference system that is accelerated relative to an inertial system."
.....

A. Einstein, 4 April 1955: "(T)he essential achievement of general relativity, namely to overcome ‘rigid’ space (ie the inertial frame), is only indirectly connected with the introduction of a Riemannian metric. The directly relevant conceptual element is the ‘displacement field’ (XXX), which expresses the infinitesimal displacement of vectors. It is this which replaces the parallelism of spatially arbitrarily separated vectors fixed by the inertial frame (ie the equality of corresponding components) by an infinitesimal operation. This makes it possible to construct tensors by differentiation and hence to dispense with the introduction of ‘rigid’ space (the inertial frame)."

(quoted after Friedrich Hehl and Yuri Obukhov, arXiv:0711.1535v1 [gr-qc])

 

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


Subject: CTP International Conference on Gravity and Cosmology
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:01:18 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinSpqbaQ5bqZH58zn8i-anw_HW8vo2UN43E7hjB@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Friedrich W Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>
Cc: Mamdouh Wanas <wanas@frcu.eun.eg>,
Bahram Mashhoon <mashhoonb@missouri.edu>,
Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>

Dear Friedrich,

I noticed your name at
http://ctp.bue.edu.eg/workshops/newwebsite/speakers.html

I wonder if you plan to elaborate on the postulate of locality, from

Friedrich W. Hehl and Bahram Mashhoon, Nonlocal Gravity Simulates Dark
Matter
, Slide 3 at
http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/gravitation/mitarbeiter/nlGrav2010DPG1.pdf

"Postulate of locality: An accelerated observer (measuring device) along its worldline is at each instant physically equivalent to a hypothetical inertial observer (measuring device) that is otherwise identical and instantaneously comoving with the accelerated observer (measuring device)."

Bahram (arXiv:1006.4150v1 [gr-qc]) believes that "an accelerated observer may be replaced in effect (Sic! - D.) by an infinite sequence of hypothetical momentarily comoving inertial observers; mathematically, the world line of the accelerated observer is the envelope of the straight (presumably - D.) world lines of the corresponding hypothetical inertial observers."

I don't believe in teleparallel gravity, and would rather "insert" in that 'envelope of the straight world lines' a special mechanism, which could perhaps make GR *quasi-local*, as well as produce quasi-local positive mass in an asymptotically flat spacetime: please see my email to Dr. Mamdouh Wanas (printed below), and
pp. 35-36 from Sec. Summary in

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

More on what looks like "torsion" in present-day GR at

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

I wonder if you and/or some of your colleagues would be interested in discussing these ideas.

Best regards,

Dimi

[snip]


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

Subject: Re: CTP International Conference on Gravity and Cosmology
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:35:03 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Friedrich_Wilhelm Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>
Cc: Mamdouh Wanas <wanas@frcu.eun.eg>,
Bahram Mashhoon <mashhoonb@missouri.edu>,
Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>


On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Friedrich_Wilhelm Hehl
<hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Dimi Chakalov,
>
> Thank you for your email. Of course, I am always open for discussions.
> However, your ideas are so far from my actual field of interest that I
> cannot see an overlap with your ideas.

I believe they overlap at the postulate of locality:

-----
>> I wonder if you plan to elaborate on the postulate of locality, from
>>
>> Friedrich W. Hehl and Bahram Mashhoon, Nonlocal Gravity Simulates Dark
>> Matter, Slide 3 at
>> http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/gravitation/mitarbeiter/nlGrav2010DPG1.pdf
>>
>> "Postulate of locality: An accelerated observer (measuring device)
>> along its worldline is at each instant physically equivalent to a
>> hypothetical inertial observer (measuring device) that is otherwise
>> identical and instantaneously comoving with the accelerated observer
>> (measuring device)."
-----

There is too much poetry in this postulate. If we add gravity to matter, the latter will have to be *quasi-local*. Clarifying the exact meaning of *quasi-local* is the scope of my efforts. We just have to zoom on the infinitesimal, which is (poetically) considered to be "of small spatial extension":

A. Einstein: "In a gravitational field (of small spatial extension) things behave as they do in a space free of gravitation, if one introduces into it, in place of an “inertial system”, a reference system that is accelerated relative to an inertial system."

Stated differently, I think you've taken a wrong path marred with too much poetry.

I will appreciate the professional opinion of your colleagues as well.

All the best,

Dimi
 

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


Subject: Re: CTP International Conference on Gravity and Cosmology
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 02:12:22 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikdHBbovq_uxyTQ65nwJ7SNZtf5q=rm5iyW7zbF@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Friedrich_Wilhelm Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>
Cc: [snip]

Dear Fred,

> We know that the clock hypothesis (a special case of the principle of
> locality) is very well obeyed by actual "clocks", like a decaying muon.

For fundamental research, I'm afraid "very well" is also poetry.

Moreover, you're thinking in terms of Archimedean geometry,

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

> In other words, here is a result of this "poetry" that can be confirmed
> experimentally.

But GR cannot *explain* the occurrence/emergence of *finite* attributes of space and time, such as 'one second' and 'one meter',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Levi_Civita2

Surely we enjoy actual "clocks", but in present-day GR they are miracles. And I don't like miracles.

> This is enough for me. If you want opinions of other colleagues, just
> approach them.

That's what I'm doing. The task is strictly mathematical. If they don't care, some day some young and hungry Chinese grad student might crack the puzzle.

Thank you for your time, and good night.

Dimi
--------

Note: Friedrich-Wilhelm Hehl was born on August 26, 1937, in Ludwigsburg, Germany. I consider him one of the leading experts on GR:

F.W. Hehl, Spin and Torsion in General Relativity. I. Foundations, General Relativity and Gravitation, 4 (1973) 333-349

F.W. Hehl, Spin and Torsion in General Relativity. II. Geometry and Field Equations, General Relativity and Gravitation, 5 (1974) 491-516

F.W. Hehl, On the kinematics of the torsion of spacetime. Found. Phys. 15 (1985) 451-471

As Asher Peres used to say, "these things were well known to those who know things well", and Friedrich-Wilhelm Hehl is definitely one of the people who 'knows things well'. Regarding his 1985 article cited above, there are plenty of physical reasons (e.g.,. Salvatore Capozziello et al., arXiv:gr-qc/0101038) to believe that the spacetime continuum, viewed microscopically, should carry a torsion, but the dynamics of torsion, which F.W. Hehl "left for a forthcoming article" (October 1984), is still missing. Meanwhile the so-called DDE showed up, and the dynamics of torsion became a highly non-trivial task: the spin density of matter is not the source of torsion.

We should dig deeper than R. Penrose. Very briefly: the 720-degree rotational invariance of spinors may be interpreted as two "circles" resembling  8 , which pertain to the atemporal "handshaking" of two waves in the postulated global mode of spacetime; the end result "happens" on null-surfaces (Kevin Brown) "at p" [Ref. 1], and has zero duration ("small spatial extension"), as recorded with your wristwatch. The key ideas are that physical events (local mode) emerge on null-surface, and are inherently quasi-local, with vanishing (present continuous) torsion; details on November 25, 2015. Notice the linked text in [Ref. 1] and the notion of 'self force' in Machian gravity [Ref. 2], and check out Eq. 1 on p. 35 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf regarding the axiom of 'dominant energy condition'.

The null-energy conditions needed for singularity "theorems" and Tipler's theorem are wishful thinking in GR (references above). Because the "dark" energy from the quantum vacuum acts as an additional, all-permeating and perfectly smooth field, we encounter a blatant violation of Newton’s third law; check out an explanation with a car here: "The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction."

Compared it with the ultimate free lunch from DDE (August 2006): "Suppose you accelerate a car, but the gauge fuel shows that you're actually gaining more fuel by accelerating the car. That's the ultimate 'free lunch' provided by DDE, only physicists cannot explain it." It doesn't get diluted as space "expands". On the contrary, it's getting more and more. From the perspective of contemporary physics, it is far more shocking than perpetuum mobile, simply because it exists.

We cannot apply Newton’s third law (Hans Ohanian) to the source of DDE - some perfectly smooth stuff that "has zero inertial mass" and "can be accelerated with no cost, no effort" (B. Schutz). From the viewpoint of classical physics, this perfectly smooth [we-do-not-know-it] had its highest value at the instant of "inflation" (like the amount of fuel in a tank car), and then should have depleted rapidly, or in accelerated fashion during our current cosmological stage. Quite to the contrary: it springs out from "thin air" and does not, in any way, resemble the Casimir effect, say. It is a genuine non-unitary phenomenon, in the sense of John Wheeler's dictum 'Time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once'. More in the papers above.

The alleged Newtonian limit is totally unclear as well -- notice the self-force from DDE in Machian gravity [Ref. 2] in the text below. Once we accept that space itself has become dynamical, it's a whole new ball game for the current GR.

Perhaps the reader may wish to consider a fiber over a point p Є M as collection of spinors (cf. p. 4 from Geroch; general info here and here), and see if one can make the "fishp  more flexiblep  should be endowed with Lorentzian metric only at some (still unclear) quasi-local positive-mass limit at  p . The aim is to replace (i) the misfortunate splitting of spacetime in GR with an emergent spacetime along an arrow of space (compare it with R. M. Wald), and (ii) the misleading notion of "curvature" [Ref. 3], usually depicted with some "curved" 2-D surface immersed into 3-dimensional flat Euclidean space (John Baez), with atemporal correlations in the global mode of spacetime.

Have you seen a school of fish? I will take off my Euclidean spectacles [Ref. 3] and try some reverse-engineering.
An incomplete list of tasks is outlined below.

Look at the fiber bundle hairbrush at Wiki, and compare it with the "spinning" (along two "circles" resembling  8 ; see above) quantum hedgehog, which is supposed to show up upon zooming on the infinitesimal point  p  at Planck scale.
 

 

Q: Can you suggest a new nontrivial bundle (two Möbius strips maybe?) for the quantum hedgehog, which could facilitate the non-linear negotiation between an arbitrary quasi-local "fish", at some infinitesimal point  p , and 'the whole school of fish', in Machian perspective? The symmetry operations related to 'dominant energy condition' (cf. above) should be defined over four sectors (notice the fav icon of this web site), in a very remote analogy with Kruskal-Szekeres diagram.

Clarifications: the quantum hedgehog has infinitely many "bristles", which should also facilitate the global view on 3-D space (Wiki): one would see "all points in 3-dimensional space simultaneously, including the inner structure of solid objects and things obscured from our three-dimensional viewpoint" (see below).

Notice that every "fish" should be enabled to choose its quasi-local "geodesic" relationally, upon updating and refreshing its "Einstein field equation" at every next point from its quasi-local "geodesic", in line with Weyl's Principle. Notice that 'relationally' refers to the Heraclitean (non-Archimedean) time (called here 'global mode of spacetime').

Also, the quantum hedgehog should somehow (sorry, I'm totally speechless here) resolve the main puzzles of (i) finite things in space and (ii) the "boundaries" of 3-D space with a new version of Finite Infinity. The assumptions here are that, depending on the "direction" we look at the global mode of spacetime, it will show up as either 'tending asymptotically toward zero' or 'tending asymptotically toward infinity', while a global (omnipresent) observer would "see" the whole 3-D space (local mode) simultaneously, en bloc. Namely, the duration of the glancing at 'the whole school of fish' (the whole 3-D space) will be zero, as recorded with our wristwatch, because the luxon-like dynamics of the two "waves" (cf. above) does not feel any physical time. It's atemporal. Locally, our global time is zero, and the re-created (AOS) local mode of spacetime is a perfect continuum. Hence all effects from the global mode are inevitably holistic ("dark", after M. Turner).

Last but not least, the ultimate puzzle of the kinematics of space concerns the origin of the so-called "speed" of light: in the local mode of space, the "points" (quantum hedgehogs) of the underlying manifold are chained in such a way that (i) there is nothing between them, (ii) there is an upper limit on the speed of passing physical stuff 'from one point to the neighboring one', and (iii) there is a whole mirror world (
Yakov Terletskii) on 'the other side' of this "speed" limit.

That's all for now. I have five years to clarify my hedgehog Ansatz (and "bridge"), to the extent it would become fully comprehensible. It is not an easy task to eliminate the self-referentiality (Kevin Brown) of the metric "field" and expose the genuine dynamics of GR. The textbook rule 'partial derivatives go to covariant derivatives' (Wiki) looks to me like the Born Rule. People believe that the Christoffel connection can somehow "disappear", yet the higher-order derivatives never actually "disappear" [Ref. 4]. Pseudo-tensors work fine FAPP, although they shouldn't, because nobody knows 'the right answer to the right question' (MTW, p. 467). The metaphysical speculations about what happens in the "sufficiently small" (e.g., Weinberg) are incredibly confusing. Something went wrong in 1915. Just look at the "quantum horizons" from Ashtekar and Krishnan.

Perhaps the inherent nonlinearity in the geodesic equation (Wiki) points to a new, relational dynamics of GR: the additional input from 'the whole school of fish' (Newton’s third law is necessarily violated) is being smuggled via the non-linear mechanism of "more gravity" [Ref. 5]. Such "global" input will be inevitably "dark", because we cannot trace back its holistic source by zooming on any quasi-local "fish" at  p .

This "smuggling" can be explained by recalling that neither the coordinate time  t  nor the proper time  τ  (Wiki) along spacetime trajectories can be used as an independent variable, as  τ  is a "complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable. (...) In the quantum context a single solution of the dynamical equation is like a single “trajectory” of a quantum particle" (C. Rovelli). Luckily, given 'the quantum principle' and the so-called PR2 interpretation of QM, one can design such 'single quasi-local trajectory of a single quasi-local quantum particle', in which the holistic input from 'the school of fish' is smuggled into the infinitesimal point  p  from the quasi-local trajectory of the quantum-gravitational "fish".

To be precise, at point  pn  the holistic input from 'the school of fish' is wiped out completely, by "cancellation of energy and energy flux of the real gravitational field with the energy and energy flux of the inertial forces field" (Janusz Garecki); hence the "ether" (global mode of spacetime) cannot show up (M. Montesinos). In the fleeting linearized "snapshot" at   pn  (local mode), the total energy of the gravitational field is always zero, the Einstein tensor and the energy-momentum tensor vanish identically, and all "dark" stuff has been linearized and physicalized. The same re-cancellation occurs at the next point  pn+1  along the Arrow of Space, but because these seemingly "neighboring" points belong to two different universes from the "flattened" local mode of spacetime (cf. Fig. 1 above), their fleeting physical content is  different , while the holistic origin of this difference is "dark". Hence no "fish" can register any "deviation" (with respect to what?) during its re-created quasi-local geodesic: its "geodesic equation" has been updated dynamically, at each and every next point  pn+1  -- a genuine Phoenix Universe (Georges Lemaître, 1933). In the terminology of Karel Kuchar, this infinitesimal shift is mediated by the Perennial, which governs the dynamics "from outside as an unmoved mover". Notice that "all time  τ  is eternally present" (K. Kuchar), as it should be.

In general, if we agree that gravitational energy should be defined over finite volumes of space (e.g., B. Schutz), the first off mathematical task is to resolve the main puzzles of 'finite things' in space wrapped by its own "boundaries" at Finite Infinity (details above). This is what produces 3-D space per se, such that (operational definition) we can discriminate between 'inside vs. outside' and 'left vs. right'. These fundamental qualities of space are being wrongly treated as rigid background since 1915. If we introduce an Arrow of Space, perhaps we can recover the dynamics of GR: global time can only emerge from dynamical space.

Hence the idea about a null-surface formulation of 'emergent spacetime' along the Arrow of Space, in line with the so-called biocausality. The latter is defined with respect to the reference fluid in GR [Ref. 6, pp. 31-33]: it is the 'absolute structure' (James Anderson) of 'the universe as ONE' (global mode of spacetime), which bootstraps all quasi-local quantum-gravitational "fish" into a school of fish. Notice that the "chooser" (P. Pearle) of every next state of a given "fish", along its quasi-local geodesic, is the bootstrapping mechanism of 'the whole shoal'.

As I said above, I don't like miracles, like "decoherence" and "ideal Schrödinger time" [Ref. 7]. The calculations in QM and QFT explicitly presuppose a perfect clock endowing the whole universe with some "global and absolute time" (A. Macias and H. Quevedo), but no physical stuff can reproduce it. It is an acute miracle, especially in GR. Physicists love to ponder on some Cauchy surface [Ref. 8], but it is a smooth differentiable miracle that cannot be assembled exclusively by physical stuff either (cf. Paul Tod's video lecture). Mathematicians used pure math and intuition to "assemble" these smooth differentiable miracles, then the founding fathers of GR (Levi-Civita, Einstein, and Hilbert) agreed upon introducing Lorentzian signature by hand, and banned these 'absolute structures' and Perennials.

That's what went wrong in 1915. We need new ideas about the origin of space. If you look carefully at the Finite Infinity and the pre-geometric plenum, you will realize that these are the only possible solutions for 3-D space to be wrapped by itself, and to produce a perfect continuum (see above): in the latter case, 'the universe as ONE' is being multiplied as infinitely many (uncountably infinite) infinitesimal "points" chained in the local (physical) mode of spacetime by 'the whole universe as ONE' ... which is in turn non-existent there!

This is the pre-geometric plenum made by the so-called Aristotelian Connection; all geometrical "points" from 'the grin of the cat without the cat' (Alice) are connected by themselves (local mode) -- one-connection-at-a-time along AOS. No other option for self-wrapping of space and self-connecting of points seems possible.

To explain the claim in the preceding sentence, let me elaborate a bit more on the self-wrapping of 3-D space with the drawing below, bearing in mind the equation  LS = 1  here. The meaning of finite things (elephant's trunk for 'space') is denoted with the unique number  1  , which can be seen above as well. Notice the interplay of Archimedean and non-Archimedean geometry, which is missing in diff geometry textbooks (e.g., Chris Isham's one here) and in present-day GR.

Once the size of the infinitesimal (S) reaches the non-Archimedean realm of geometry, it becomes a geometrical point  p  (from Planck scale), with "size" running asymptotically toward  0 , while the "size" of  L  is running asymptotically toward infinity, along the vertical axis. The global mode of spacetime refers to 'the whole universe as ONE' (Lucretius). The latter is totally missing in the local mode due to the "speed" of light, hence the physical space of 'finite things' becomes a perfect continuum: all points  p  are entangled and self-connected by their 'common cause' of ONE (global mode), and by virtue of  LS = 1 .
No other option seems possible
.


The drawing above can also explain the idea of dual cosmological age: finite in the global mode, and infinite/indecisive in the local mode, as the deflation time can never actually reach The Beginning at  0 ; details in pp. 35-36. As to the postulated Equation of Space, picture yourself riding the infinitesimal toward  0 : from the viewpoint of the global mode, one could imagine an "accelerated" shrinking stage by approaching "zero" size/The Beginning, but in the local mode such "accelerated" stage is an illusion. Likewise in the case of time-and-space-reversed "direction"; see the original full drawing here: people believe that space is "expanding", but it actually isn't, because it would take an infinite cosmological time (local mode) to actually reach 'the maximum large space', denoted with  L .

There is no "accelerated" stage (Emil Mottola) in "shrinking" or "expanding" the volume of space by approaching asymptotically  S  or  L . The confusion with the old (since 1930s) cosmological "constant" problem is due to the shape of space near the two "boundaries" defined with Finite Infinity, and on the unwarranted assumption that the "dark energy" is due to some [we-do-not-know-it] with positive mass density (an 'elephant in a china shop'), so it enters the current equations in GR: "a negative pressure can overcome a positive energy density" (ibid.). Alternatively, check out Eqs 1 and 2 in ExplanatoryNote.pdf, pp. 35-36.

(The very cracks, through which the physicalized (=converted into positive, cf. Eq. 1, p. 35) vacuum energy gets smuggled into the local mode of spacetime, vary in a wide interval, from producing "6 × 10-10 joules per cubic meter" (John Baez) to an equivalent in energy to 5 (five) solar masses emitted in under 60 seconds in the form of X-rays and gamma rays; all this "dark energy" comes from the "ether", ranging from an almost vanished flux to "1054 ergs/pulse" in GRBs.)

The 'physical size of lengths in 3-D space' (the scale factor) would have to actually expand if we were limited to Archimedean geometry only. Were that the case, one could eventually picture some conformal recipe for reaching infinity by "rescaling the metric", as envisaged by R. Penrose.

Regarding the "size" of 'the maximum large space',  L  , in the proposed version of Finite Infinity: look at the slope in the current "accelerated" stage from NASA, and map it to a reversed/inverted drawing (cf. the full original drawing here): can you extend the curve (not shown above) to reach an "accelerated" stage of approaching asymptotically infinite space? This will be the ultimate "cosmological horizon" for gravity. Because gravity cannot operate in infinite space,  L  should possess a numerically finite but physically unattainable value, perhaps in a manner resembling the "speed" of light for bradyons.

Finally, notice the Gedankenexperiment with an observer witnessing a "shrinking" bzw. "expanding" table with length two meters, starting from the macro-world. However, "It is very hard to imagine what new physics would introduce a cutoff on a scale of the order of 0.01cm" (L.H. Ford, gr-qc/0504096v2, p. 6). I am only suggesting that the dual notions of 'small running toward  S' and 'large running toward  L' are relative to the length scale of tables and chairs. Namely, a companion observer watching the "changing size" of physical objects will not notice any difference whatsoever: her table stretched to the size of a galaxy, and her table shrunk to the size of an atom, will always keep its "size" of 'two meters' (or "0.01cm", L.H. Ford). This is an effort to revive the old idea of 'mutual penetration of the Large and the Small', but it will take a lot of work to identify the new symmetry operations for 3-D space, starting from the macro-world, along some reversible time-and-space "direction" toward  S  and  L .

I intend to elaborate on the time-and-space reversed "direction" (inverted space with its CPT symmetries, like inverting a rubber glove inside out) and the VGP formulation of GR on 25.11.2015. The full original drawing here offers some hints for interpreting the possible forms of 'mass' (Yakov Terletskii) and the adiabatic separation of positive and negative mass [Ref. 9], but much more work is needed to clarify the whole bundle of issues and the interpretation of "torsion effects".

As it happens very often, I'll probably admit in November 2015 that what I wrote today, 15.11.2010, was very confusing. Sorry, I'm just a psychologist and my efforts are stereotyped as "just another crank". Well, you be the judge.

Maybe there are indeed wrong ideas at my web site, but recall Christopher Columbus: If we don't leave for India, how can we discover America?


D.C.
October 11, 2010
Last update: November 15, 2010





[Ref. 1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature

"To each point on a Riemannian manifold, it assigns a single real number determined by the intrinsic geometry of the manifold near that point."

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

"In Riemannian geometry, the sectional curvature is one of the ways to describe the curvature of Riemannian manifolds. The sectional curvature K(σp) depends on a two-dimensional plane σp in the tangent space at  p ."
----------

Notice the infinitesimal instant  P  from Leibniz, which allows us "to construct tensors by differentiation" (A. Einstein):



"These are the laws of an instant in canonical gravity. (...) In general relativity (notice Einstein's opinion here - D.C.), dynamics is entirely generated by constraints. The dynamical data do not explicitly include a time variable," says Karel Kuchar. Which is why the global time from the "expansion" of space is "dark" in current GR. In the forthcoming VGP formulation of GR, the "constraints" are produced by 'the shoal of fish' and are similar to the [10, 20] condition for emergent quasi-local geodesics (cf. below). Thus, the corrected QM and GR are united at the 'base manifold' of emergent continuum.

----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_mass_theorem

"In general relativity, the positive energy theorem (more commonly known as the positive mass theorem in differential geometry) states that, assuming the dominant energy condition, the mass of an asymptotically flat spacetime is non-negative; furthermore, the mass is zero only for Minkowski spacetime.'

See also: Hans Ohanian, The Energy-Momentum Tensor in General Relativity and in Alternative Theories of Gravitation, and the Gravitational vs. Inertial Mass, arXiv:1010.5557v1 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5557; pp. 2-4 and endnote 7, p. 32.



[Ref. 2] A. Spallicci, Free fall and self-force: an historical perspective, arXiv:1005.0611v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0611

Footnote 5, pp. 5-6: "Locality, for which the metric tensor gmn reduces to the Minkowski metric and the first derivatives of the metric tensor are zero, is limited by the non-vanishing of the Riemann curvature tensor, as in general certain combinations of the second derivatives of gmn cannot be removed. Pragmatically, it may be concluded that violating effects on the EP may be negligible in a sufficiently small spacetime region, close to a given event.
.....
"the Apollo 15 display of the simultaneous fall of a feather and a hammer [4].
.....

Footnote 24, p. 21: "It is sometimes stated that the interaction of the particle with its own gravitational field gives rise to the self-force. It should be added, though, that such interaction is due to an external factor (...). In other words, a single and unique mass in an otherwise empty universe cannot experience any self-force. Conceptually, the self-force is thus a manifestation of non-locality in the sense of Mach’s inertia [135]."


[Ref. 3] R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, An Introduction to Geometrical Physics, World Scientific, 1995, pp. 636-637


[Ref. 4] D. Ivanenko and G. Sardanashvily, The gauge treatment of gravity, Physics Reports 94 (1983) 1-45; p. 4.


[Ref. 5] R. J. Adler, Six easy roads to the Planck scale, arXiv:1001.1205v1 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1205

p. 14: "In general relativity the problem of gravitational field energy is notoriously more subtle and complex. This is due to the nonlinearity of the field equations, which in turn is related to the fact that gravity carries energy and is thus a source of more gravity (emphasis mine - D.C.). In this sense gravity differs fundamentally from the electric field, which does not carry charge and thus is not the source of more electric field.
....
p. 17: "At present it is certainly not clear what might replace our present concept of spacetime at the Planck scale."


[Ref. 6] K. Kuchar, Time and interpretations of quantum gravity, in: Proceedings of the 4th Canadian conference on general relativity and relativistic astrophysics, ed. by G. Kunstatter, D. Vincent, and J. Williams, World Scientific, 1992.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/pullin/kvk.pdf


[Ref. 7] Jorge Pullin et al., A realist interpretation of quantum mechanics based on undecidability due to gravity, arXiv:1010.4188v1 [quant-ph]

p. 2: "Here we denote by t the ideal classical time that appears in the ordinary Schrödinger equation. (...) (I)f one make some judicious assumptions, namely, that the clock does not interact with the system, that the clock is in a highly classical state (a coherent state where the “hand” of the clock is sharply peaked in space and moves in a monotonous way), ... .
....
p. 3: "If one assumes one has a clock that follows the ideal Schrödinger time perfectly, ... .
....
p. 6: "The problem of macro-objectification of properties may be described according with Ghirardi [11] as follows: “how, when, and under what conditions do definite macroscopic properties emerge (in accordance with our daily experience) for systems that, when all is said and done, we have no good reasons for thinking they are fundamentally different from the micro-systems of which they are composed?”"


[Ref. 8] R. Geroch, Computation and Physics, 12.03.2008
 


 


[Ref. 9] D. Pollard, J. Dunning-Davies, A consideration of the possibility of
negative mass, Nouvo Cimento 110B (1995) 857-864
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g089874117p17771/

G. Cavalleri, E. Tonni, Negative masses, even if isolated, imply self-acceleration, hence a catastrophic world, Nuovo Cimento 112B (1997) 897-904
http://prometeo.sif.it/papers/?pid=ncb6372

Banesh Hoffmann (1964), Negative Mass as a Gravitational Source of Energy in the Quasistellar Radio Sources, in: Thomas Valone et al., Electrogravitics Systems, Integrity Research Institute, 2001, pp. 92-96.
 



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


Subject: Request for opinion
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 22:27:24 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas.Mueller@vis.uni-stuttgart.de,
Frank.Grave@vis.uni-stuttgart.de, 
Hans C Ohanian <hohanian@einsteinsmistakes.com>

Dear Steve,

May I ask for your comment on the apparent discrepancy in treating "the conservation equation" (cf. conservation.jpg attached) in

Thomas Mueller, Frank Grave, Catalogue of Spacetimes, arXiv:0904.4184v3 [gr-qc]
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4184v3

and in

Hans C. Ohanian, arXiv:1010.5557v1 [gr-qc],
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5557

Please see non_conservation.jpg attached, from p. 3.

Q: How would you design a "geodesic" if the conditions for "conservation law" (non_conservation.jpg) are not fulfilled? I am referring here to the so-called "dark energy", which could spring from the l.h.s. of Einstein filed equation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I will appreciate the professional opinion of your colleagues as well.

All the best,

Dimi
------

Note: In order to pinpoint the "cracks" from 'the self-force' (A. Spallicci), through which the holistic ("dark") energy of 'the shoal of fish' gets smuggled into the quasi-local points of the emergent geodesic, check out S. Weinberg, p. 68 (links and emphasis added):

"Although inertial forces do not exactly cancel gravitational forces for freely falling systems in an inhomogeneous or time-dependent gravitational field, we can still expect an approximate cancellation if we restrict our attention to such a small region of space and time that the field changes very little over the region."

I will address (1) the localization of gravitational energy and (2) the notion of 'isolated system'.

1. See A. Abbassi and S. Mirshekari, arXiv:0908.0286v1 [gr-qc], p. 2; excerpts from their ref. [10] can be read above.
 


I'm afraid the task for "alternative quantity" in the last sentence is not feasible with tensors (R. Penrose), and because I don't accept parapsychology in terms of "pseudo tensors", the only way out seems to develop a VGP formulation of GR for Machian universe (there isn't such animal as "vacuum equation", Ric(g) = 0), cf. [Ref. 1]) to define energy and angular momentum (A. Helfer) as quasi-local variables, in a way resembling a school of fish.

2. See my comments to Bjoern Schmekel here. In order to fix energy densities at a "point", we need 'the whole spacetime' to be self-wrapped with "boundaries" along spacelike and null directions. It's a package. We also need some linearized and flattening "collapse", as I argued here; crucial details here, here, and here.

If you're interested, please read the text by following the links, and email me with your questions. Anything you weren't able to understand will be entirely my fault.

The most difficult puzzle to me is that our wristwatches are 'canonical clocks' that are at rest with respect to [we-do-not-know-it], and read our common 'cosmological time', so we have miracles in GR. Related to this puzzle is the long standing issue with the energy in the vacuum: it has an additional and unique freedom to stay in some "latent state", such that it may not contribute to "curvature", hence people can afford to look for 'energy differences' only (cf. John Baez' online paper here). If you measure the temperature of your bath tube, and find out that it as 'slightly above 37C', you can ignore such minuscule temperature increase (and publish your paper in Nature), but in our case we have two infinitely large and powerful sources of "cold and hot water", which cancel out their input almost exactly, to produce a minuscule observable increase 'slightly above 37C'. And this "slightly above" is manifestation of 'the ether'.

The usual renorm recipes won't work, because we cannot pinpoint some latent yet "carefully defined limit for the continuum of values" kept in the vacuum. The same vacuum can empower, in different circumstances, the most violent energy release we've seen, such as an equivalent in energy to 5 solar masses emitted in under 60 seconds in the form of X-rays and gamma rays.

In other words, the "cracks" left for the holistic ("dark") energy of 'the shoal of fish' (see above) are incredibly flexible -- an upper limit, if any, on these "cracks"  is totally unclear (cf. Eq. 1 on p. 35 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf).

All this unfolds from the textbook interpretation of those 'twice contracted Bianchi identities', as stressed by Hans Ohanian. Aren't you interested? Please feel free to disagree, and explain why.

But if you trust Chris Isham -- don't bother to reply. Follow 'comma to semicolon rule', whenever possible, and be happy with the available "boundary conditions" and "geodesic hypothesis".
 

D. Chakalov
November 8, 2010
Last update: November 11, 2010


[Ref. 1]
Stephen Crothers, email communication, Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:56:23 +1100.

Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field.

Ric = 0 describes a universe that contains no matter, by construction. But if that is so then there is no matter present to cause the gravitational field, bearing in mind that the field equations are also claimed to couple the gravitational field to its sources. One cannot remove matter by setting Ric = 0 (i.e. Tuv = 0) and then insert a mass, post hoc, by means of Newtonian two-body relations, into the resulting metric in order to introduce a cause of the alleged gravitational field “outside the body”.

General Relativity is a non-linear theory and so the Principle of Superposition does not apply. Consequently one cannot simply add masses to a given solution to the field equations. Every different configuration of matter requires a corresponding set of field equations to be solved. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that the field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses.

Furthermore, point-mass singularities occur in Newtonian theory – they are called centres of mass. The centre of mass of a body is a mathematical artifice, not a physical object. Once can go to a shop and buy a bag of marbles but one cannot go and buy a bag of centres of mass of those very same marbles.

According to the astrophysical scientists it takes an infinite amount time for an observer to detect an event horizon. But nobody has been and nobody will ever be around for an infinite amount of time in order to confirm the presence of an event horizon. Consequently the concept has no validity in science. In addition, the aforementioned observer cannot be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, assuming that observers are material. I do not see how an observer can be anything other than material.

Concerning Einstein gravitational waves, none have been detected. This is also not surprising because the search for such waves is destined to detect none. Since Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity Einstein’s field equations form an identity with zero so that the total energy of the gravitational field is always zero; so that the Einstein tensor and the energy-momentum tensor must vanish identically; so that the localisation of gravitational energy is impossible; and so that the field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum so well established by experiment. I wrote a paper on this which contains no mathematics:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/GW.pdf

That an erroneous theory can seemingly account for various observed phenomena is not new to science. The Ptolemaic system of epicycles accounted for various celestial phenomena but is nonetheless an erroneous theory.
......

I now give you a simple recipe to prove me wrong. Prove that matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, prove that Einstein’s pseudo-tensor is not a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, and prove that r in Hilbert’s metric is not the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of the Hilbert manifold.

All of my papers on aspects of General Relativity are on my webpage:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html



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


Subject: Re: Request for opinion
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:38:17 +0200
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinQ-uHaOMDG9NR=S3xP0zG6MNVtSh+=A4zc=Qrm@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
To: Merced Montesinos Velásquez <merced@fis.cinvestav.mx>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>,
Sergiu Klainerman <seri@math.princeton.edu>,
Luca Bombelli <bombelli@olemiss.edu>,
Jim Isenberg <isenberg@uoregon.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Dear Steve,

Thank you for your reply from Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:55:44 +1100.

My request for opinion was:
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Bianchi

"Q: How would you design a "geodesic" if the conditions for "conservation law"
(non_conservation.jpg) are not fulfilled? I am referring here to the so-called "dark energy", which could spring from the l.h.s. of Einstein filed equation."

> Whether one considers Einsetin's covariant derivative on T_uv as a
> conservation of energy law or as an energy transfer law seems to me
> to be a matter of semantics and of no great importance. In any event
> it is my view that Ric = 0 is inadmissible and so the Einstein field
> equations violate the usual conservation of energy so well established
> by experiment. The total energy of Einstien's gravitational field is always
> zero and this is disastrous.

I am unable to relate your opinion to the question above. One obvious answer would be 'one cannot design such "geodesic" under these conditions', because, as M. Montesinos stressed in arXiv:gr-qc/0311001v1, pp. 4-5:

"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' (it will look "dark" - D.). Moreover, that hypothetic non-vanishing 'flux' would define privileged observers associated with it (the ether would come back!)."

I believe we all agree to keep the metric dynamical: it should keep playing its double role in the sense that it is both a field variable and defines the geometry *at the same time* (L. Szabados, private communication).

Then my approach to incorporating "dark" energy in GR is two-fold. On the one hand, keep the 'flux' vanishing up to 10^-122, that is, "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 [XXX]" (M. Montesinos) should cancel each other *almost* exactly.

On the other hand, introduce a (brand new?) dynamics of this *almost exact* cancellation by two kinds of time (global mode and local mode) pertaining to *two standing gravitational waves*, such that we have *at the same time* (L. Szabados) an almost exact cancellation à la John Cramer,

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

To be precise: the hypothetical 'two standing gravitational waves' pertain to the global mode of spacetime, and their perpetual cancellation re-creates the instants (plural) at which the negotiations b/w the two sides of Einstein equation ("space acts on matter, telling it how to move; in turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve", John Wheeler) are completed -- one-negotiation-at-a-time, along an Arrow of Space,

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

That's the "crack" through which the vacuum energy gets smuggled into GR. Details at

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

Please notice that the total energy of Einstien's gravitational field is tending asymptotically toward zero at each and every instant of *completed* negotiation, which is why people can introduce initially wrong assumptions (e.g., "vacuum equation" with Ric = 0 and linearized approximation of GR, to name but a few), although all these assumptions sound like the Born Rule in QM.

The whole 'geodesic hypothesis' looks clear only to undergraduates -- check out A. Rendall's lrr-2005-6, 9.6 The geodesic hypothesis.

But of course you may have quite a different approach toward designing a "geodesic" under the conditions spelled out above. A penny for your thoughts!

I extend this request to your colleagues as well.

All the best,

Dimi
-------

Note:
My efforts are too specific and may not attract the attention of experts in GR, so let me briefly explain why we need quantum gravity to understand GR. I will reproduce excerpts from the text offered by R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira,

An Introduction to GENERAL RELATIVITY, March-April/2004,
http://www.ift.unesp.br/gcg/igr.pdf


1.
A real observer (§3.11) is not 'point-like', and therefore we need a quantum version of the strong equivalence principle (R. Aldrovandi, J. G. Pereira, K. H. Vu, Gravity and the Quantum: Are they Reconcilable? gr-qc/0509051 v1). This is a big can of worms -- check out the macro-objectification problem from GianCarlo Ghirardi, ref. [11] above. The solution proposed here is quasi-local emergent geodesic, resembling the trajectory of a fish -- it gets its nonlocal gravitational corrections and contributions from 'the whole school of fish', and follows locally a trajectory comprised of "points" -- one-correction-at-a-point along AOS. It makes no sense of talking about "curvature" (§3.81), because an ideal observer (§3.11) doesn't have Akasha-like memory to "recall" its experience without such corrections and contributions from gravity. The quantum-gravitational "fish" is a contextual and Machian-like relational entity, hence it must never be "free from external forces" (§3.11).

2. You need (I don't) a constant gravitational field to make sense of "coordinate time" (cf. §3.36) and "finite distances in space" (§3.42), pertinent to "the scale factor R(t)", as defined above, with cosmological "constant" set to zero.

If, however, we have "time-dependent gravitational field, we can still expect an approximate cancellation if we restrict our attention to such a small region of space and time that the field changes very little over the region", says Steven Weinberg. There is too much poetry in this excerpt, as well as in other crucial ideas explained here.

The solution to the two tasks above is utterly needed. Do it, and if you come up with ideas different than those proposed here, I will consider my work redundant, hence wrong.

Good luck.

D. Chakalov
November 13, 2010
Last update: November 15, 2010









 

 

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


Subject: Re: “On Primitive Elements of Musical Meaning”
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:16:45 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Iegor Reznikoff <xxxx@xxxx.fr>
Cc: [snip]

Dear Iegor,

Thank you for your  [snip].

> What do you mean when saying (in your last email): it is what
> I see by zooming?

In the case of your *brain* (not mind),

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Azbel.html#self

... the UNdecidable KS state is explained with two sayings at

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

1. You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.

2. Don't wear polka dot underwear under white shorts.

The UNdecidable quantum state of your *brain* is not about broccoli, underwear, milk, or shorts, nor anything we can put in Dirac brakets. It doesn't live in Hilbert space either,

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

I tried to "zoom" on it, and it looks to me like a hedgehog,

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

I wonder what you would see!

Best regards,

Dimi


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

Subject: Re: “On Primitive Elements of Musical Meaning”
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:11:51 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Iegor Reznikoff <xxxx@xxxxx.xx>
Cc: [snip]

Dear Iegor,

Thank you very much for your reply and your very interesting manuscript. Perhaps you may wish to consider Apeiron,

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/resources/Apeiron.php

You hit the nail on the head (Consciousness.pdf, p. 6/8):

"This capacity of totalization, this gift of perceptive consciousness, is certainly one of its most important properties and unity may be the characteristic property of consciousness: consciousness unifies elements that otherwise are not related; from this comes meaning."

Can you read the text below?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn biran deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Pritie amzanig huh?

Voila !

I do hope some day we can get together. I deliberately missed some very important points at

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

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

Will be happy to explain them over a glass of wine, or five :-)

Wishing you all the best,

Dimi


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


Subject: Kommunikationswissenschaft 101
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 04:03:45 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Loet Leydesdorff <loet@leydesdorff.net>
Cc: Nikola Chakalov <chakalov.nikola@googlemail.com>

Dear Professor Leydesdorff,

May I share with you (and my son interested in KoWi) some thoughts prompted by your papers. I endorse the proposal for a third, Noetic world, different from res extensa and res cogitans [Ref. 1], which can be studied by empirical investigation, contrary to the claim by Edmund Husserl [Ref. 2].

Consider the Platonic ideas explicated with these sayings:

1. You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
2. Who has no horse may ride on a staff.
3. Don't wear polka dot underwear under white shorts.
4. Faute de mieux, on couche avec sa femme.

I'd say there are two such ideas. Here's a third Platonic idea, from Lewis Carroll:

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Our brains contain neurophysiological "correlates" of shorts, broccoli, horses, wives, etc., but not the Platonic ideas per se. Hence human communication always runs on two parallel layers: speakable and UNspeakable. The roots of the latter can *perhaps* be traced down to Jungian's Kollektives Unbewusstes -- I don't know, all this can and should be studied, faute de mieux, by empirical
investigation.

I will appreciate your thoughts on these issues.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


-----------

[Ref. 1] Loet Leydesdorff, "Meaning" as a sociological concept, arXiv:1011.3244v1 [nlin.AO]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3244

p. 14: "... the horizons of meaning that we share (to different extents). This domain is not in the res extensa, but remains res cogitans. In other words, the meaning that we provide to the events does not “exist” physically, but incurs on us as one among a set of culturally possible meanings."

p. 15: "This communicative reality that the communicators shape over time and reflexively reconstruct cannot be considered as res extensa, but belongs to the res cogitans; it is not stable like matter, but remains in flux like language. It enables us to communicate in terms of uncertainties (e.g., possibly relevant questions) and expectations. Husserl (1929) recognized this realm as cogitatum, that is, the substance about which the Cogito remains uncertain. Our mental
predicates provided to the world in intersubjective exchanges with intentional human beings, shape our culture and therewith ground what Husserl also called a “concrete ontology” or, in other words, “a universal philosophy of science” (1929, at p. 159)."


[Ref. 2] Loet Leydesdorff, The Non-linear Dynamics of Meaning-Processing in Social Systems, arXiv:0911.1037v1 [physics.soc-ph]
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1037

"According to Husserl, the study of this domain would provide us with “a concrete ontology and a theory of science” (ibid., at p. 159). However, the author conceded that he had no instruments beyond this transcendental apperception of the domain and therefore had to refrain from empirical investigation:

 We must forgo a more precise investigation of the layer of meaning
 which provides the human world and culture, as such, with a specific
 meaning and therewith provides this world with specifically “mental”
 predicates. (Husserl, 1929, at p. 138; my translation).


==================
 

Subject: Re: Kommunikationswissenschaft 101
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:15:27 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Loet Leydesdorff <loet@leydesdorff.net>

Dear Loet,

>> I wonder if you agree with the core proposal for a third, Noetic world.
>
> I am not so sure that we need this proliferation. How many angels can
> sit on a needle?

We're talking about an entity that exists as some form of 'reality', because the experiment I offered to your brain with the three Platonic ideas can be performed with all human brains, regardless of their structural differences, memory traces, life experience, age, etc.

The crux of the issue is that these *ideas* are (i) UNspeakable, (ii) robust and invariant to all differences in all human brains that have access to them, and (iii) open to newly created *ideas* that emerge in cosmological time. Regarding (iii), the idea of 'vehicle', for example, includes now a space shuttle, although 100 years ago it was still in the realm of 'the unknown unknown'.

> Perhaps, it suffices to distinguish between res extensa and res cogitans.
> The Noetic world could then be considered as part of the cogitatum.

On the one hand, the Noetic world is sort of "part" of the cogitatum, to the extent to which it is revealed only by its association with our personal qualia. On the other hand, it is a form of reality (I call it 'potential reality'), because it exists 'out there' and evolves/unfolds from ... well, I'd guess from [John 1:1], or perhaps from 'the true monad without windows', or from the Noumenon, but there
is no way to verify such source.

There is no way to verify the ultimate source of res extensa either, yet we don't treat elementary particles as 'angels sitting on the pin of a needle'.

One final comment: if you consider the qualia of 'blue' (res cogitans), you can refer it to EM radiation with particular wavelength (res extensa), but if you consider any Platonic idea of the type from my initial email, the question is: what kind of 'potential reality' can facilitate its presence and faculties outlined in (i) - (iii) above?

All this is a very old story, after Leibniz and Pauli,

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

A penny for your thoughts.

Please bear in mind that my email correspondence and web site may be screened by those (almost) transparent guys from the Echelon, so we cannot enjoy privacy.

All the best,

Dimi
-------

Note:
Some people can replace the Platonic idea of 'hot' with the one relevant to 'damp moss':


Is there a "bridge" connecting the quantum vacuum and the human brain? Perhaps all you need to extract ("dark") energy from 3-D space is right above your neck.

I've been arguing for many years that these Platonic ideas have dual ontological nature, because one can find their unique effects in both res extensa and res cogitans; and also that the need for quantum gravity stems from 'the universe modeled as a brain', as mentioned above.

NB: I have to clarify the precise meaning of 'dual ontological nature of potential reality', because we inevitably abuse this notion by using our language derived from the macroscopic world -- we tend to think about it as some sort of a "third" entity or "third world", which is "in-between" res extensa and res cogitans, and acts as a "bridge". But if you recall the notion of entanglement, it does not imply any "third" object or "bridge" connecting two parties. Instead, the "two" parties have become one inseparable object (ignore your classical thinking) due to their entanglement, such that we cannot factorize the "two" parts into some individual entities possessing well-defined properties apart from their entanglement (cf. quantum relational holism).

Likewise, the manifestation of 'potential reality' is two-fold, as we observe it in both res cogitans, in terms of Platonic ideas (cf. above), and res extensa in terms of pre-quantum KS state. The evolution of the latter is pre-correlated (Leibnizian pre-established harmony) with the former, hence there is no need for "anthropic principles" in explaining the "coincidence" or "Why Now? problem".

It is 'potential reality' what makes res extensa and res cogitans entangled by its dual ontological nature. Wolfgang Pauli explained his proposal in 1948; the initial idea belongs to Leibniz, of course. My suggestion from February 5, 1987 was to parameterize the phenomenon of entanglement, as manifestation of 'potential reality' in the quantum realm, with an open interval of real numbers (0, infinity), such that the latent observables (Henry Margenau) would acquire values larger than those pertaining to a macroscopic object (the latter has almost zero value of 'potential reality'). There should be a second layer of the quantum world, corresponding to greater values of entanglement, which will consume the possessed observables (mass and charge) as well, and will convert them into quarks; check out my LHC prediction from January 9, 2003. There should also be a very important, third section from this interval (mirroring the non-living macroscopic world), at which 'potential reality' approaches asymptotically infinity (cf. f(x) = oneOverX) -- the realm of Machian quantum gravity. At this "edge" of the physical world, the mutual penetration of the Large and the Small (global mode of spacetime) is almost entirely completed, and the physical world is approaching asymptotically 'the state of ONE'.

It is very difficult to thing about the human brain, with the human brain. If you're getting a headache, check out John Baez on duality; his interpretation is much easier to comprehend.

If you prefer parapsychology instead of quantum gravity, watch Criss Angel; more here.

D.C.
November 17, 2010
Last update: January 27, 2011


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


Subject: Re: The reference fluid, arXiv:1011.4444v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:46:08 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ian Lawrie <I.D.Lawrie@leeds.ac.uk>

Dear Ian,

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

> I think the remark you quote from Brown and Kucha\v{r} is a bit
> imprecise because they intend it as a general comment on a variety
> of similar approaches.

My general comments on Brown and Kuchar are posted at

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

Their construction doesn't work, for a variety of reasons. Which is why I offer a radical approach toward 'the reference fluid' as "ether" -- an unobservable pre-quantum state of the whole universe as ONE -- and suggest a Machian quantum gravity.

> Personally, I think there are difficulties with either of these possibilities,
> which I describe in my paper, but probably not everyone would agree with me.

I agree with you, and stress that there are even more arguments against Brown-Kuchar proposal.

> There would be a third possibility, which is to take a discrete set of
> particles, so that only some points of spacetime can be labelled
> explicitly.

But how would you make a 'discrete set of [whatever]' _and_ keep the spacetime continuum?

The task of such brand new quantization of spacetime is highly non-trivial, and goes back to the basic postulates of differential geometry. Which is why I asked you for advice, as I couldn't see even a hint for such task in your book.

My proposal is that "some points of spacetime can be labelled explicitly" thanks to a pre-quantum state derived from Quantum Theory,

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

But again, the math is unknown, since modern diff geometry textbooks say nothing about the fine structure of (spacetime) "points".

In other words, I am not a bartender,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Hoogen2

How about you?

All the best,

Dimi
------

Note: Excerpts from "A Unified Grand Tour of Theoretical Physics", by Ian D. Lawrie, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, 2001; ISBN 978-0-7503-0604-1, pp. 14-15 :
 



(Notice that the geodesic hypothesis (Alan Rendall) is
inherently unclear, because we presuppose some kind of
linearized and flattening "collapse" taking place at
"every point along a curve" to define gravitational "forces" - D.C.)


 


p. 17: "The end points x = a and x = b are excluded (bad idea -- check out how to bring these 'end points' back to GR with Finite Infinity - D.C.).
 
"An important use of open sets is to define continuous functions."

p. 20: "Often, we shall expect such functions to be differentiable (that is, to possess unique partial derivatives with respect to each coordinate at each point of the patch)."

But you can't get unique partial derivatives in the most important case here. The problem is not in GR. The problem stems from its inadequate and unclear mathematical basis -- the fine structure of a 'point' is missing. We need new mathematical presentations (not based on tensor calculus) of (i) 'spacetime point from differentiable manifold', (ii) its 'infinitesimal neighborhood', (iii) 'finite volume of space', and (iv) 'closed system' in order to develop Machian quantum gravity.

General Relativity is only a temporary patch or "makeshift", because "we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception." If the space itself is dynamical object, we may recover its 'global time' and 'reference fluid' from Quantum Theory. That's all.

D.C.
November 30, 2010
Last update: December 17, 2010


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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1012.1739v2 [gr-qc]
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 04:15:20 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: carlo rovelli <rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>
Cc: Simone Speziale <simone.speziale@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>,
Thomas Thiemann <thiemann@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de>,
Lee Smolin <lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
ashtekar@gravity.psu.edu,
fpretori@princeton.edu,
framazan@princeton.edu

Carlo,

You wrote in arXiv:1012.4707v1 [gr-qc]: "Its classical limit might finally turn out to be wrong, ... "

Is this your 'scrupulous intellectual honesty' ?

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

Check out the classical limit of LQG -- you can do it now, no need to wait another 25 years -- by elaborating on the alleged continuum limit ("the refinement of the two-complex to take to infinity", Eq. 16), *in such way* that you could produce a classical 3-D space in which "it is possible to look around, and see as far as we like" (Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, p. 205).

There is no such possibility, Carlo. The requirements for observing 3-D space "as far as we like" will kill your LQG at its "continuum limit", Eq. 16.

LQG is indeed a pathetic joke.

This is just business; nothing personal.

Merry Christmas.

Dimi


On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlo,
>
> I wonder what drives you to waste your time with "loop quantum gravity".
>
> I hear that many people at your university consider you an expert in
> quantum gravity -- is this true?
>
> Can't you realize that "loop quantum gravity" is a pathetic joke? Check out
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html
>
> Please try to respond professionally, at least once. I know you can do it.
>
> Dimi
>
--------

Note:
Warning:  If you do mathematics as a "bartender" and are not interested in the subtleties of 'finite space', don't waste your time by reading the text below.

Check out the continuum limit: this is the condition for 'finite space', which allows us to see through 3-D space "as far as we like" (Lee Smolin).

Now, try to implement this continuum limit condition in the alleged continuum limit of "loop quantum gravity" (LQG), or any other background-independent approach, causal dynamical triangulations (CDT) included. Carlo Rovelli won't even try, because he loves his LQG Barbie, but other people might be inclined to face the pitfalls of LQG.

There is a fundamental difference between all background-independent approaches to quantum gravity, published on paper, and the Machian quantum gravity (MQG), which is outlined at Henry Margenau's web page. It is about how we implement the continuum limit condition.
 


 

The perfect continuum of 'the grin of the cat without the cat', as observed exclusively by Alice, is interpreted in MQG as a special non-Archimedean state of the whole universe as ONE. This is the realm of 'geometry', presented with a hypothetical global mode of spacetime. It cannot be reached from the local (physical) mode of spacetime in the r.h.s. of Einstein equation, as demonstrated with the unresolved puzzle of 'continual finite space'.

With the exception of MQG, all approaches use some technique (more or less ingenious) to "zoom" onto the elementary building block of geometry, ensuing from a patch of finite space, after which they have to recover that same finite space. In LQG, people arrive at the idea that the continuum of space might be comprised of some hypothetical stuff, say, some 1099 "atoms of volume" in every cubic centimeter of space, and try to explain how time "proceeds in discrete ticks of about a Planck time, or 10-43 second" (Lee Smolin, Atoms of Space and Time, Scientific American, January 2004, pp. 58-63).

Another idea is that there is nothing of that [whatever] stuff "between" the "atoms" of [whatever], much like "there is no water in between two adjacent molecules of water" (L. Smolin).

So far so good, but notice the crucial notion of 'nothing' in the concept of 'continuum': the consecutive points of a line must succeed each other without any interval. That is, the "interval" is absolutely needed (otherwise all points from a line will fuse into one point), on the one hand, but on the other -- the "interval" must encapsulate the metaphysical notion of 'nothing' or "zero".

Now, how do you get this "zero thing", given its seemingly incompatible faculties? Can we 'have our cake and eat it'?

Except for MQG, people start with a patch of finite space, and then "instruct" something from that same patch to approach zero, e.g., some 'infinitesimal volume of space'. Look at Newton's recipe for obtaining 'the infinitesimal of time' (details from Robin Jordan).
 


Let's denote the infinitesimal of time with  dt , along an axis  z  orthogonal to x/y, as in Flatland.    dt  is the infinitesimal time "interval" by which each and every finite (see above) timelike displacement is build along the Arrow of Space, as driven by the "dark" energy from 'the whole universe as ONE', exhibited with the alleged expansion of 3-D space, build by the infinitesimal space volume  ds . Every physical system that can serve as 'clock' uses this elementary timelike displacementdt . It is indeed a deep mystery, as acknowledged by Ted Jacobson (A Spacetime Primer, pp. 18-19), and it is hidden in the continuum.

To obtain the intrinsic space "interval",  ds  (the fluxions of x and y, after Newton, and the "atom of volume" in LQG), we again start from a finite (see above) displacement in space, and instruct it to approach zero. Notice that we inevitably use three points to obtain  ds  : the cutoff,  s0 , always disappears from the local (physical) mode of spacetime, regardless of obtaining a finite interval (as in vacuum energy differences in QFT) or the infinitesimal  ds .

(s2 - s0) - (s1 - s0) = s2 - s1 = 1 m

Thus, we obtain  ds  by instructing  s2 - s1  to approach zero. The same idea applies to  dt . We believe that there should exist some numerically finite but physically unattainable "values" of  ds  and  dt  at Planck scale, but we know nothing about the ultimate cutoff  s0 , because it is never present in the local (physical) mode of spacetime. We can only speculate about a special "boundary" by which 'space' is bounded at The Small, such that  ds  and  dt  match  s0 .

This is the mystery of the continuum; sorry for repeating it all over again. Now, how do we implement the requirement that there should be "nothing" between the continual chain of consecutive points  ds  ? On the one hand,  s0  must encapsulate the metaphysical notion of 'nothing' or "zero" -- the consecutive points  ds  of a line (1-D Euclidean space) must succeed each other without any interval. On the other hand, we have to fulfill an equally important requirement that   s0  must somehow exist in order to prevent all (uncountably infinite) points  ds  of a line to fuse into one  ds . We need to 'have our cake and eat it', as sated above.

The metaphysical idea of 'continuum' is addressed in LQG with the mundane notion of 'zero something' (e.g., "there is no water in between two adjacent molecules of water", L. Smolin). For example, if you buy two bananas and eat them, you'll have 'zero bananas' in your hands. In LQG, the "bananas" are not converted into "zero" either, hence if you try to recover the continuum of finite space, you will ultimately fail.

Why? Because the remnants from the "bananas" will never, in no circumstances, allow you to recover the same patch of continual finite space. I will not delve into details about what constitute 'the remnants from the bananas' in LQG; think of these 'remnants' as the result from converting some characteristic of 'space' into something else, much like we explain (and convert) heat with kinetic energy.

Details available upon request.

Just a hint: because we don't live in some privileged or unique place in the universe, consider a finite volume of space with radius 7.3 billion light years (cf. Yuan K. Ha), which amounts to radius of 690.1025 cm and volume of 1,376,055,281.1025 cm3, each of which contains 1099 "atoms of volume". We have 1,376,055,281.10124, or roughly 10133  "atoms of volume" in which we can (i) picture 3 orthogonal dimensions of space, and (ii) see "as far as we like" (Lee Smolin). But because LQG is inherently relational, background-free theory, there is nothing at our disposal to 'hold onto', to avoid all errors in the binding of these 10133  "atoms of volume".

Obviously, LQG is a joke. Even in CDT, which is not supposed to suffer from the splitting of spacetime, the best guess yields spatial Hausdorff dimension dh = 3.10 ± 0.15 (cf. Renate Loll et al., arXiv:hep-th/0404156v4, p. 7), which is also a joke. You just can't recover the continuum.

In MQG, the notion of "zero thing" is not 'zero something' -- the hypothetical 'global mode of spacetime' at  s0  is not present in the patch of continual finite space even at the mathematical level of 'manifold'. From the viewpoint of the local (physical) mode of spacetime, it is 'zero nothing':

--> [local mode] [global 'zero nothing' mode] [local mode] -->

Thus, we can build an Arrow of Space, producing quantized spacetime from the outset -- 'have our cake and eat it'. And we always have the reference fluid of GR to 'hold onto': the non-Archimedean global mode of spacetime.

It is General Relativity itself which requires the global time-as-change from the Arrow of Space to be non-existent in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, or else the ether, as 'the reference fluid of GR', will show up in GR. The global mode of spacetime does exist, because otherwise you cannot "connect the dots" as consecutive points of our 3-D space, in such a way that we can see "as far as we like" (Lee Smolin). You can't bind the consecutive points of 3-D space with some "thermal time" (C. Rovelli, arXiv:0903.3832v3 [gr-qc], p. 8). Which is why the energy of the Arrow of Space is inevitably "dark" -- there is no way you can trace back its source from/within the local (physical) mode of spacetime. All you can observe in the local mode is spatiotemporal coincidences, but you cannot recover the phenomenon which literally builds up the 3-D space of GR, from GR. Which is why I tried to contact Professor Rovelli in November 1999. But of course he didn't reply. Physicists don't like to be reminded of Aristotelian First Cause -- it will also look "dark" in present-day GR. Which is why we need quantum gravity.

In another email, Carlo Rovelli stated the following: "All of us keep looking around, reading, checking out the papers in the archives, and when we find ideas that seem interesting to us, or potentially good, we react. There is no shortcut to that."

It is like refusing to read the news on your mobile phone, because news must be either displayed on TV or printed on paper. That's how Carlo Rovelli implements his rule of 'scrupulous intellectual honesty'. He will keep preaching to the choir and publishing papers on LQG in the next twenty-five years, and will probably end up like Alain Connes.

This whole story is anything but 'news', as it can be traced back to Lucretius, some 2060 years ago. However, as John Coleman rightly noticed, "it is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink warm water."

The results are indeed laughable, like the chewing over how time "proceeds in discrete ticks of about a Planck time, or 10-43 second", and what might have happened "shortly after the Big Bang, when the universe expanded by 1028 within just 10–36 of a second."

Whether such jokes are pathetic or not -- you decide.


D. Chakalov
December 22, 2010
Last update: December 25, 2010, 11:10 GMT


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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:42:04 +0100, Message-ID:
<AANLkTim-n4u1GhgFp8MKQKDHYfXqJZQ_-S77gn84aq3i@mail.gmail.com>,
Carlo Rovelli <rovelli.carlo@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dimi,
thanks for your last email. I am just writing to let you know that after it I have added your name and address to my SPAM filter list. Therefore I am not going to see your mails anymore.
[snip]

=================
 

Addendum

Pity Carlo Rovelli chose to run away.

For those interested in his viewpoint on LQG in arXiv:1012.4707v2 [gr-qc], let me offer just two excerpts (emphasis and links added) and my comments:

p. 7: "Meaning of quantum mechanics.

"Hopes have been voiced that a quantum theory of gravity will clarify the mysteries of quantum theory. This is not the case of loop gravity, which uses standard quantum theory (in whatever interpretation is your favorite one), only slightly generalized to make room for the peculiar way temporal evolution is described in general relativity."

The same C. Rovelli stressed in his gr-qc/0604045, p. 4: "The proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories cannot be used as an independent variable either, as [tau] is a complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable."

I do not know how "standard quantum theory" and LQG have been "slightly generalized" to "make room" for the absence in GR of "an observable time variable." Perhaps C. Rovelli is "slightly" confused with some slightly "partial observables". Well, it happens.

To understand the difference in the interpretations of "standard quantum theory", and their implications for LQG, see

Robert Geroch, Geometrical Quantum Mechanics, unpublished lecture notes, University of Chicago, 1974, pp. 62-71
http://academics.hamilton.edu/physics/smajor/Papers/geroch_gqm.pdf

Second excerpt from arXiv:1012.4707v2 [gr-qc], p. 12:

"The “problem of time” is not anymore a conceptual problem in quantum gravity since the conceptual issues have been clarified, but remains a source of technical difficulties. The problems can in principle be solved using the relational formalism. That is, defining observables not with respect to unphysical space time points but in terms of relations between dynamical fields. (...) One possibility of constructing relational observables is to couple the theory to effective matter fields and use these as reference systems, in order to formally circumvent the difficulties deriving from general covariance [80]."
---
[80] C. Rovelli, “Quantum Reference Systems,” Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (1991) 317–332.

Rovelli's claim that "the problems can in principle be solved using the relational formalism" is nothing but wishful thinking -- check out Karel Kuchar's research (references at this web site). Of course, he does not offer in arXiv:1012.4707v2 [gr-qc] reference to any research paper published by Karel Kuchar.

C. Rovelli does not mention Claus Kiefer's monograph Quantum Gravity (2nd ed., 2007) either. Notice Ch. 6.3 therein, 'Quantum Hamiltonian constraint', p. 194:

"The exact treatment of the constraint is the central (as yet open) problem in loop quantum gravity."

Why is that? Because LQG is stuck at its kinematical stage. To obtain the dynamics, the first off task is to make sure that, in the classical limit of LQG, we will be able to see "as far as we like" (Lee Smolin).

Forget it, Carlo. LQG is a joke, just like your "scrupulous intellectual honesty".
 

D. Chakalov
December 23, 2010, 14:33 GMT


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

Subject: Re: arXiv:1012.1739v2 [gr-qc]
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:01:31 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: carlo rovelli <rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>
Cc: Simone Speziale <simone.speziale@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>

Dear Carlo,

> If you call my (and other's) work a "pathetic joke", I just turn the
> page and read something else: I am not interested in a dialogue
> based on insults.

Okay, I admit it was too harsh. Sorry. Let me please correct my statement: I think loop quantum gravity (LQG) is indeed a joke, but a smart one. It isn't 'not even wrong', because one can learn a lot about quantum gravity by refuting LQG.

I also wish to say that, from all pupils of Chris Isham, I consider you the smartest. But you shouldn't scoffed at Karel Kuchar's Perennials with those "evolving constants" and "partial observables", because nobody can beat Karel on GR. He showed you where you went wrong, with very simple math (you know the reference, right?), but you didn't take notice.

You did not reply professionally to any of my email messages sent since Fri, 26 Nov 1999 (printed below), and I'm afraid you will never reply to my criticism of LQG posted at

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

Which is a pity, because I do believe you are smart, and will waste your professional life with that 'smart joke', LQG.

Please don't take this as an insult, and consider amending your latest review, arXiv:1012.4707v2 [gr-qc].

Again, this is all business; noting personal.

Wishing you and all your colleagues a nice white Christmas,

Dimi

---------
Subject: Request for opinion
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:14:59 +0000
From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <dchakalov@email.com>
To: Carlo Rovelli <rovelli@science.unitn.it>
CC: Carlo Rovelli <rovelli@pitt.edu>,
Fotini <f.markopoulou@ic.ac.uk>,
Abhay Ashtekar <ashtekar@phys.psu.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@ic.ac.uk>, Don Page <don@phys.ualberta.ca>,
Dorje Brody <d.c.brody@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca>,
"Dr J.N. Butterfield" <jb56@cus.cam.ac.uk>,
Hitoshi Kitada <kitada@kims.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@ic.ac.uk>,
Joy Christian <joy.christian@wolfson.oxford.ac.uk>


Dear Professor Rovelli,

I am trying to comprehend how you [Ref. 1] and Prof. A. Ashtekar are trying to 'isolate time' or 'bring time' into quantum gravity. May I ask a question?

Since 1986, the main hope of the Ashtekar approach is that it may yield solutions to its own analogue of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This analogue involve functions of spin-connections, or loops in 3-space, and hence the picture is totally 'self-acting'. It is like Barron von Muenhausen who tried to lift himself and his horse by pulling himself up by his hair. In other words, you can't 'hold' on
anything, for there is no background there.

If so, what could possibly 'bring the time' that we can measure with clocks from "spatiotemporal coincidences only" [Ref. 1]?

With kind regards,

Dimiter G. Chakalov
[snip]

[Ref. 1] Carlo Rovelli. The century of the incomplete revolution: searching for general relativistic quantum field theory. Sun, 17 Oct 1999 19:43:18 GMT,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9910131





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


Subject: The infinitesimal fluid element, Eq. 2.2, arXiv:1012.0784v1 [astro-ph.CO]
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:56:54 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Syksy Räsänen <syksy.rasanen@iki.fi>
CC: Robert Geroch <geroch@uchicago.edu>,
Raymond Chiao Y <rchiao@ucmerced.edu>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Oyvind Gron <oyvind.gron@iu.hio.no>,
Robert van den Hoogen <rvandenh@stfx.ca>

Dear Dr. Räsänen,

Regarding the notion of 'time' introduced in your latest paper (details in the subject line), perhaps you may be interested to check out its possible structure and origin,

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

I believe the implications for "backreaction", the apparent FTL introduced with math [Ref. 1] and Gedankenexperiment [Ref. 2], and the puzzle of the physical spacetime [Ref. 3], are obvious.

An example of "backreaction" -- which might look FTL but isn't -- is the bootstrapping effect in a school of fish,

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

A penny for your thoughts.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

--------

[Ref. 1] Robert Geroch, Faster Than Light? arXiv:1005.1614v1 [gr-qc]

"Nature, apparently, always “turns on interactions” in a very special way."
....
Footnote 6: "Here, again, we are ignoring the diffeomorphism freedom, which, again, does not materially impact the present considerations."


[Ref. 2] R. Y. Chiao, How the conservation of charge can lead to a faster-than-c effect: A simple example, arXiv:1012.0797v1 [gr-qc]

"This implies that at the quantum, microscopic level of description, the disappearance of an individual electron, such as at point A, must always be accompanied by its simultaneous reappearance at an arbitrarily far-away point on the surface, such as at point B, at exactly the same instant of time [6]. Otherwise, the principle of charge conservation would be violated at the quantum level of description of individual events.

"We shall call this counter-intuitive effect "instantaneous superluminality due to charge conservation." Note that this superluminal effect does not violate relativistic causality because ...
... .
....
"To sum up, charge conservation leads to situations in which causal, faster-than-c effects can occur. At the quantum level of description, such effects can lead to causally superluminal charge and mass currents inside matter."


[Ref. 3] R. J. van den Hoogen, Averaging Spacetime: Where do we go from here? arXiv:1003.4020v1 [gr-qc]

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


 

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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1005.5052v2 [astro-ph.CO], "There is no gravity out there and no dark energy."
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:40:55 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Farley F." <F.Farley@soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Baron Rees of Ludlow <mjr@ast.cam.ac.uk>


Dear Francis,

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

> The crucial point is that analysed in a static laboratory frame the galaxies
> do not appear to be accelerating or decelerating.
> Therefore nothing is pushing them or pulling them.
> In this sense there is no dark energy nor gravity out there although gravity
> acts locally because of inhomogeneties.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are implying a preferred reference frame of 'the whole universe', in which one can imagine non-intersecting geodesics converging towards the past, after Weyl's Principle,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Zinkernagel1

In my opinion, such approach will produce mutually exclusive hypotheses, because this unique reference frame is both real and unreal. There are plenty of evidence in support of it (my favorite case is the cosmic equator, e.g., Craig J. Copi et al., arXiv:astro-ph/0605135v2), yet we just can't stick to it, because it
refers to something that is 'absolutely everywhere in no time'. We just call this entity "space".

If we take the Hubble Law literally, one option is to picture this 3-D space as some infinitely large warehouse, in which some "ambulances" are running away from any arbitrary "point" in the warehouse. Some astronomers really believe this may be the case. I personally consider it too primitive and brutal for our elegant and smart Mother Nature. I think She wouldn't have chosen the other option of "expanding" metric either, because it is also brutal.

So, I need to understand these two alternatives, bearing in mind that I may encounter mutually exclusive hypotheses, in which case I have to make a new one (which I did).

> If you think that dark energy acts upon the metric, not upon the matter, that
> is another story.

I think the so-called dark energy is an artifact from our incomplete knowledge of gravity; please check out Addendum at

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

> Clearly in a normal static laboratory metric without expansion there is no
> such thing.

It shouldn't, and can't show up there.

> So my analysis does not reveal anything about your metric.
>
> As I understand Einstein's equivalence principle, gravity can be replaced
> by an accelerating frame of reference.

I haven't been able to understand Einstein's equivalence principle in the past 38 years.

> So for calculations on earth you can use a frame of reference that is
> accelerating radially outwards.
> This leads to the gravitational redshift etc.
> Einstein did not ask what was pushing such a frame of reference outwards.

Angels, obviously :-)

Richard Feynman, Character Of Physical Law, p. 8: "The next question was - what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward."

> Surely it is just a mathematical trick: not supposed to represent reality.

Seriously: I don't know.

Martin: What do you think?

> One of Einstein's many fruitful thought experiments.
>
> NOW this frame of reference has morphed into "space". Space they imply
> is accelerating outwards from the earth and has been doing so ever since the
> earth was born. By now space must be going very fast indeed. The earth is
> no longer a source of gravity, but a source of "space".

Voila! Please notice an Arrow of Space at the first link above.

> I used to discuss these things with my good friend John Bell when we were
> both at CERN. In the end he shook his hear sadly and said, "You do not
> understand general relativity".

I'm glad you don't, because only undergraduates "understand" GR and
the geodesic hypothesis.

> In my paper I try to understand the kinematics of the SN1A redshifts without
> any preconceptions about gravity or space, just extending laboratory physics
> to these distances.

I'm very glad that your paper was published.

> To my surprise the data fits very well.

Yes, sure, but the whole issue is *very* tricky, after the freedom in GR to manipulate gravity 'by hand' and with "a simple static cartesian frame of reference with no curvature and use special relativity," as you put it.

> What should we conclude ???? At least that dark energy and expanding space
> is not proven or not the only game in town.

Not proven and not the only game in town.

> For me, "space" has replaced the 19th century concept of the luminiferous
> ether.
> Nice idea, but you cannot see it, detect it or measure it.
> It is better to work with what we can observe.

And keep an eye on what we cannot in principle observe: an omnipresent, hence "dark", entity. Details in the web page of Henry Margenau above.

Pity Martin cannot take part in our discussion. He said once that he has enough confidence in the multiverse to bet his dog's life on it,

http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/25/22/229001

I am sure he will never take any risks with his beloved dog :-)

With all good wishes to you and Martin,

Dimi


> ________________________________
> From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:13:07 -0000
> To: "Farley F." <F.Farley@soton.ac.uk>
> Cc: Baron Rees of Ludlow <mjr@ast.cam.ac.uk>
> Subject: arXiv:1005.5052v2 [astro-ph.CO], "There is no gravity
>  out there and no dark energy."
>
> Dear Francis,
>
> I couldn't find the sentence quoted in the subject line in your
> abstract in Proc. R. Soc.
>
> If you adopt "a simple static cartesian frame of reference with no
> curvature and use special relativity", under the assumption that "the
> galaxies are receding from Earth at unchanging velocities in a fixed
> metric with no curvature", how can you possibly find out that (i)
> there is gravity out there and (ii) dark energy as "expansion" of the
> metric? The latter will be totally invisible to you, hence your claim
> in the subject line is not justified.
>
> Please correct me if I got your idea wrong.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dimi
>
----------

Note:
Regarding the kinematics of the SN1A redshifts (the "ambulances") above, notice a tacit, and erroneous, presumption that one can expand a finite volume of space to 'the whole universe', and apply the interpretation of redshift effects from the former to the latter, assuming that some unique reference frame may offer a bird's eye view on 'the whole universe'. The same anti-relativistic error is made in NASA's drawing of 'the cosmological time' en bloc, after assuming some unique reference frame for the Weyl Principle. The simples explanation of this error is to examine carefully the misleading balloon metaphor, bearing in mind that we deny the physical existence (local mode of spacetime) of both "the center" of the balloon and some 4-D spatial "direction" pointing to some not-yet-occupied space, waiting patiently for the universe to expand into. Instead, we keep them in the global mode of spacetime, which is assumed to be a pre-geometric plenum located "between" the points of the spacetime manifold, in which a torsion-like "loop" or "handshaking" is performed -- totally hidden by the "speed" of light.

Hence one can postulate the Arrow of Space producing the global Heraclitean time, bzw. potential reality, biocausality, and the scale relativity principle (SRP).

But if you subscribe to the "block universe", nothing could help you identify the error of assuming such unique reference frame. Unless you try to define an 'isolated system in GR', to address the energy balance of 'the whole universe' and speculate about its "dark energy", you may never notice the anti-relativistic error. So, try to define 'isolated system in GR', with "dark energy". Try any conformal or you-name-it recipe, your choice. Can't make it.

Why? Because what makes the energy from empty space "dark" is the faculty of the whole universe to act on itself. It's self-acting, after Aristotle. Physically, only Baron Munchausen has managed to do it.

Alternatively, you may wish to start with a modification of G F R Ellis' FI. Or keep quiet, like Sir Martin Rees and his dog. It's your free will choice.

D. Chakalov
January 12, 2011
Last updated: March 31, 2011

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

Martin Rees wins £1m Templeton Prize
April 6, 2011
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45636

"The cosmologist Martin Rees, former president of the Royal Society, has won this year's £1m Templeton Prize – the world's largest annual award given to an individual. He was awarded the prize for his "profound insights" into the nature of the cosmos that have "provoked vital questions that address mankind's deepest hopes and fears".
......
"
As the author of more than 500 research papers, ... (Comment: If Martin Rees has started publishing research papers at age 18, for 50 years he should have produced on average over 10 research papers per year -- D.C.).
......

"He adds he had no qualms about accepting the award and that has not yet decided how he will spend the £1m prize money."

Probably by offering even deeper insights into the nature of the cosmos and provoking the ultimate vital questions that address mankind's deepest hopes and fears from ... the multiverse ? Just guessing.

D.C.
April 7, 2011

 

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


Subject: arXiv:astro-ph/0411803v2
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:41:40 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: mishak@utdallas.edu,
aupadhye@kicp.uchicago.edu,
aupadhye@princeton.edu,
steinh@princeton.edu
Cc: Michal Chodorowski <michal@camk.edu.pl>,
Marvin Weinstein <niv@slac.stanford.edu>

Dear colleagues,

May I ask a question regarding your *very* important article.

You have assumed that "the dark energy may be parameterized using an equation of state w(z) = P/p, where P and p are the pressure and dark energy density, respectively, and w(z) is an unknown function of red shift."

Are you assuming some absolute space in which objects recede with respect to any (=not privileged) location with *actual* velocities, in line with the Hubble Law (e.g., Michal Chodorowski, A direct consequence of the expansion of space? arXiv:astro-ph/0610590v3) ?

Or are you assuming that the metric, or perhaps the scale factor, may vary in such way that we perceive redshifted light from these objects, depending on the distance from us, but without *actual* velocities associated with the redshift effect?

I endorse this latter case, because the former doesn't make sense to me, as it implies some absolute space in which "more and more space appears" due to DDE.

Please advise.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
------

Note: Suppose the scale factor changes as function of the distance, like this:

1 "meter" table   =  0_________1 , relative to observer A (cf. below).
1 "meter" galaxy =  0_________1 , relative to observer B (cf. below).

Observer A will see redshifted light from some objects receding from her with increasing "speed" proportional to the "increasing" volume of space, as she perceives a galaxy as many times "larger" than her 1 "meter" table. Observer B won't notice any difference to the "size" of her table, because a galaxy will be 1 "meter" to her. In other words, Observer B will be seen by Observer A as "very tall and fat", i.e., stretched to the size of a galaxy, while Observer B will only notice see that Observer A has shrunk to a tiny little table of 1 "meter".

Who has "the right meter" ? Nobody. This is the essence of Scale Relativity Principle. It is applicable only to 'finite things'. There are two images from 'the universe as ONE' which is indeed absolute. It is is placed at the two opposite ends of 'space', which is why we see "them" as zero and infinity.

Notice that the "number" of points in the two cases above is the same: uncountably infinite (non-denumerable). This is the non-Archimedean world of pure geometry -- the grin of the cat without the cat, as only observed by Alice.

It goes without saying that nobody is interested. People keep arguing about the "expansion" of space "during" some "inflationary stage", as well as actual velocities of objects, as inferred from their redshifted light + Hubble Law, as if they have been sitting in some ideal/meta-observer reference frame at which they can take a bird's eye view on the whole universe en bloc, and measure some absolute dimensions of the universe. You need the reference fluid of GR.

NB:
People, let's make it clear, once and for all. The error you've been making is very simple: if you take the stand of an observer placed in 3-D space, such that there are finite volumes of space that you can identify -- inside vs outside or Small vs Large -- you cannot, not even in principle, extend this viewpoint to some absolute "bird's eye view" to include 'the whole universe', as with the NASA drawing, nor can you "see" the alleged "curvature of space".

If you could somehow reach the non-Archimedean realm of 'geometry', you may be able to see the whole universe en bloc, as depicted in the drawings below.

 




 


It doesn't matter if you step back 1 m, or move 1 m closer to the universe -- you will see the same universe en bloc, because you're in the
non-Archimedean realm of "infinity" (recall the 'Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall' here). Only Chuck Norris has been there (twice).
You can't.

 

If you insist on talking about some redshifted "ambulances" receding from you with speed proportional to the distance, after the Hubble Law, keep in mind that you are again confined into the finite 3-D space -- left vs right and Small vs Large -- hence you can say NOTHING about the phenomenon which creates this finite 3-D space. You can only see its END result -- a finite 3-D space. You cannot see or "measure intrinsically" any "curvature" of spacetime nor "DDE of [whatever]". You cannot see or "measure intrinsically" any GLOBAL parameter of spacetime.

In the framework of present-day GR, you cannot have any privileged class of "fundamental observers" (Jean-Philippe Uzan) nor absolute coordinates of Earth in the absolute reference frame of the cosmic equator (Craig J. Copi et al.). To be precise, "in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions one has canonical clocks (e.g. the temperature of the cosmic background radiation) that not only break Lorentz invariance defining a cosmic (global) time but break the Galilei invariance defining observers which are at rest with respect to the cosmic background radiation" (Luca Lusanna et al.). The current GR can't explain the bold fact that your wristwatch does indeed read this "unphysical" (global) time (Thomas Thiemann).

The solution is simple and non-trivial: dual age cosmology. That is, the age of the universe is finite in the global mode (currently some 13.7 billion years "after" The Beginning), and infinite/indecisive in the local mode of time, as read by your wristwatch. Once created by [John 1:1], the universe has "already" become eternal/infinite along both directions of the local mode of time, toward the past and the future.

Again, in present-day GR, you can't define any external and absolute parameter to map the END result from DDE to some cosmological "timeline", so that you can propose some "equation of state" (EOS) of DDE. It is just as wrong as are the following statements ("Big Bang 'soup recipe' confirmed," by Rolf H. Nielsen, New Scientist, 11 June 2003):

"A microsecond after (absolute time - D.C.) the Big Bang, when the exploding fireball of the newborn Universe was only a few kilometres across (absolute space - D.C.), all matter existed in a special state."

Such statements about the age of the universe are not better than the "discovery" of the Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher that the Earth was formed at 6 p.m. on 22 October 4004 BC. Only Chuck Norris can, at least in principle, measure the absolute age of the universe, but hasn't yet publish his calculation.

Wilma, did you notice how fast was the latest inflation? And look at the scale factor: it changed that much by the time I finished my coffee!

Fred, don't talk like a Russian cosmologist. Get real.
 

D.C.
February 8, 2011
Last update: March 17, 2011

 

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


Subject: arXiv:1103.5870 v3 ?
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:41:06 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Shuang Wang <swang@mail.ustc.edu.cn>,
Miao Li <mli@itp.ac.cn>,
Xiao-Dong Li <renzhe@mail.ustc.edu.cn>,
Yi Wang <wangyi@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>
Cc: Yi-Fu Cai <ycai21@asu.edu>

Dear Colleagues,

I like your review paper, arXiv:1103.5870v2, very much. May I inform you about my work at

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

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

Do you follow Shao Yong ?

Kindest regards,

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


Note:
The manuscript by Miao Li et al. [Ref. 1] is the best review of the "dark" puzzle I've ever read. It is exceptionally clear and well organized. It is a joy to read and study.

My email above was prompted by the statement on p. 5: "The null energy condition is marginally satisfied." It will be nice if they elaborate on the adverb 'marginally'.

Basically, the energy conditions express the idea that the locally-measured energy density must be strictly positive everywhere and for all observers. Sounds trivial, like saying that the mass is always positive, right? Well, try to prove it.

The catch is in the presumption of locally-measured energy density. The "measurements" are actually quasi-local due to gravity. "One cannot just integrate Tuv(Matter) over a 3-space to obtain a conserved total energy-momentum" (R. Penrose, 1966). Moreover, this whole 3-space has its own dynamics, but one cannot use any external absolute background time to write down EOS of the "dark" puzzle.

As Lau Loi So et al. acknowledged in their study with classical pseudotensors, "one can regard positivity as an important test for quasi-local energy expressions" (arXiv:0901.3884v1).

And the other way around. It's a bundle. But we cannot use pseudotensors. It is a bit as if you're doing an exercise in analytical chemistry, and are trying to prove that you have NaCl in your sample, but have contaminated it with NaCl (pseudotensors) from the outset. Classical pseudotensors cannot prove/disprove anything. Nobody knows how they work, once people manage to shape them the way they want them ("Never make a calculation until you know roughly what the answer will be!", John A. Wheeler), in order to calculate the result they know from the outset. Forget it. We need to find 'the right question' in the first place. The puzzle is best explained in MTW, p. 467.

The null energy condition [Ref. 1, p. 5], or rather the averaged null energy condition (ANEC), requires that the null-null component of the stress-energy tensor, integrated along a complete null geodesic, is non-negative for all states (Ulvi Yurtsever, arXiv:gr-qc/9411056v1).

But how do you envisage 'a complete null geodesic' in an "expanding" space? I can't. It is also totally unclear to me how some 'perfectly smooth ideal fluid' (cf. Matt Visser) would couple to type I matter fields, to prove that ANEC is satisfied at all. Surely Mother Nature has made it strictly satisfied, or else we would have observed anomalous, if not catastrophic, events (more above).

But again, these are just my scattered thoughts about the adverb 'marginally'. I think we shouldn't have jumped into conclusion that the "dark puzzle" originates directly from some mundane stuff with positive energy density: it comes out far too much, and suspiciously well-tuned during all cosmological stages. Clearly, there is "a long long way to go" [Ref. 1].

The review by Miao Li et al. [Ref. 1] is a gem. As Alfred North Whitehead noticed, "It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious."

D.C.
April 7, 2011


[Ref. 1] Miao Li, Xiao-Dong Li, Shuang Wang, and Yi Wang, Dark Energy, arXiv:1103.5870v2 [astro-ph.CO], http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5870v2

p. 5: "Of course the strong energy condition is not something sacred. The null energy condition is marginally satisfied."
......

p. 153: "However, the problem of understanding the nature of dark energy is as daunting as ever, or perhaps some already hold the key to this understanding without being commonly accepted yet. Clearly, there is a long long way to go for both theorists and experimentalists."


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


Subject: "Of course, it may just be that something else is wrong at a more fundamental level," arXiv:1102.1148v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 04:30:20 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Johan Noldus <Johan.Noldus@gmail.com>
Cc: Re Fiorentin Stefano <stefano.refiorentin@fiat.com>


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

It applies also to the puzzle acknowledged by Rindler.

D.C.
----
Wolfgang Rindler, Relativity, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2006, Sec. 1.14, p. 22: "The equality of inertial and active gravitational mass then remains as puzzling as ever. It would be nice if the inertial mass of an accelerating particle were simply a back-reaction to its own gravitational field, but that is not the case."


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

Subject: Re: "Of course, it may just be that something else is wrong at a more fundamental level," arXiv:1102.1148v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:17:33 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: johan noldus <johan.noldus@gmail.com>


> Well, meanwhile I provided an answer to this question.

Wow. Now you should pack, shave, and leave for Stockholm... slowly, no rush.

Dimi

 

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


Subject: arXiv:1101.2177v1 [astro-ph.CO]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:50:08 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Marvin Weinstein <niv@slac.stanford.edu>
Cc: Alfred Scharff Goldhaber <goldhab@max2.physics.sunysb.edu>,
Alfred.Goldhaber@stonybrook.edu,
Ratindranath Akhoury <akhoury@umich.edu>


Dear Dr. Weinstein,

It is a real pleasure to read your recent paper. I will study it thoroughly over the weekend.

May I offer you my comments and ask for your opinion and corrections. I extend this immodest request to your colleagues as well.

You wrote: "Clearly, if after some finite time the universe has doubled in size, then we have twice as many fundamental volumes as we had before."

It seems to me that you imply Archimedean geometry,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Blanchard2

I mean, a ' fundamental volume' may be chosen in such way that the "number" of such volumes, in any finite volume of space, to be uncountably infinite (cf. Kurt Gödel, 'What is Cantor's Continuum Problem?', American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 54, No. 9 (November 1947), pp. 515-525). Which could be interpreted as a non-Archimedean, and purely geometrical "cutoff", at which Alice could see 'the grin of the cat without the cat', placed in the l.h.s. of Einstein equation.

You believe that "there is no reservoir of degrees of freedom available for creating new degrees of freedom as the universe expands", but if the evolution of the universe is non-unitary, such "reservoir" will be needed to account for the *emergence* of new degrees of freedom from 'the unknown unknown'.

Regarding the "interacting theory where the general form of the behavior of the vacuum energy density has the same form as in the free case", and the “Why now?” paradox, please see Sec. Summary, pp. 35-36, in

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

Your idea that the scale factor (or the lattice spacing) may be changing "in a spatially uniform manner" is one of the toughest issues I've ever faced. I am trying to propose a 'scale relativity principle', which would treat the basic characteristics of 3-D space in a relational manner, that is, the notions of Large vs Small, inside vs outside, and left vs right, will no linger be absolute faculties of 3-D space, but will be relational, that is, 'relative to two observers', A and B. Keep observer A fixed at the length scale of tables and chairs, and allow a table of length 1 m, relative to A, to shrink its "length" toward the Small, while being closely watched by its "co-moving" observer B. As the size of the (relative to A) table and observer B shrink toward the Planck scale, the observer B will always, at all times, measure "the same" length of 1 m of their table, due to altering the metric of space/the scale factor toward the Small. This could only be possible if the "number" of "fundamental volumes" is uncountably infinite. Conversely, if we let the length of the table and observer B to "enlarge" toward the Large, relative to the fixed observer A, the length of the table would look like approaching the cosmological horizon to observer A, while *at the same time* it will keep its relative length of 1 m to its co-moving observer B.

Does this make sense to you?

Please see also a modification of G F R Ellis' Finite Infinity at

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

Sorry for this unsolicited, and too long, email. Maybe you have similar ideas, in which case I will be more than happy to study them in details. I just don't want to invent the wheel.

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note: I wish to stress that Marvin Weinstein's arXiv:1101.2177v1 [astro-ph.CO] is a must to read and study. It is indeed a fundamental research. The only point at which I disagree with him is this (p. 7): "Clearly my discussion of this question is woefully inadequate and a more serious analysis of these issues within the context of specific models is required in order to better assess the viability of the idea." In my opinion, his discussion isn't "woefully inadequate", but insightful, precise, clear, and professional. Surely we need further analysis, because nobody knows what 'space' is. All I wanted to suggest is to get rid of all fixed qualities of 'space', such as the spatial relations Small vs Large, etc., with the so-called scale relativity principle (SRP). It is very easy to say it, but immensely difficult to actually do it. I hope to offer more on November 25, 2015.

D.C.
January 12, 2011


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


Subject: Request about 'how to catch a lion'
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:00:35 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: James M Chappell <james.m.chappell@adelaide.edu.au>

Dear Dr. Chappell,

I read your very interesting arXiv:1101.3619v1, and wonder if you can help me find the proper mathematical expression of an old joke about space inversion, 'how to catch a lion'.

If you ask a mathematician how to catch a lion in Sahara, she would probably suggest that, given the existence of at least one lion there, she would drag a cage for lions in the middle of the desert, lock herself up, and then perform space inversion w.r.t. the cage surface, such that all points outside it will be converted inside the cage, and vice versa. At the end of the day, she will find herself outside the cage, while the poor lion will be locked inside. :-)

Question is, would she see a parity-reversal state of the lion, like inverting a right-hand rubber glove into a left-hand one? And how can we mathematically describe such space inversion?

Please note that the intrinsic properties of our physical space are encoded in the relations of left vs right, and inside vs outside or large vs small. Unlike time-reversal symmetry, these transformations do not produce physically indistinguishable outcomes. I believe this asymmetry is the crux of 'space'.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: Back in October 1998, I wrote an email to Chris Isham, in which I offered the idea that the obvious asymmetry of time can only come from asymmetry of space. The reason is that the "separation" of time from space "takes place" only in our twisted imagination, so if we wish to search for some fundamental asymmetry, we should look closely at 'space'. Many years later, I came up with the Arrow of Space. Not only it requires mathematical presentation of 'space inversion', but new mathematical ideas for describing 'potential reality' as well.

NB: Think of the 'cage surface' above as a spherical trapped 2-D surface, which represents the structure of space at macroscopic scale, namely, the length scale at which we can imagine three precisely separated entities: a collection of points located inside the cage, another collection of points from the cage surface, and a third collection of points from the space located outside the cage surface. This is also an operational definition of 'finite space', and a criterion about the "points" in such 'finite space' being FAPP 'strictly local'. In the case of quantum, gravitational, and living system, the "points" are quasi-local.

If I knew the math, I wouldn't be writing these lines. Perhaps one day some young and hungry grad student will crack the puzzle. Then perhaps we will learn how to extract energy from space with our brains. If 'the universe as a whole' works like a huge brain, the release of positive mass-energy from 'empty space' could be just a matter of learning a new skill, as difficult as twirling a hula-hoop.

Of course, we first need to find out the mechanism by which only one "charge" of mass is produced in the local mode of spacetime. Is 'potential reality' charge-neutral? How can AVCs (alien visitor craft) fly quietly and unconstrained by inertia-related dynamics (watch William Pawelec, 0:57:00-0:59:20)? Which begs the question of how to "separate" gravitational from inertial mass. Locally, they do look identical in some 'free falling elevator', but this 'elevator' belongs to the local mode of spacetime only. It can't fly like an AVC. More on 25.11.2015.

D.C.
January 21, 2011
Last update: April 22, 2011


 

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




Subject: 0806.3293v4, 0907.0414v1, and 0907.0412v1
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:03:03 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Samuel E Gralla <sgralla@uchicago.edu>
Cc: Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Anthony Lasenby <a.n.lasenby@mrao.cam.ac.uk>,
Luke Butcher <l.butcher@mrao.cam.ac.uk>,
Michael Hobson <mph@mrao.cam.ac.uk>

Dear Dr. Gralla,

In your review of the textbook by Hobson, Efstathiou, and Lasenby on amazon.com, you reiterated that "there are no solutions in general relativity with point particle stress-energy (see the paper by geroch and traschen)", and concluded:

"It is fine to present the calculation that point particle stress-energy will be conserved only for geodesic motion, but don't pretend there is anything more to it than a (very) suggestive calculation. Since no solutions exist for that stress-energy, you haven't shown anything about the motion of particles in GR. (At the
very least, don't discuss the field equations without pointing out that there are no solutions!)"

Surely you and Bob Wald discussed the field equations *and* pointed out that there are no solutions, but how should gravitational self-force be rigorously defined?

I think “point particles” with gravitational self-force do not make sense in linearized approximations of GR. Distributional solutions of Einstein’s equation with support on a timelike hypersurface (“shells”) do not make any sense whatsoever, because they require 'spherical cows' -- linearized Einstein equation and linearized Bianchi identity.

With such 'spherical cows' you and Bob are eliminating the non-linear effect you are supposed to describe:

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

Am I wrong?

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note: By the same token, LIGO "scientific" collaboration eliminated the non-linear effect of GW energy transfer with their "post-Newtonian" spherical cow [Ref. 1].

It is unbelievable. Sounds like a dumb joke. Check out the 1976 article by Jürgen Ehlers et al., and the pathetic 'spherical cow' by Clifford M. Will:

Jürgen Ehlers, A. Rosenblum, J. Goldberg, and P. Havas, Comments on Gravitational Radiation and Energy Loss in Binary Systems, Astrophys J Lett 208 (1976) L77-L81

M. Walker and C. M. Will, The Approximation of Radiative Effects in Relativistic Gravity: Gravitational Radiation Reaction and Energy Loss in Nearly Newtonian Systems, Astrophys J Lett 242 (1980) L129-L133

The reason why the post-post-linear approximation to GR can be effective is in the linearized flattening "collapse", which also makes the geodesic hypothesis highly misleading and mathematically unclear.

I will be happy to elaborate, after Jürgen Ehlers, cf. Ehlers.pdf, Sec. 5.


D. Chakalov
February 28, 2011
 


[Ref. 1] Clifford M. Will, On the unreasonable effectiveness of the post-Newtonian approximation in gravitational physics, arXiv:1102.5192v1 [gr-qc]

"... gravitational radiation involves spacetimes that are highly non-symmetrical and highly dynamical. No exact solution of Einstein's equations is known that describes the emission and propagation of gravitational waves from a source, and the reaction of the source to the emission of those waves.

"As a result, most of our understanding of gravitational radiation has come from approximations to Einstein's equations. (...) The underlying idea is to treat space-time as being that of flat Minkowski spacetime as the zeroth approximation, and to modify it by successive corrections.
....

"Nevertheless it is no less mysterious: we have no good understanding of why this approximation (post-post-linear approximation - D.C.) to general relativity should be so effective.
....

"However, the discovery revealed an ugly truth about the "problem of motion". As Ehlers et al. pointed out in an influential 1976 paper [17], the general relativistic problem of motion and radiation was full of holes large enough to drive trucks through. They pointed out that most treatments of the problem used "delta functions" as a way to approximate the bodies in the system as point masses.

"As a consequence, the "self-field", the gravitational field of the body evaluated at its own location, becomes infinite. While this is not a major issue in Newtonian gravity or classical electrodynamics, the non-linear nature of general relativity requires that this infinite self-field contribute to gravity. In the past, such infinities had been simply swept under the rug.

"Similarly, because gravitational energy itself produces gravity it thus acts as a source throughout spacetime. This means that, when calculating radiative fields, integrals for the multipole moments of the source that are so useful in treating radiation begin to diverge.

"These divergent integrals had also been routinely swept under the rug. Ehlers et al. further pointed out that the true boundary condition for any problem involving radiation by an isolated system should be one of "no incoming radiation" from the past. Connecting this boundary condition with the routine use of retarded solutions of wave equations was not a trivial matter in general relativity. Finally they pointed out that there was no evidence that the post-Newtonian approximation, so central to the problem of motion, was a convergent or even asymptotic sequence. Nor had the approximation been carried out to high enough order to make credible error estimates.
....

"The one question that remains open is the nature of the post-Newtonian sequence; we still do not know if it converges, diverges or is asymptotic.
....

"Wigner remarked that the effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences was mysterious. The unreasonable effectiveness of the post-Newtonian approximation in gravitational physics is no less mysterious."

 

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


Subject: arXiv:1102.5486v1 [math-ph], refs [9] and [10]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 05:08:55 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Christian Wiesendanger <christian.wiesendanger@zuerimail.com>
Cc: martiz64@libero.it, angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it

Dear Dr. Wiesendanger,

I haven't been able to understand the Equivalence Principle and its various formulations, so I very much applaud your suggestion that gravitational energy momentum p_G is different by its very nature from the inertial energy-momentum p_I.

Yet it seems to me that their observed numerical equality is not accidental, since any residual energy-momentum from numerically different values of p_G and p_I would look like coming from some "ether". That is, in the framework of present-day GR, such residual energy-momentum would look like "dark energy of the ether". Which may be the case chosen by Mother Nature:

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

I will appreciate your critical comments on the ideas at the link above, as well as those from your colleagues.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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


Subject: Essentially unknowable "veiled reality"
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:20:38 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Bernard d'Espagnat <mireille.calvet@th.u-psud.fr>
Cc: Roland Omnes <roomnes@wanadoo.fr>,
Alain Aspect <alain.aspect@institutoptique.fr>

Dear Dr. d'Espagnat,

I am surprised that you again omitted Henry Margenau in your recent paper [Ref. 1]. I looked in your latest book "On Physics and Philosophy" (Princeton University Press, 2006; ISBN: 978-0691119649), and found out that John Bell was cited 51 times, yet you haven't mentioned Henry Margenau, not even once. Which is rather odd, given the fact that his views were published many years prior to yours:

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

You won the 2009 Templeton Prize and pocketed £1 million, and I wonder if you plan to update your papers with references to the articles and books published by Henry Margenau.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
--------

[Ref. 1] Bernard d'Espagnat, Quantum Physics and Reality,
arXiv:1101.4545v1 [quant-ph], http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4545

p. 12: "Things being so, I proposed [30, 5, 4] a balanced view consisting in considering that the mind-independent reality notion is meaningful, that this entity - which most presumably is not imbedded in space-time - truly ’is’ (exists, and not merely in our thought), but is essentially unknowable (in the sense of not being describable with concepts), so that what both commonsense and science refer to and are able to really describe is merely what it generates in our mind and we called empirical reality.
----
p. 12, Footnote 9: "In other terms, pertinent as the celebrated Wittgenstein axiom “whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must keep silent” may be, it remains true that even though such an unknowable reality is not something we should try to describe, still we may entertain the idea of its existence."
----

Note: What is the intrinsic color of an octopus? What is 'the base state' in QM? Henry Margenau called this phenomenon Onta. Its mental presentation can be verified above.

Just like Bernard d'Espagnat, Karl Popper wrote a whole book on "propensities", but mentioned only a paper by Henry Margenau from 1937 (p. 23). Anyway.

D.C.
January 25, 2011

 

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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1005.3767v1 [quant-ph], Sec. 4
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 19:12:08 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Diederik Aerts <diraerts@vub.ac.be>
Cc: Sandro Sozzo <ssozzo@vub.ac.be>,
Sonja Smets <sonsmets@gmail.com>,
Liane Gabora <liane.gabora@ubc.ca>,
Jan Broekaert <jbroekae@vub.ac.be>,
Sven Aerts <saerts@vub.ac.be>

Dear Diederik,

I still haven't received your reply to my email from Fri, 21 May 2010 05:06:16 +0300.

Regarding your arXiv:1104.1322v1 and SCoP conjecture, check out

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

“A spoken thought is a lie” (Fedor Tyutchev). The UNspeakable cannot fit in any Hilbert space whatsoever,

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

Entanglemently yours,

Dimi



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


Subject: arXiv:0906.0315v2 [gr-qc]
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 04:34:09 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Sudarsky <sudarsky@nucleares.unam.mx>
Cc: Alejandro Perez <perez@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
David Polarski <polarski@lpta.univ-montp2.fr>,
Alessandro Teta <teta@univaq.it>,
Wojciech Hubert Zurek <whzurek@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@imperial.ac.uk>,
Maximilian Schlosshauer <schlosshauer@nbi.dk>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@phys.lsu.edu>,
IGUS Jim <hartle@physics.ucsb.edu>,
Zeh <zeh@uni-heidelberg.de>


Hi Daniel,

It is a pleasure to read your article at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0315

Regarding Sec V from Kiefer-Polarski arXiv:0810.0087v2 [astro-ph]: I am really surprised that Claus still writes about "decoherence".

Claus: Could you please try to elaborate on the Nevill Mott paper? See Alessandro Teta, arXiv:0905.1467v1 [math-ph], pp. 9-10,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1467

You may also wish to consider a proposal to falsify "decoherence" at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#decoherence

I trust Claus will reply professionally, it just may take some time. Hope other proponents of "decoherence" will also make the effort to face the bold facts.

Additionally, please don't miss Henry Margenau,
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html

All the best,

Dimi
-------

Note: Once you explain the
tracks observed in a cloud chamber (produced by an alpha-particle emitted by a source in the form of a spherical wave) with some "decoherence", please apply the same "decoherence" mechanism to the Nebulae supercomputer. Good luck.

D.C.
January 28, 2011


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


Subject: No-boundary quantum state?
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:51:49 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Hertog <hertog@apc.univ-paris7.fr>, IGUS Jim <hartle@physics.ucsb.edu>
Cc: Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Friedrich W Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@imperial.ac.uk>,
profdonpage@gmail.com, c.johan.hansson@ltu.se,
caseyblood@gmail.com, s_parrott@toast2.net,
zeh@uni-heidelberg.de, nturok@perimeterinstitute.ca


Dear Tom and Jim,

In your latest arXiv:1104.1733v1 [hep-th], you wrote:

"First a theory of dynamics summarized by a Hamiltonian or action. Second a theory of the universe's quantum state. Without theories of both there are no predictions of any kind.
.....
"It is striking to think that these everyday asymmetries of the world emerged 14Gyr ago, and have remained pointing in the same direction since, as a consequence of the universe's quantum state."

I would like to raise two questions.

Firstly, I noticed that you carefully avoid any of those 3000+ paper dealing with the "expansion" of space due to the so-called dark energy of [whatever]. Can your "closed spacelike three-surface" (arXiv:1009.2525v2 [hep-th]) accommodate some form (your choice) of "dark energy"?

Secondly, is your "quantum state" compatible with KS Theorem?

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

I'm afraid the answer to these questions will be in the negative, but maybe some of your colleagues can help.

Regards,

Dimi


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


Subject: The principle of explanatory closure
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:07:30 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Lee Smolin <lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca>
Cc: [snip]

Lee:

You mentioned in arXiv:1104.2822v1 [quant-ph] some "principle of explanaory closure: anything that is asserted to influence the behavior of a real system in the world must itself be a real system in the universe. It should not be necessary to postulate anything outside the universe to explain the physics within the one universe where we live."

Apart from the typo ("explanaory"), I think the notion of 'outside the universe' is oxymoron.

As to 'real system in the universe', check out the KS Theorem,

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

I raised this fundamental issue in my email to you from February 9, 2002, to which you responded on Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:36:43 +0000 (BST) as follows:

"So far as I can tell, you do not formulate a clear objection, you just make accusations that there is a problem and ask people to disagree with you. This is not a very constructive way to proceed."

If you wish to waste your time -- that's fine with me, but why are you involving other people, who obviously have real priorities?

Dimi

 

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


Subject: Thèse d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches,
arXiv:1101.5061v1 [gr-qc]
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:08:50 +0200
To: Etera Livine <etera.livine@ens-lyon.fr>
Cc: Hanno Sahlmann <sahlmann@apctp.org>,
Johan Noldus <johan.noldus@gmail.com>,
Achim Kempf <kempf@uwaterloo.ca>

Hi Etera,

May I offer my comments.

p. 5: "All the information is encoded in the wave-function, which defines the probability amplitude of possible events."

As we all know, this is untrue:
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html

p. 7: "... it is also believed that a deeper theory such as quantum gravity (...) should be based on deeper principles and would help to shed lights on the true physical meaning of the quantum theory."

Please see Addendum at the link above.

"This “graviton” would carry the gravitational interaction the same way that the photon carries the electromagnetic force."

No need for any “graviton”: see above.

p. 8: "Quantum mechanics and general relativity are two theories based on solid principles. Quantum Gravity should go beyond these theories, and thus some of these solid principles should not be true."

Must not be true: see above.

p. 9: "Loop quantum gravity (...) start with a careful analysis of the classical phase space of general relativity."

LQG is 'looking for the right answer to a wrong question'. See again Addendum at the link above.

p. 77: "Thanks to everybody who has collaborated and worked and discussed with me about physics during all these years!"

I take this as acknowledgment of my email from Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:13:06 +0000 (cf. below).

"And thanks to everyone who managed to read this thesis up to here!"

I appreciate your sense of humor!

Dimi

-----------
Subject: How to determine the semi-classical regime in a background
independent fashion?
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:13:06 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Etera Livine <elivine@perimeterinstitute.ca>
CC: [snip]
BCC: [snip]

Dear Etera,

I read your recent "Some Remarks on the Semi-Classical Limit of Quantum Gravity", gr-qc/0501076 v1 [Ref. 1], and recalled a famous saying from Confucius:

"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat."
[skip]

 

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


Subject: arXiv:1102.1867v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 04:21:05 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu, joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz
Cc: sparling@math.pitt.edu, nester@phy.ncu.edu.tw, niall@ucc.ie,
schoen@math.stanford.edu, yau@math.harvard.edu, robert.beig@univie.ac.at,
seri@math.princeton.edu, sola@ecm.ub.es, calcagni@aei.mpg.de,
domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de, wadih@unb.br, witten@ias.edu


Dear Jörg and László,

I am very suspicious about that "pure gauge term" [Ref. 1]. Perhaps you or some of your colleagues can discover a *perfectly well defined* energy-momentum density of the gravitational "field": see Addendum at

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

The task is strictly mathematical.

All the best,

Dimi

--------

[Ref. 1] Jörg Frauendiener and László Szabados, A note on the post-Newtonian limit of quasi-local energy expressions, arXiv:1102.1867v1 [gr-qc],
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1867

"Though in general relativity there is no well defined energy-momentum *density* of the gravitational ‘field’, in asymptotically flat configurations its total (ADM) energy could be defined, and one of the greatest successes of classical general relativity in the last third of the 20th century is certainly the proof by Schoen and Yau that the total gravitational energy is strictly positive definite. The logic of one of its simplest proofs, due to Witten (and simplified and corrected by Nester), is that we can rewrite the total energy as an integral of some expression (the so-called Sparling form) on a spacelike hypersurface, and by Witten’s *gauge condition* the integrand could be ensured to be pointwise strictly positive definite.

"Thus the negative definite part of the Sparling form in the integrand is a pure gauge term."



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


Subject: 6 sec earlier
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:11:09 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Marcus Du Sautoy <simonyi.professor@maths.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: michael.brecht@bccn-berlin.de, margret.franke@bccn-berlin.de,
frank.freyer@gmail.com, haynes@bccn-berlin.de,
klaus-robert.mueller@tu-berlin.de, bourlard@idiap.ch,
info@bbci.de


Dear Dr. Du Sautoy,

I watched a brief video about your "6 sec" musings at

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/page/555.html

The whole story about your free will, after Benjamin Libet, has quite different explanation. Please be assured that no "computation" is going on in your brain.

I wonder if anyone has explained to you the binding phenomenon.

Try a simple case of mental rotation: imagine a cube made of some white plastic material, with 3 cm rib, painted blue, which you cut into 27 little cubes, 1 cm each, and ask yourself the question: how many little cubes have 3 painted sides, 2, 1, and zero?

The entity in your brain, which builds up the cube and does the rotation and examination of its colored sides, is driven by your free will.

It is UNspeakable, like the Platonic ideas in your *brain*,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Leydesdorff_101

It does not perform any "computations" whatsoever. Only Marxist-Leninist philosophers believe in such crap (pardon my French).

If you wish to train your brain, check out

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

All the best,

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



 

 But what consciousness is we know not and how it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.

Thomas Henry Huxley, 1866



To avoid misunderstandings, let me introduce the term and the notion of BrainMonad (please notice the spelling), after Leibniz. It is ONE entity due to the phenomenon of entanglement.

The BrainMonad is not physical, in the sense of res extensa, hence it can never show up in the righthand side of Einstein filed equation. It is not res cogitans either, because it does act on the physical world, although via geometry only.

It is the ultimate 'steering wheel' with which we exercise our free-will decisions and actions. It is our "bridge" to the quantum-gravitational realm of res extensa. The popular term for its diverse manifestations is known as Chi. It is also a dual entity, in the sense that, if we look at it from its "other end" at the human psyche, it will be perceived introspectively as 'the human self'. In the experiment with the cube above, you are 'the driver' operating with your 'steering wheel', although 'you & your steering wheel' is an inseparable non-localizable unit.

Let me try to explain. Consider the qualia of 'blue' (res cogitans): it refers to EM radiation with particular wavelength and has various neurophysiological presentations in your brain, all of which are localized res extensa. Hence you may "separate" the two entities, given their entirely different nature. With the dual nature of the BrainMonad, you cannot make such "separation" anymore: it is not physical but 'potential reality', and is also the "filter" through which the human mind and consciousness is explicated at the macro-world of biological systems. Thus, there is no "quantum consciousness" in the quantum realm, but only 'quantum potential reality'. There should, however, exist 'potential reality' associated with the human brain and all living creatures, which is supposed to keep the potential brain states -- the BrainMonad through which mind and consciousness enter the macroscopic world of biological systems; hence the "filter" metaphor above. But again, you cannot "separate" the BrainMonad into two "parts" (e.g., 'the driver' vs. the 'steering wheel'), as you could do with the qualia of 'blue' vs. its physical & neurophysiological presentations.

Introspectively, the actions performed with the BrainMonad are carried out by our self-referential faculties of free will and 'itself contemplating' (Aristotle), within an 'extended instant now' from our perception of the Arrow of Space. Notice that an 'extended instant now' (global mode of spacetime), during which the negotiations between the two sides of Einstein field equation "take place" (depicted with the famous Escher drawing), is the crucial requirement for our "atemporal" mind and consciousness as well.

Physically, the BrainMonad is a new (to some theoretical physicists, at least) form of reality, called here 'potential reality', in the framework of 'the universe as a brain'. As John Bell put it, "there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether." Should we require the theory to "account for the present correlations between these present phenomena" (idem), you need the BrainMonad (global mode of spacetime) to exclude "the aether" from the local/physical mode of spacetime, thereby ensuring a Lorentz invariant theory.

Physicists would call the BrainMonad 'absolute structure' (James Anderson), 'reference fluid', and 'ether'. They are, of course, trying to avoid it (cf. Karel Kuchar), because it does not carry any localizable physical stuff that could be 'directly observable'. In their parlance, the BrainMonad would always be "dark", as referred to 'the universe as a brain' and to the smaller one which is right above your neck -- the BrainMonad belongs to 'the global mode of spacetime'. As stressed earlier (cf. my note from February 8, 2011), we cannot reach it from the physical 3-D space, because it is non-Archimedean reality (recall the 'Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall' here). Only Chuck Norris has been there (twice).

The BrainMonad comes from Aristotle. The first-cause argument "begins with the fact that there is change in the world, and a change is always the effect of some cause or causes. Each cause is itself the effect of a further cause or set of causes." This chain moves in a series that is completed at a special cut off, called 'the First Cause' (reference here).

In summary, the BrainMonad is a bona fide Unmoved Mover: "something which moves [other things] without [itself] being moved [by anything]." It produces the ultimate cut off on 3-D space, as introduced with 'Finite Infinity', thanks to which space is being self-wrapped (cf. Einstein).

You can't do Quantum Theory and General Relativity without it. No way.

To paraphrase Isaac Newton and John Wheeler [1], only the BrainMonad can create geometry and determine the distribution of energy flow "throughout all SPACE," en bloc. We don't like "miracles" and "dark energy", do we?

Why is this difficult to understand, I wonder. Except for the term of BrainMonad, everything said above is widely known.

Of course, many people seriously hate such ideas, simply because 'the universe as a brain' could have its own Mind, known as The Universal Mind: read Henry Margenau. But your emotional and cultural attitudes are entirely different issue which shouldn't interfere with quantum gravity.

Just one simple example for the doctrine of trialism: following the 'trunk' metaphor above, the 'arm' and the 'nose' spring from their common source (John 1:1), hence if one of them goes first into existence, it will certainly, with unit "probability", wind up in pre-established harmony (Leibniz) with the other one. No need for any "multiverse", "googolverse", "considerations of habitability", and other murky parapsychology.

And just one simple argument: suppose you, my dear reader, managed to grasp the examples here and here. Did you use your brain? Sure. But you reject the theory, correct? Okay, suppose your brain isn't equipped with a BrainMonad, but is making some "neuronal computations". What was the probability to "compute" the meaning of the four examples correctly?

To make the question more precise, imagine 100 curious chimpanzees rotating frantically 100 Rubik cubes. What is the probability for all chimpanzees to complete the task at one instant?

Perhaps you can now understand the "chance" for setting up the initial conditions of the alleged big bang to match the universe we live in: one part in 101230, as calculated meticulously by R. Penrose. At this point you should either embrace the oxymoronic "anthropic reasoning", "multiverse", etc., or the BrainMonad. That's your free will choice.
 

"just another crank" D.C.
March 2, 2011
Last update: March 15, 2011



[1] J. A. Wheeler, Geometrodynamics and the issue of the final state. In: Relativity, Groups and Topology, Les Houches Summer School of Theoretical Physics 1963, Edited by C. DeWitt and B. S. DeWitt (New York, Gordon & Breach, 1964), p. 333:

"... the description of right lines and circles, upon which geometry is founded belongs to mechanics. Geometry does not teach us to draw these lines, but requires them to be drawn ..."
 

"Thus one comes to a new insight into the great issue raised by Isaac Newton in the opening pages of his Principia. He wrote that geometry requires one to construct straight lines, but does not provide one with the means to carry out the construction; only mechanics provides the means. He is obviously asking
the question, how does mechanics accomplish this miracle?
.......

p. 365: "The discussion as just outlined was sufficient to lead from the earlier concept of Mach's principle (Formulation 1) -- The inertial properties of an object are determined by the distribution of mass-energy throughout all space -- to a Formulation 2 closer in spirit to general relativity: The geometry of SPACETIME and therefore the inertial properties of every infinitesimal test particle are determined by the distribution of energy and energy flow throughout all SPACE."

 

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


Subject: The age of the universe
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:09:26 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Martin Rees <mjr@ast.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Carolin Crawford <csc@ast.cam.ac.uk>,
Carlos Frenk <C.S.Frenk@durham.ac.uk>,
Mario Livio <mlivio@stsci.edu>,
Marvin Weinstein <niv@slac.stanford.edu>,
Christian Wiesendanger <christian.wiesendanger@zuerimail.com>,
Hamish Johnston <hamish.johnston@iop.org>

Hi Martin,

Regarding your talk at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yz3gy

The error you've been making is explained at

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

Details at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#BrainMonad

If you or any of your colleagues replies professionally, I will be happy to elaborate.

Take care,

Dimi
 

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


Subject: Conformal Treatment of Infinity
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:40:16 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Roger Penrose <penroad@herald.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>,
Eric Gourgoulhon <eric.gourgoulhon@obspm.fr>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@midway.uchicago.edu>

Dear Roger,

Regarding your idea published in 1964 [Ref. 1], check out

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

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

Perhaps it will be a good idea if you and your colleagues get serious about GR.

Regards,

Dimi
-------
[Ref. 1] R. Penrose, Conformal Treatment of Infinity. In: Relativity, Groups and Topology, Les Houches Summer School of Theoretical Physics 1963, Edited by C. DeWitt and B. S. DeWitt (New York, Gordon & Breach, 1964), p. 565:

Fig. 1. The infinite physical space-time _M is mapped into an unphysical "finite" conformally equivalent manifold M, with boundary J corresponding to the "infinity" of _M.



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


Subject: arXiv:1103.1427v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:03:47 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Eduardo I Guendelman <guendel@bgu.ac.il>

Hi Eddie,

You acknowledged that you "still do not understand why the observed vacuum energy density must be positive instead of possibly a very small negative quantity," yet you picked "the state (with a lower vacuum energy density) that best represents the present state of the universe."

Not surprisingly, your wild guess is totally wrong.

If you are serious about your arXiv:1103.1427v1 [gr-qc], see

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

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

But if you're doing it as a hobby -- don't bother to read and study. Have a beer instead :-)

Dimi
-------

Note: Last year, I wrote to Eduardo Guendelman regarding his "Gravitational Theory with a Dynamical Time", arXiv:0911.0178v2 [gr-qc], and received an emotional reply that the Bianchi identity is a mathematical theorem, hence there is "no ambiguity" involved here. However, the Bianchi identity cannot be applied for the case of 'GR with DDE', firstly because neither Eduardo Guendelman nor anyone else can determine the energy density at a "point": MTW, p. 467.

The ambiguity comes from the fact that the present-day GR cannot formulate 'the right question' in the first place. Moreover, thousands of papers on DDE have been published so far, with the same error of "expanding space".

Again, in the present-day GR, the notion of 'dynamical time' is an oxymoron. You may eventually fix GR if you make the dynamical time quasi-local -- check out the first link above. In one sentence, the quasi-local time in 'GR with DDE' originates from 'change of space'.

For more on the current GR, see H. Ohanian, arXiv:1010.5557v1 [gr-qc], p. 3 and endnote 2 on p. 31. Hans Ohanian claims that Eq. 1 (p. 3) "determines the rate (emphasis mine - D.C.) at which the nongravitational matter receives energy and momentum from the gravitational field." Unfortunately, he wasn't joking, and neither is Eduardo Guendelman (arXiv:1103.1427v1 [gr-qc], p. 25):

"... the cosmological constant term representing the zero point fluctuations can be formulated correctly and unambiguosly in the Einstein frame (leading to a consistent effective action) without reference to the original frame, this is because the quantization is performed in the Einstein frame, not in the original frame."

You can produce lots of calculations based on a wrong theory. For example, you may "split" the metric gmv into two "parts": "background part, for which we could take flat space-time, and a dynamical part", as suggested by G. 't Hooft. Or you may wish to introduce "two measures theory", as advocated by E. Guendelman (arXiv:1103.1427v1 [gr-qc]). In the latter cases, you can produce a calculation that yields results consistent with the "observed" vacuum energy density. The best known examples for such tricks are the pseudo-tensors: MTW, p. 467.

If you're good in math, you may abuse GR as much as you can. Take, for example, G. 't Hooft: "In typical LIGO experiments, the amplitude [x] is very small, something like 10-20 or smaller (and indeed dimensionless), ... (...) To be precise: in practice you only need the linear parts of Einstein's equations, and you have to build wave packets by superimposing these plane waves."

Here's an old joke. Three men in a mental clinic, Tom, Dick, and Harry, have to pass a test before their eventual release. The test is very simple: how much is 2 + 2. The doctor asks Tom, and he replies: '11'. 'Are you sure?' 'Of course', says Tom, '2+2 makes 11. What else?' 'Well, you'll have to stay here for another month or two', says the doctor. Same question to Dick. He immediately replies -- 'Tuesday'. 'Are you sure?' 'Of course', says Dick, '2+2 makes Tuesday. What else?' 'Well, you too will have to stay here for another month or two', says the doc. Finally comes Harry. Same question, and he immediately strikes back with '4'. 'Congratulations', says the doc, 'you passed the test and may check out tomorrow. But how did you actually calculate it?' 'Easy', Harry replies, 'I simply divided Tuesday by 11 and got 4. What else?'

Trouble is, once people like G. 't Hooft and his colleagues from LIGO "scientific" collaboration 'divided Tuesday by 11' and calculated the effect on LIGO's arms from "something that is dimensionless" (exact quote from Kip Thorne's Physics 237-2002 Course) -- without having a quantum theory -- we all will have pay for their parapsychology: see ExplanatoryNote.pdf.

They may abuse GR as much as they can, and will waste billions of dollars and euro for chasing a dimensionless ghost. There is nothing we can do to stop them.

Meanwhile, Eduardo Guendelman wrote (Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:30:02 GMT):

> I can explain why there is a positive energy density, the result
> of this calculation surprised me, is not obtained
> by  forcing anything, it comes naturally and beautifully.

But of course you can. If, for example, you choose Hüseyin Yilmaz' theory, you can produce even better calculations. Once you ignore the unsolved problems of GR, you can do anything you want. But if you are keen to explain "why there is a positive energy density", you should also explain why we always observe only one "charge" of mass. That may be tough, because the latter is not localizable (
MTW, p. 467) in the framework of current GR which is still "essentially not anything more than a theory of the gravitational field, which was somewhat artificially isolated from a total field of as yet unknown structure" (Einstein).

We do have localizable and gravitating physical stuff (e.g., broccoli, shorts, milk, etc.) which is bootstrapped by the non-localizable "gravitational field" (much like your brain produced localized 'meaning'), only this physical stuff has quasi-local mass, in the sense that its fleeting explications do not and cannot fix any background spacetime, hence we can eliminate gravity 'by hand' (modulo higher derivatives) at any given "point" from such non-existing background spacetime, in line with Einstein's Equivalence Principle (MTW, p. 467). Which is why linear approximations can produce very effective, and also highly deceptive, calculation tools.

We cannot have a continual trajectory of "points" (cf. the geodesic hypothesis) at which the locality assumption holds, but a continual trajectory of quasi-local "points", just like those from the trajectory of a fish. Thus, the answer to the question 'does the zero point energy gravitate?' is YAIN. Yes -- because all physical stuff (e.g., broccoli, shorts, milk) does gravitate; no -- because their common source doesn't.

All this is not obtained by forcing anything, it comes naturally and beautifully, but of course people like Eduardo Guendelman will ignore it.

D.C.
March 9, 2011
Last update: March 11, 2011


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

Subject: Re: arXiv:1103.1427v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:48:08 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Eduardo Guendelman <guendel@bgu.ac.il>
Cc: lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu, joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz

Dear Eduardo,

> of course it is not an irrelevant issue and you cannot avoid it in
> deciding for example on whether there is gravitational radiation or not,
> but if you study the question of the accelerated universe, then
> only the question of whether there is a piece proportional to the
> metric in the energy momentum appears to decide this question.

That 'piece' in question (
MTW, p. 467) is inherently quasi-local,

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

> In summary, what you are worries about is not an irrelevant issue and you
> cannot avoid it in the full theory, but there are some questions in cosmology
> for example, or in finding exact solutions (another example), where this does
> not appear to affect one way or the other

If you're using some 'spherical cow' approximation to bypass this issue, that would be a different story.

> by contrast, gravitational radiation would be something where this would be
> fundamental.

Thank you for your clarification. It is my understanding that if you study the accelerated universe, gravitational radiation is essential issue (which is why I wrote a lot about it). Anyway.

Regards,

Dimi


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

Subject: Re: arXiv:1103.1427v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:07:59 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Eduardo Guendelman <guendel@bgu.ac.il>
Cc: lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu, joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Eduardo Guendelman <guendel@bgu.ac.il> wrote:
>
> Dear Dimi,
> the vacuum energy density is a very, very special case,
> its energy momentum tensor is a constant times the metric, so not only it
> has zero covariant divergence but also every covariant derivative of its
> energy momentum tensor is zero

Georges Lemaître noted in 1934 that “in order that absolute motion, i.e., motion relative to the vacuum, may not be detected, we must associate a pressure [X] to the energy density [X] of vacuum”,

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

If you imply some Lorentz-invariant form of vacuum energy density (e.g., G. Marsh, arXiv:0711.0220v2, Eq 2), then I can understand your confusion below.

> no body has deviced (not even in theory) a way to radiate or emit vacuum
> energy, it is conserved separately from the other pieces of the energy
> momentum tensor

Well, I wrote something about this issue at

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

Dimi



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


Subject: arXiv:1103.2335v1 [astro-ph.CO], Sec. 4.4.2: "expansion H(z) changes radial distances"
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:04:40 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: George <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>
Cc: Paul Steinhardt <steinh@princeton.edu>,
William R Stoeger <wstoeger@as.arizona.edu>,
Thomas Buchert <buchert@obs.univ-lyon1.fr>,
Jean-Philippe Uzan <uzan@iap.fr>,
Roy Maartens <roy.maartens@port.ac.uk>,
Malcolm MacCallum <m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk>,
Alain Blanchard <alain.blanchard@ast.obs-mip.fr>,
Michal Chodorowski <michal@camk.edu.pl>,
Robert van den Hoogen <rvandenh@stfx.ca>


George, you're thinking like Chuck Norris:
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#error

The evolving cosmological "constant" is not related to some "Ricci tensor contribution", nor is some ‘perfect fluid’ (p. 3).

And the reason you can place [lambda] in either side of the EFE (ibid.) is that it acts on both sides of the EFE,
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#GR

Will be happy to elaborate, should you or your colleagues respond professionally.

Dimi
-------

Note: Searching for a physical, after Georges Lemaître, form of "dark energy" (George Ellis, p. 17) is like searching for an elephant in a china shop (details  here), under the condition that the elephant is much larger than the store itself. Chuck Norris may be interested, however. He is the only person to pass from the physical world to the non-Archimedean realm (global mode of spacetime), and back to the Archimedean world of 3-D space. Only Chuck Norris can verify the claim that "expansion H(z) changes radial distances," and I think George Ellis should mention him in his forthcoming arXiv:1103.2335 v2 [astro-ph.CO].

Seriously, George Ellis is a great physicist. He offered a brilliant insight about what he called Finite Infinity, which is conditio sine qua non for understanding the nature of inertia and gravity, and perhaps the "dark energy": if we can define the entire universe as "spatially self-enclosed" (Einstein), by "passing to an appropriate asymptotic regime such that all gravitational effects are localized inside of it" (Adam Helfer), it might be possible to crack the puzzle of DDE. It won't be a physical solution, because DDE introduces 'absolute motion' to the physical world, while being in 'absolute rest'. It is the Aristotelian First Cause. Its physical manifestation goes via geometry only, by ways of self-acting.

Of course you can't trace back the very source of DDE. That's what makes it "dark". Sorry for repeating this again.

In the current formulation of GR, based on the misfortunate splitting of spacetime into two "parts", the alleged dynamics of the scale factor, R = R(t) (cf. Brian P. Dolan), refers to 'change in space' [Ref. 1], but such 'change', denoted with  t , is severely restricted by the dynamics of the other "part" (called 'space'). In order to capture the 'dynamical dark energy of [whatever]', you need to discover the dynamics of space, that is, 'the change of space' along the Arrow of Space.

Forget about that "perfect fluid" (George Ellis, p. 3). It "evolves" along  t  taken from 'change in space' [Ref. 1], which 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" (José Senovilla). Hence the corollary about the "edge" of spacetime: "This is some kind of boundary, or margin, which is not part of the space-time but that, somehow (sheer poetry - D.C.), it is accessible from within it" (idem).

It's a whole new ball game. You should do better than Georges Lemaître in 1934.


D.C.
March 14, 2011
Last updated: March 19, 2011


[Ref. 1] Robert Geroch, General Relativity from A to B. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981, pp. 20-21:

"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. (...) In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle."

Comment: Your brain cannot function in such dead frozen "block", firstly, and secondly -- only Chuck Norris could see it "all at once". Anyway.

D.C.
March 17, 2011


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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1103.2335v1 [astro-ph.CO], Sec. 4.4.2: "expansion H(z) changes radial distances"
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:11:44 +0200
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimK0+_=CqvdwE3U14kboGgLcrPRSXbHbSoHKEuu@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: George <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>,
Paul <frampton@physics.unc.edu>,
Paul Steinhardt <steinh@princeton.edu>,
William R Stoeger <wstoeger@as.arizona.edu>,
Thomas Buchert <buchert@obs.univ-lyon1.fr>,
Jean-Philippe Uzan <uzan@iap.fr>,
Roy Maartens <roy.maartens@port.ac.uk>,
Malcolm MacCallum <m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk>,
Alain Blanchard <alain.blanchard@ast.obs-mip.fr>,
Michal Chodorowski <michal@camk.edu.pl>,
Robert van den Hoogen <rvandenh@stfx.ca>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>,
Eric Gourgoulhon <eric.gourgoulhon@obspm.fr>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Roger Penrose <penroad@herald.ox.ac.uk>


P.P.S. I inserted today a drawing of the "accelerated" universe at

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

According to Chris Isham, I am "just another crank" who does not know "enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area," but he hasn't yet produced any evidence in support of his second claim. I trust you can help him find my errors -- please don't hesitate to raise your professional questions and objections.

Other people declared, in the same bold fashion, that I know nothing about the global economy:

http://ow.ly/3Ul4a

Anyway. I do hope to hear from you.

"just another crank" D.


On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> P.S. I updated today (16.03.11) the explanatory note at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Ellis
>
> If there is anything left unclear, it will be *entirely* my fault.
>
> Please don't hesitate to raise your professional questions and objections.
>
> D.
>
------

Note: More than 48 hours have passed since my email from Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:11:44 +0200 above, yet nobody has even confirmed its receipt. The same reaction was in June - August 2008 -- those noble academic scholars won't reply to some "crank".

About eight years ago, an 11-year-old boy wanted to know what the Big Bang sounded like for a school project. That's a smart kid. I don't want him to study GR and QM exclusively from these people above: he will be taught about the Gauss-Bonnet theorem [Ref. 2] and the "stress-energy tensor" of the vacuum [Ref. 3], and will get lost forever.

As Max Planck pointed out many years ago, the future lies with youth.

D.C.
March 19, 2011


[Ref. 2] Gautam Dutta, Effects of Curvature on Dynamics, arXiv:1012.0432v2 [physics.gen-ph], http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0432

p. 4 (emphasis added - D.C.): "This is like the perfect rolling of a wheel on a surface, where the part of the wheel near the point of contact is always at rest with respect to the surface. The vector being parallel transported must retain its direction with respect to the coordinate system on this rolling plane. This process defines the parallel transport of a vector in a curved space.

"The direction of motion at each point on the path is along the tangent to the path. This is also a vector on the rolling tangent plane. As we move, this vector may change its orientation with respect to the coordinate system on the
tangent plane. If it doesn’t then the path is called a geodesic on the curved surface.
......

pp. 5-6: "So it is a measure of the curvature of the curve within the manifold, called the intrinsic curvature of the curve. (...) The Gauss-Bonnet theorem given by Eq. 2 gives a way to access the curvature of the manifold, with respect
to the external higher dimensional Euclidian space, through the intrinsic curvature of a curve which can be measured within the manifold.
......

p. 9: "In the theory of gravity according to General Relativity [1,11], a massive object causes a curvature of the space-time around it. All objects in the vicinity of the massive body moves in this curved space-time. The trajectory is obtained by evaluating the geodesic path in this space-time."
---
[1] Robert. M. Wald, General Relativity. (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 1984)
[11] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler, Gravittion. (Freeman, San Francisco 1973)


[Ref. 3] John C. Baez and Emory F. Bunn, The Meaning of Einstein's Equation, January 4, 2006
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html

"It is hard to imagine the curvature of 4-dimensional spacetime, but it is easy to see it in a 2-dimensional surface, like a sphere.
"The sphere fits nicely in 3-dimensional flat Euclidean space, so we can visualize vectors on the sphere as 'tangent vectors'. (...) Our curved spacetime need not be embedded in some higher-dimensional flat spacetime for us to understand its curvature, or the concept of tangent vector. The mathematics of tensor calculus is designed to let us handle these concepts 'intrinsically' -- i.e., working solely within the 4-dimensional spacetime in which we find ourselves."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html

..........

"For the vacuum to not pick out a preferred notion of 'rest', its stress-energy tensor must be proportional to the metric. (...) Here pressure effects dominate because (Sic! - D.C.) there are more dimensions of space than of time!"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node8.html

See also:
Open Questions in Physics, Original by John Baez, Updated June 1997 by JCB,
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html

"Is gravity really curvature, or what else--and why does it then look like curvature? An answer to this question will necessarily rely upon, and at the same time likely be a large part of, the answers to many of the other questions above."

But look at "Updated March 2006 by JCB":
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html#big

The question above, from June 1997, is missing. Obviously, by March 2006 John Baez has figured out whether gravity is really "curvature", or something else.

Pity John Baez doesn't communicate with "cranks", because I have some nice questions about his understanding of GR [Ref. 4].

D.C.
March 19, 2011


[Ref. 4]. John Baez, Fundamental Physics: Where We Stand Today, November 2, 2007, p. 4.




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


Subject: Re: KS Theorem
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:07:30 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Carlos Castro <xxxxxx@xxxxx.com>
Cc: Matej Pavsic <xxxxxx@xxxxx.com>

Dear Carlos,

> I do not know much about the subtleties behind the many interpretations
> of QM.

The KS Theorem is not about subtleties nor "understanding QM".

> I think in pictures. I get confused with so many words

Here's the picture: think of a table with three rows and three columns. You have 9 contextual observable quantum states, none of which is special or privileged. Yet depending on the order in which you count them, the last one will always be "uncolored" or UNdecidable. So, if you count these quantum states as you'd read a text in English, the last one, residing at "template" No. 9, will be UNdecidable. If you reverse the order of counting, starting from No. 9 (think of Arabic), then the last quantum state at "template" No. 1 will be UNdecidable.

The conclusions about the meaning of 'contextual' are straightforward, after Schrödinger's 1935 paper and his letter to Einstein from November 1950.

All references are one-click away. Will be happy to learn what you found difficult at

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

It will be entirely my fault, of course.

Best regards to you and Matej.

Dimi
--------

Note: Since the KS Theorem is not about 'projective measurements' (details from Waegell & Aravind and C. Isham), it is very important to understand the meaning of 'contextual observable quantum states, none of which is special or privileged'.

If you think of 9 possible contextual "states" of a blond girl, one of these "states" could be 'naked' (UNdecidable), so it goes into the UNcolored KS sphere (Helena Granström, p. 2). Point is, any of the remaining 8 "dressed"/contextual states emerge from the same 'naked' or UNdecidable KS state. None of these 8 observable or "dressed" states is somehow special or privileged, so if you count/measure them in a different order, state #1 (say) will become "naked", while the previously "naked" state #9 will obtain some contextual/"dressed" value. Why is this difficult to understand, I wonder.

In March 1926, Heisenberg suggested the so-called uncertainty principle. An ontological interpretation of the non-commutativity can be suggested with the following Gedankenexperiment: suppose one could somehow force an electron in its natural habitat to occupy a "point-like" position identical to the one we imagine for macroscopic objects, say, a bullet shot at a wall. No way, says Werner Heisenberg, because the momentum of the same electron will have to be far too "uncertain", after the so-called uncertainty principle. But isn't the "point-like" position of an electron left on a screen identical in nature to the "point-like" position of a bullet that has hit a wall?

It can't punch a screen or a wall with "position" only. In the case of a single electron, we face the old conundrum of explaining the generation of observable paths in Wilson cloud chambers, after Nevill Mott (cf. Alessandro Teta above).

It is obvious that the physical presentation of an electron, observed in the double-slit setup above, cannot be identical to the one pertaining to 'an electron in the quantum realm out there'. Same holds for their "waves": they cannot be the genuine quantum waves in 'the quantum realm out there'. We inevitably distort a quantum object upon forcing it to show up at the length scale of tables and chairs. Not surprisingly, nobody has managed to reconcile QM with Special Relativity, nor has observed "empty waves" traveling in Minkowski spacetime.

Briefly, the KS Theorem also suggests that the UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state -- the "quantum elephant" -- may not suffer from any "non-commutativity" nor "quantum jumps". They could be an artifact from the unanimated macroscopic measuring devices. If you use a brain, you may picture the UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state (never in plural) very well, with your BrainMonad.

Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

Yes, I know you seriously hate the Kochen–Specker (KS) Theorem, and of course the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem refuting the “block universe” paradigm. But your emotions cannot change the rules of Quantum Theory.


"just another crank" D.C.
April 19, 2011
Last updated: September 2, 2011



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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1109.6049v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 14:36:13 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxkzbadn4ztaugJJhJxD7nxG-kW3ykY=1N4SVTZ4oy5q0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Carlos Perelman <xxxxxx@xxxxx.com>
Cc: Daniel Bedingham <d.bedingham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Warren Leffler <wkleffler@aol.com>


Dear Carlos,

> If UNdecidable quantum states do not live in a Hilbert space,
> could they live in an extended Hilbert space ?

The task is quantum gravity, and I'm not aware of any such extension. See, e.g., the 'mediating field' by Daniel Bedingham, arXiv:1103.3974v1 [quant-ph] -- I'm afraid it won't work, because the "time parameter" we use by referring to a physical clock is due to "expansion" of space (scale factor is function of "time"), so we have to resolve the "dark" energy *from the outset*,

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

It's a bundle, and the more requirements you put on the table, the narrower is the choice to resolve the puzzle from KS Theorem and Schrödinger.

Henry Margenau had a brilliant guess: “not always there”,

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

I suggest the UNdecidable quantum state (never in plural, because it is ONE entity) is 'never there', that is, it never lives in the physical spacetime. It only casts 'events' with unit probability -- one at a time -- so we never encounter Schrödinger's cat or any "measurement problems" (that was my idea from October 2002).

But how do we make 'one at a time' ? By an Arrow of Space,

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

Well, that's tough. No math that I know is available.

[snip]

Best wishes,

Dimi
--------

Note: The "chooser" (recall that quantum theory is a theory of choices without a chooser, Philip Pearle) of the physical content of the instant 'now' -- one at a time, along the Arrow of Space -- is the universe itself, acting as ONE entity. It selects, by acting on itself, one physical thing to fill in the instant 'now', always with unit probability (Machian Quantum Gravity).

I shouldn't have said "no math that I know is available," but 'no math that I know can fit the bill'.

D. Chakalov
October 2, 2011

 


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


Subject: Re: The first second of the Universe
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 17:53:31 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=pUO78arYQVQb2Y4jNXX21jv62znxvMyeeXz8oiEQz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Dominik Schwarz <dschwarz@physik.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
claus.laemmerzahl@zarm.uni-bremen.de,
emf@math.uni-bremen.de, giulini@zarm.uni-bremen.de,
b.hartmann@jacobs-university.de, lechtenf@itp.uni-hannover.de,
obers@nbi.dk, p.schupp@jacobs-university.de,
marco.zagermann@itp.uni-hannover.de,
grieser@mathematik.uni-oldenburg.de


Hi Dominik,

Regarding my email from Mon, 19 May 2003 17:17:15 +0300, please see

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

I think we need to improve Quantum Theory in the first place, to address the Hilbert-space problem ("What is the appropriate inner product that encodes the probability interpretation and that is conserved in time?" C. Kiefer, Conceptual issues in quantum cosmology, gr-qc/9906100), and offer a viable model of gravity,

http://www.models-of-gravity.org/research/research-topics/gravity-models/

Will be happy to elaborate, should you or your colleagues are interested. The task seems to be strictly mathematical.

All the best,

Dimi


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


Subject: What makes a spacetime 'time orientable' ?
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 04:22:00 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Waldyr A Rodrigues Jr <walrod@ime.unicamp.br>
Cc: Muhammad Sharif <hasharif@yahoo.com>,
enotte@userena.cl, roldao.rocha@ufabc.edu.br


Dear Waldyr,

I am trying to understand your arXiv:1109.5272v2 [math-ph], and would like to ask for your opinion on the question in the subject line.

Can you *derive* time-orientability from something -- anything ?

I haven't read your Lecture Notes in Physics 722, but it seems to me that the textbook by Sachs and Wu, which you frequently quote (R. K. Sachs and H. Wu, General Relativity for Mathematicians, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977), doesn't address the fundamental issue of the *origin* of time-orientability.

Please advise. I will highly appreciate the opinion of your colleagues, too.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Dimi
 

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

Subject: Re: What makes a spacetime 'time orientable' ?
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 05:06:51 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Waldyr A Rodrigues Jr <walrod@ime.unicamp.br>
Cc: Muhammad Sharif <hasharif@yahoo.com>,
enotte@userena.cl, roldao.rocha@ufabc.edu.br


P.S. To quote from Sachs and Wu, p. 27:

"The requirement of time orientability is suggested by our knowledge of thermodynamical processes on the earth, now. The second law of thermodynamics implies that one can distinguish past directions from future directions on earth by measuring the increase in entropy. It seems somewhat reasonable to assume that thermodynamics will smoothly determine future directions in the whole universe.

"No one knows if this is true, but if we ever really met beings going the wrong way in time, trying to communicate with them would presumably be as confusing as trying to talk to some of the regents of the University of California."

It seems to me equally reasonable to associate time-orientability with the dynamics of scale factor, as driven by the so-called "dark" energy of [you-name-it], but it will be pure poetry, as the excerpt from Sachs and Wu above.

I hope you have a better idea.

Best - D.


On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Waldyr,
[snip]
------

Note: The problem of tracing down the origin of time is well-known since Aristotle: recall the First Cause. Its physical manifestation goes via geometry only, and will inevitably look like self-acting. That's what makes it "dark".

Mens agitat molem (Vergil, The Aeneid, Ch. 6, 727). In German: Der Geist bewegt die Materie. Just a suggestion, for the forthcoming models of gravity.


D. Chakalov
October 3, 2011, 14:00 GMT

 


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


Subject: arXiv:1109.6049v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:20:34 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=txUBKg8JuO5WciW9CmZmp7z1YpryoYPzEHoEdOhPBHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Warren Leffler <wkleffler@aol.com>, wleffler@losmedanos.edu
Cc: Chris <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Andreas <andreas.doering@comlab.ox.ac.uk>,
Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6049
-------


Dear Warren,

It is a real pleasure to read your paper. Thank you!

I think the *imposition* of "a probability distribution (and therefore a countably additive measure)" (p. 2) is what makes certain explications (=eigenvalues of self-adjoint operators) of quantum objects 'colorless' (in Hilbert space dim 3 or more), so they have to be shifted in the uncolored KS sphere; general remarks on the KS Theorem at

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

BTW Erwin Schrödinger mentioned the improper use of probabilities for UNdecidable states in November 1950; references at my web site.

So, the message from Schrödinger and KS Theorem is that we have to avoid probabilities for describing the UNdecidable quantum state: it cannot live in *any* Hilbert space (some people are trying to catch it with toposification of Quantum Theory).

All the best,

Dimi

-----------

Note: Let's go back to the three quantum guys, Tom, Dick, and Harry.

To mimic the case of Hilbert space dim 2, suppose Tom and Dick are explicating their "states" by raising their hands, either left or right. We say that Tom and Dick don't possess any pre-existing (prior to observation) "hands", and agree that their "hands" are 'contextual'.

If the two guys are entangled, QM says that measurement on one "part" of the entangled system {Tom, Dick} changes the probability of the outcome of measurements on the "second part" of the system. It is like tossing one quantum coin with two "entangled" states, heads-and-tails; the difficulties to grasp the nature of entanglement is in the notion of ONE-ness, as with the shoal of fish.

Yet we still have the usual QM formalism employing Hilbert space and probability calculus, which requires the sum of probabilities to add to unity. So, if we see Tom having raised his right hand, we know that we will observe the left hand of Dick with certainty.

To explain the crux of KS Theorem, in the case of Hilbert space dim 3 (or more), we instruct Tom, Dick, and Harry to (i) raise one hand vertically and stretch the other horizontally, and (ii) align to each other in such way that their hands will consume all three dimensions of space, along three orthogonal axes in space.

Suppose Tom raises his hands along (+x, +y) axes, and Dick raises his hands along (-x, -y) axes. Then Harry would have the options to raise his hands along (z, y) and (z, x) axes, in order to comply with the unitary rule which requires the sum of probabilities to add to unity.

However, in certain cases the unitary rule, imposed on Harry, makes him hand-less (say, if you set consistent spins for 30 out of 33 directions, the final three must paradoxically be both 1 and 0; cf. Zeeya Merali). He simply cannot show up the "quantum state" of his hands, in the macroscopic 3-D space and simultaneously with all "quantum states" of the hands of Tom and Dick.

Surely Harry has explicable "hands", but they cannot be shown under the conditions of the unitary rule. If next time Harry takes the initiative and raises his hands according to the rules above, Dick can follow him, but not Tom. This time, Tom will be stripped of "hands". If Tom and Harry raise their hands, then Dick will be hand-less. Why is this difficult to understand, I wonder.

It is impossible to decompose/distill all explicable "quantum states", in the case of Hilbert space dim 3 (or more), in such way that they all will have well-defined macroscopic manifestation, in 3-D space and in one instant, as recorded with your wristwatch. This is the crux of Kochen-Specker (KS) Theorem.

Notice that the meaning of unitary rule is 'something will happen with certainty'. This rule isn't applicable to the UNdecidable KS state which can never ever show up as 'eigenvalues of self-adjoint operators' and 'physical reality' in general.

To sum up, the UNdecidable KS state can never obey to the unitary rule plus the requirement to display 'the complete catalogue of expectation values' in the macroscopic 3-D space.

It is impossible in principle to apply "counterfactual definiteness" (recall that Bell's theorem is based on counterfactual definiteness) in Hilbert space dim or more. Any musings of the type 'if we had made a certain alternative measurement (rather than the one we did make) we would have obtained such-and-such result with such-and-such probability' are wrong: we have encountered not just 'contextual phenomena' but the brand new, UNdecidable, pre-quantum KS state as well. From the perspective of Boolean logic, it is both "is" & "is not" (YAIN, in German).

Contrary to the opinion in Wiki, the existence of such pre-quantum element of reality is demonstrated by the KS Theorem. It isn't 'physical reality' though. It is a much broader form of reality known since Plato, called here 'potential reality'.

The KS Theorem is not "a complement to Bell's theorem", as claimed in Wiki, because you can't employ any 'counterfactual definiteness' in the presence of the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state.

If the KS Theorem were wrong, one could introduce an experimental context, then write down the full 'catalogue of expectation values' in 3-D space, and prove Schrödinger wrong by counterfactual definiteness: 'a variable would have a definite value before I measure it; then measuring it would simply mean ascertaining the context-dependent value that it had out there.'

We must drop the unitary rule and Hilbert space, to understand the artifacts of QM formalism and grasp the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state.

There is no other way to solve the measurement problem and the macro-objectification problem, to reconcile Quantum Theory with Special Relativity, and then with General Relativity. The only way to solve the old cosmological "constant" paradox is to start with the potential reality in the quantum vacuum, which does not possess 'positive energy density', hence does not gravitate.

We need to change the quantum theory from current QM textbooks, and the current GR as well. Just follow the legacy of Schrödinger and Margenau.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to care. Nobody. Even Chris Isham, who is aware, at least since 2002, of my efforts to endorse the legacy of Schrödinger and Margenau, decided to instead explore a "toposification" of quantum theory. He collected $75,000 research grant from FQXi and dubbed me "just another crank".

Another prominent theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin, who is also fully aware of my efforts, collected last year $47,500 from FQXi and $6,000 from FQXi 2007-Spring mini-grant to "support travel for collaborators working on a book about the nature of time in physics and cosmology -- in progress." He never responded to my proposals either.

Two years ago, I asked 75 (seventy-five) prominent physicist to endorse the submission of my manuscript to [gr-qc] -- two flatly denied, the rest didn't even bother to respond (Chris Isham included). An enormous amount of money, earned with hard labor by millions of taxpayers, has been wasted, and even more is scheduled to be wasted.

People just don't care about quantum gravity. It's a well-known phenomenon, not limited to theoretical physicists: look what happened with Peter H. Duesberg.
 



 


D. Chakalov
September 30, 2011
Last updated: October 1, 2011
 


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


Subject: On the limits of quantum theory
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:36:16 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxmw-q=nDV=DLbbQCiOH=9Q-2PSu4T0=bR1jzBWQJProFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: George <George.Ellis@uct.ac.za>
Cc: Charles Baily <baily@colorado.edu>,
Hans Havlicek <havlicek@geometrie.tuwien.ac.at>,
Josef Tkadlec <tkadlec@fel.cvut.cz>,
Gennaro Auletta <auletta@unigre.it>,
Chris <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Karl <svozil@tuwien.ac.at>


George F R Ellis, On the limits of quantum theory: contextuality and the quantum-classical cut, arXiv:1108.5261v1 [quant-ph]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5261

Hi George,

I cannot understand why you avoided all facts contradicting your ideas (e.g., "omnipresence of state vector reduction," p. 7).

You didn't even mention the KS Theorem,

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

You wrote (p. 2): "before a measurement is made, the state vector |phi> can be written as a linear combination of unit orthogonal basis vectors," referring to Chris Isham's textbook (Lectures on Quantum Theory: Mathematical and Structural Foundations, London: Imperial College Press, 1995, pp. 5-7).

No combination of "unit orthogonal basis vectors" can possibly describe 'the quantum state' -- it is inherently UNdecidable; cf. the link above.

The initial 'quantum state' cannot be "fully known" (p. 3) in principle. Also, it does not undergo any "collapse" or "decoherence".

If you or any of your colleagues cannot understand the arguments at the link above, it will be entirely my fault -- please write me back with your questions, and I will elaborate.

Just please don't treat Quantum Theory like some fashion designer. Face the KS Theorem.

All the best,

Dimi

 

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


Subject: Re: The Free Will Theorem, quant-ph/0604079 v1
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:27:24 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Specker Ernst <ernst.specker@math.ethz.ch>
Cc: Simon Kochen <kochen@math.princeton.edu>

Dear Professor Specker,

Thank you for your kind email. It is a great honor and privilege to hear from you.

I learned too late about the Colloquium commemorating your 90th Birthday (October 29-30, 2010), and wasn't able to attend. I only wanted to tell you two things.

As my dad used to say, there isn't such thing as 'retired eagle' -- eagles either fly and fight, or drop dead while flying. You are a real Eagle.

And secondly, I will fight for your Theorem until I see it in QM textbooks -- properly explained, along with its immediate implications. You set the stage in 1960, yet the established theoretical physics community is still struggling to understand that "it is impossible to have consistent predictions about a quantum mechanical system (not considering exceptional cases)."

With best regards and deep admiration,

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov


On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:41:44 +0000,
Message-ID: <929AD7A99986E043A5B7E8423EB731350BC54C@MBX22.d.ethz.ch>,
Specker Ernst <ernst.specker@math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Dimi Chakalov
> Thank you - I will try to understand it.
> Kind regards
> Ernst Specker
> ________________________________________
> From: Dimi Chakalov [dchakalov@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:32 PM
> To: Simon Kochen
> Cc: Specker Ernst;
> Subject: Re: The Free Will Theorem, quant-ph/0604079 v1
>
> P.P.S. Update at
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Castro
>
> D.C.

 

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


Subject: Re: arXiv:0711.4650v3 [quant-ph], " ... we need only EPR, Bell, and Kochen-Specker."
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:41:50 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Adam Brandenburger <adam.brandenburger@stern.nyu.edx>
Cc: Noson Yanofsky <noson@sci.brooklyn.cuny.edx>,
Samson Abramsky <samson@comlab.ox.ac.ux>,
Andreas <andreas.doering@comlab.ox.ac.ux>

Dear Adam,

Thank you for informing me about your new manuscripts.

> "A Unified Sheaf-Theoretic Account of Non-Locality and Contextuality" (by
> Samson Abramsky and Adam Brandenburger)

I think the drawing on p. 2 is unrelated to the precise interpretation of KS Theorem, which is not about any "hidden" [whatever]. It is about *the* quantum state which cannot fit into any Hilbert space whatsoever. If this is your interpretation of 'hidden', I will agree with you.

If you use Hilbert space and probabilities (or some toposificated version of quantum theory, like Andreas), you aren't addressing the KS Theorem,

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

Please let me know if you are unable to understand the arguments -- it will be entirely my fault.

> "What Does a Hidden Variable Look Like?" (by Adam Brandenburger and H.
> Jerome Keisler)

If you use your brain, you can almost "feel" the UNspeakable quantum state of your brain at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Leydesdorff_101

Wishing you and your colleagues a very happy Easter,

Dimi

P.S. BTW did you look at my 9/11 web page?
http://tinyurl.com/USD-bancor

D.
 

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


Subject: The mediating field, arXiv:1103.3974v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:56:14 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Bedingham <d.bedingham@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: Karl <svozil@tuwien.ac.at>,
Sun Yi <fantadox@gmail.com>

Dear Dr. Bedingham,

You introduced a 'mediating field' which "enables interactions to be smeared without reference to a preferred foliation of spacetime", and I wonder if you can test it with your brain,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Leydesdorff_101

In the case of the quantum world, the object explained at the link above should provide "quantum omniscience" (Karl Svozil, arXiv:1103.3980v1 [quant-ph]),

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

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

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note: To understand the UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state which cannot fit in any Hilbert space, try to answer the question posed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935: "But then what does it mean?"

It means that the three quantum guys, Tom, Dick, and Harry, have the faculty of acquiring context-dependent "quantum states" in a way similar (but not identical) to the sayings quoted above. If you observe, for example, (i) Harry with specific configurations of his hands, then (ii) without any hands whatsoever, and then (iii) with some new configurations of his hands, you will not observe 'the same Harry but with different configurations of his hands'. Every time Harry shows up, you will see a brand new "Harry-like" version of his UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state which (i) carries his Genidentität (Kurt Lewin), and (ii) cannot live in any Hilbert space whatsoever.

Why? Because Tom, Dick, and Harry don't have any pre-existing, non-contextual "quantum states" prior to their observation. The "quantum states" that we can physically observe are born anew from their common UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state. Read again Erwin Schrödinger, from 1935:

"In general, a variable has no definite value before I measure it; then measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value that it has. But then what does it mean?"

The essence of KS Theorem is that it demonstrate "something that is not found among projective measurements in quantum theory" (Yeong-Cherng Liang et al.). Namely, we cannot, not even in principle, think of some 'complete catalog of expectation values', in Schrödinger's terminology. In the specific setup of KS experiment, all possible classical-able states of Tom, Dick, and Harry cannot have simultaneously well-defined "hands": one of the three quantum guys will have to be shifted temporarily to his "uncolored KS sphere" (Helena Granström, p. 2).

Think of these contextual classical-able states as templates available to fill in with/by the UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state: if you check out all templates in 3-D space, some of them will be left empty ("uncolored") under the particular examination, but if you check them out in a different sequence or 'order', those which have been left empty ("uncolored") during the first counting will now possess contextual ("colored") classical-able states, at the expense of the same number of contextual ("colored") classical-able states from the first counting, which will now lose any "color" and will have to be shifted temporarily to their "uncolored KS sphere".

Why? Because otherwise the UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state ("quantum omniscience", K. Svozil) will be inevitably decomposed into a set of classical-able states, or 'complete catalog of expectation values'. Thank God, this is impossible [Ref. 1].

To sum up, recall Cantor's definition of ‘set’ (1895):

By a ‘set’ we understand any gathering-together M of determined well-distinguished objects m of our intuition or of our thinking (which are called the ‘elements’ of M) into a whole.

The UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state (never in plural) belongs exclusively to the 'whole'. That is, to 'the universe as a whole' or 'the universe as ONE'. All these "well-distinguished objects" emerge from it (not Him) along the Arrow of Space, yet no "set" can possibly provide its complete decomposition or  'complete catalog of expectation values'. Details here.

One immediate corollary is that the toposification program of Chris Isham is destined to fail, because it assumes that some "toposificated" presentation of 'complete catalog of expectation values' might eventually exist. As to GR, the elimination of the idea of "curvature" is straightforward: instead of introducing some fictitious "external higher dimensional Euclidian space" and then "handle these concepts 'intrinsically' -- i.e., working solely within the 4-dimensional spacetime in which we find ourselves," we employ the same UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum-gravitational state (never in plural), as explained above. Check out the prerequisites here, and a widespread error here.

Of course, nobody will pay attention -- my Crackpot Index (J. Baez) is 80. It is much higher than the one acquired by Andrea Rossi.
 

D.C.
March 23, 2011
Last updated: April 12, 2011


[Ref. 1] Specker, E. (1960), Die Logik Nicht Gleichzeitig Entscheidbarer Aussagen. Dialectica, 14: 239-246. Translated by Michael Seevinck, arXiv:1103.4537v1.

"... speculations about the "Infuturabilien" [‘future contingencies’, Michael Seevinck] also belong here, that is, the question whether the omniscience of God also extends to events that would have occurred in case something would have
happened that did not happen.
---

S. 243:


......

"Is it possible to extend the description of a quantum mechanical system through the introduction of supplementary -- fictitious -- propositions in such a way that in the extended domain the classical propositional logic holds (whereby, of course, for simultaneously decidable proposition negation, conjunction and disjunction must retain their meaning)?

"The answer to this question is negative, except in the case of Hilbert spaces of dimension 1 and 2.
....

"That such an embedding is not possible from dimension 3 and higher follows from the fact that it [this embedding] is not possible for a three-dimensional space.
....

"An elementary geometrical argument shows that such an assignment is impossible, and that therefore it is impossible to have consistent predictions about a quantum mechanical system (not considering exceptional cases)."

--------


Addendum

To explain the meaning of the statements "nature is contextual" and "the values only come into being during the act of measurement" [Ref. 2], notice that the assumption of 'noncontextuality', which is proven wrong, implies that the first statement is true: nature is indeed contextual.

The second statement, about how the values 'come into being', introduces the puzzle more precisely, as stressed by Schrödinger in 1935 (cf. above). In modern terms, it is about revealing Boolean-valued "quantum states" (always in plural) from a non-Boolean, UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state (never in plural).

Even if we fix a 'context' by means of some 'complete set of compatible projective measurements (CSCPM)' [Ref. 2], we cannot, not even in principle, reduce/factorize the non-Boolean, UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential quantum state into a set (cf. G. Cantor above) of Boolean-valued "quantum states".

It can't be decomposed into any set. It can't fit in any Hilbert space whatsoever. It is impossible to have "consistent predictions about a quantum mechanical system" (Ernst Specker, 1960).

Some people hope to bypass these unsolved issues simply by proclaiming them wrong: we can't handle "incompatible frameworks," says Bob Griffiths. Of course he can't make it, "due to the mathematical properties of the quantum Hilbert space" and the "framework based on unitary time evolution" (CH: Questions and Answers). The latter is an anti-relativistic Newtonian "time" that cannot be observed in principle, but Bob doesn't care. And neither does Sean Carroll: "the state of the system at any one time is sufficient to determine its future and past evolution in time." If your wristwatch were able to read this "unitary time", how come nobody managed to reconcile QM with Special Relativity, since 1931? Moreover, the very "definition" of time-as-read-by-your-wristwatch is totally unphysical: no physical object can reproduce our Gedankenexperiment about 'one second'. Anyway.

The implications for "quantum computing" (it must operate in a Hilbert space whose dimensions may be grown exponentially), the mythical "decoherence" (the alleged quantum-to-classical "transition"), and the search for some "god particle" are obvious. The latter is horribly expensive, but ... who cares?

"just another crank" D.C.
Crackpot Index: 80

April 1, 2011


[Ref. 2] Mordecai Waegell, P.K. Aravind, Parity proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem based on the 24 rays of Peres, arXiv:1103.6058v1 [quant-ph]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.6058

pp. 11-13: "One of the simplest types of measurement that can be carried out on a quantum system is a projective measurement. Such a measurement amounts to asking the system if it has a certain property or not, and the system replies with either a yes or a no (to which we attach the values 1 and 0, respectively). A set of projective measurements is said to be compatible if there exist special states of the system for which the measurements always yield the same values, no matter in what order they are carried out or how often they are repeated.

"A complete set of compatible projective measurements (CSCPM) is a maximal set of such measurements, i.e., one that cannot be enlarged by adding further measurements of the same type. For a pair of two-level systems (or qubits), which is one of the physical settings in which the Peres rays can be realized, the number of measurements in a CSCPM is four.

"An important property of a CSCPM is its exclusivity: whenever it is carried out on any state of a system, exactly one of the measurements returns the value 1 and all the others return the value 0. The properties of CSCPMs laid out so far are all well established experimental facts.
.......

"A realist, who believes that the values observed for a CSCPM exist even before measurement, and who also subscribes to the assumption of noncontextuality (i.e., the notion that the value observed for a particular projective measurement is independent of the CSCPM it is carried out as a part of) would be faced with the task of assigning a 0 or a 1 to each of the Peres rays in such a way that each basis contains exactly one 1 and three 0’s in it.

"However the various parity proofs presented in this paper demonstrate that this task is impossible, and so the realist’s position is refuted. The key assumption made by the realist that undermines his position is the assumption of noncontextuality."


 

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


Subject: lrr-2011-5
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:34:01 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmUd8wFJ_nNPQR9T-56TdNyNuiSGf6LsqxfW4x30pgakw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: sheila.rowan@glasgow.ac.uk,
matthew.pitkin@glasgow.ac.uk,
stuart.reid.2@glasgow.ac.uk,
james.hough@glasgow.ac.uk
Cc: Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk,
B.Sathyaprakash@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Stefan.Krueckeberg@dfg.de,
Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de,
council@stfc.ac.uk

Dear colleagues,

I wonder if you have a clue about "the nature of the gravitational interaction" at the production of GWs by "very large masses" being accelerated in "very strong gravitational fields" (Sec. 2).

Can you suggest a theory of "very strong gravitational fields" producing very strong "ripples in the curvature of space-time" and very strong "tidal effect" (Sec. 3) ?

If you don't have such theory of "very strong gravitational fields", how can you possibly claim that your linearized approximation is the correct theory describing some veeeery weak GWs ?

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

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
Ceterum autem censeo, LIGO esse delendam
 

Note: Energy transport by GWs is a "fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon" (Hermann Bondi). Even if you imagine some sufficiently strong, to be detected, GW that is veeeery weak upon reaching Earth, its energy transport will be, again, a "fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon", which cannot, not even in principle, be modeled with respect to some undisturbed "background":

"For weak waves, it is possible to define their energy with reference to the "background" or undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes" (Bernard Schutz).

No, it is impossible to define GW energy with any linearized approximation of GR.

You will kill the very effect you wish to measure.

Ceterum autem censeo, LIGO esse delendam.

D. Chakalov
August 2, 2011

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

Subject: [Copy] Email sent to Living Reviews in Relativity
From: contact.lrr@livingreviews.org
To: dchakalov@gmail.com
Message-Id: <20110802151856.BD051174074@v-linux.aei.mpg.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:18:56 +0200 (CEST)

Hello Dimitar G. 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/#LRR
Subject: To make a comment

Message:
My objections to lrr-2011-5 can be read at

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

Pity you don't care. But after the failure of the "enhanced" and "advanced" LIGO, you most certainly will.

Dimi Chakalov


--------------------------
Other Data and Information:
Time Stamp: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 at 5:18 pm



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


Subject: GWs cannot be detected with LIGO or LISA
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 19:12:59 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=gA9_fiUe_6GFoCamGAD+84Np=ZAEhUgBLwXS9@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk,
B.Sathyaprakash@astro.cf.ac.uk,
[snip]
Cc: Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>


Dear Colleagues,

Do not let Bernard Schutz fool you,
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#note_6

Check out a simple expose of GR at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#GR

The forthcoming scandal about LIGO will be enormous:
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG

The unresolved tasks of GR are strictly mathematical, and have nothing to do with its linearized approximation,
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Gray

Should you (B. Schutz included) cannot understand the arguments, please drop me a line, and I will elaborate.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: Joshua Goldberg believes that the famous 1962 paper by Bondi et al. has resolved the issue of energy transport by GWs. As Hermann Bondi stressed in February 1990, "the question of the "reality" of the waves essentially concerned whether they transported energy. Such transport is a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon."

Perhaps the main reason why we cannot understand this nonlinear phenomenon is that we still don't have a definition of 'isolated system in GR': the seemingly simple expression r --> [infinity] (reference here, pp. 1728-1734) is the biggest unresolved mathematical problem in GR. In the case mentioned by Bernard Schutzr  is roughly (1010)9 km, so all "regional" definitions "in regions at least as large as a wave-length" (ibid.) are sheer poetry and wishful thinking.

And of course the source of the so-called 'dynamic dark energy' is unknown. One immediate corollary is that the "ban" on dipole radiation doesn't hold any more. Obviously, the present-day GR is an essentially incomplete theory.

Even in the framework of the current GR, "a gravitational wave can only give rise to longitudinal oscillations, that is, oscillations in the direction of wave propagation", as demonstrated by Pereira et al.

The people from LIGO "scientific" collaboration (848 distinguished experts) don't care. They deeply believe that the linearized approximation of the current, incomplete GR is applicable to the task of detecting GWs. Which is wrong. The linearized approximation of GR is a shut-up-and-calculate tool which can be used for adjusting the GPS system, say. It cannot be used for fundamentally nonlinear phenomena such as the energy transport by GWs.

May I offer LIGO "scientific" collaboration two simple ways to refute the objections above, and defend their expectations from the "enhanced" and the "advanced" LIGO, as well as their multi-billion project LISA.

1. Ensuing from strong GWs produced by your "sources", demonstrate that you can obtain some veeeery weak GWs propagating on undisturbed background:

"For weak waves, it is possible to define their energy with reference to the "background" or undisturbed geometry, which is there before the wave arrives and after it passes" (Bernard Schutz, p. 317).

If you fail to obtain such weak limit from strong GWs, you have no right to claim that you understand what you're doing.

To quote M. Maggiore (p. 32): "In special (unrealistic - D.C.) cases one can find exact wave-like solutions of the full nonlinear Einstein equations, see, e.g. Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (1973), Section 35.9, and then there is no need to perform a separation (Sic! - D.C.) between the background and the waves. However, it would be hopeless to look for exact solutions for the gravitational waves emitted by realistic astrophysical sources."

Voila, straight from the horse's mouth.

2. Ensuing from your "linearized approximation", try to resolve the problems from its immediate consequences presented with the SBG argument:

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

You cannot keep just the 'good bits' from your "linearized approximation" and ignore its immediate consequences, because the latter refute your "linearized approximation" with reductio ad absurdum. It's a bundle.

Of course, LIGO "scientific" collaboration won't reply. I raised my concerns eight years ago, in February 2003, but never received any professional reply. It is so much easier to enjoy their hobby and waste billions of taxpayers' money.

Shame on you, LIGO "scientific" collaboration.



D. Chakalov, April 7, 2011
Ceterum autem censeo, LIGO esse delendam
 



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


Subject: arXiv:1104.2927v1 [hep-th], ref. [2], p. 165, Eqs (7.6.4) and (7.6.5)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:30:58 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Charles Schwartz <schwartz@physics.berkeley.edu>
Cc: Steven Weinberg <weinberg@physics.utexas.edu>,
lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu,
joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz,
sparling@math.pitt.edu,
nester@phy.ncu.edu.tw,
niall@ucc.ie,
schoen@math.stanford.edu,
yau@math.harvard.edu,
robert.beig@univie.ac.at,
seri@math.princeton.edu,
sola@ecm.ub.es,
calcagni@aei.mpg.de,
domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de,
wadih@unb.br,
witten@ias.edu,
guendel@bgu.ac.il


Dear Charles,

Regarding Weinberg's “Gravitation and Cosmology" (arXiv:1104.2927v1 [hep-th], ref. [2]), I think the alleged energy-momentum tensor of gravitation, Eq. (7.6.4), and "the total energy-momentum "tensor" of matter and gravitation" -- "the energy-momentum "tensor" of the gravitational field itself" (exact quote from p. 165) -- do not make any sense whatsoever.

These statements are not some "approximations", as you or some of your colleagues might argue. They are terribly misleading.

Anything that pertains to the gravitational field *itself* is quasi-local. It's a whole new ball game,

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

Shall I elaborate?

See also
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#wine_cellars

Regards,

Dimi


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


Subject: Expansion of space -- with respect to what?
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:07:21 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkP0S1Vz-7914KTtF3kxWCFcaOS8sMac4JzMNshh-Ka8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: mfrancis@physics.usyd.edu.au,
gfl@physics.usyd.edu.au,
luke.barnes@phys.ethz.ch
Cc: Michal Chodorowski <michal@camk.edu.pl>,
ybolotin@gmail.com,
oleg.lemets@gmail.com,
denyerokhin@gmail.com

Dear colleagues,

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think 'expansion of space' cannot be defined with respect to itself, e.g., the increase over time of the distance between observers. One should somehow place these observers "at rest with respect to the cosmic fluid", as you suggested in arXiv:astro-ph/0707.0380.

Problem is, we cannot directly observe this "cosmic fluid", because we cannot switch from Archimedean to non-Archimedean geometry,

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

If the 'expansion of space' is the physical manifestation of the phenomenon of transience (the Heraclitean time), then its driving force *must* be hidden, or else we can't have any theory of relativity: the ether will be exposed. If so, you have a bona fide candidate for the source of that (sorry) "dark energy".

Notice that the bi-directional talk between matter and geometry (John Wheeler) is valid for just one instant, while the phenomenon of transience presupposes absolute past, present, and future -- "You cannot step into the same river twice, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you" (Heraclitus).

In GR parlance, more and more space ... "appears".

Will be happy to elaborate.

All the best,

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

Note: Before going into discussion on 'expansion of space', recall the main unresolved puzzle: finite time interval & space volume. Mother Nature creates 'finite things' -- Large vs Small -- with infinitesimals along the Arrow of Space, while people think about GR as bartenders and offer totally unfeasible Gedankenexperiments about 'one second'. The difference between you and Mother Nature is that She can add as many infinitesimal "points" as you wish to a finite volume of space, and it won't change a bit. Why? Because we're dealing with non-Archimedean geometry. But if you add just one period of the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom -- from 9,192,631,770 to 9,192,631,771 -- you'll ruin the "definition" of 'one second'. Again, I will be happy to elaborate. Just notice that you have the same conundrum of "expansion/contraction" of space in GW parapsychology.

D.C.
August 3, 2011


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

Subject: Re: Expansion of space -- with respect to what?
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:54:53 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: barnesl <barnesl@phys.ethz.ch>
Cc: mfrancis@physics.usyd.edu.au,
gfl@physics.usyd.edu.au,
Cc: Michal Chodorowski <michal@camk.edu.pl>,
[snip]

Dear Luke,

Thank you for your reply.

> The first problem in your email is the claim: "we cannot directly observe
> this cosmic fluid." Yes we can.

I meant the reference fluid of GR, after Hilbert and Einstein.

> It comes in a number of components, some of which are observable.
> The best example is the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

Beautiful. Are you going to explain 'the increase of the distance between observers' w.r.t. CMB?

Because you can't do it 'with respect to itself'. Only Baron Munchausen can do such self-referential miracles.

> I have also failed to "notice" that "the bi-directional talk between matter
> and geometry (John Wheeler) is valid for just one instant". I've read most
> of John Wheeler's General Relativity textbook and I'm pretty sure he didn't
> notice that either.

You can be damn sure he didn't notice it. "These are the laws of an instant in canonical gravity. (...) In general relativity, dynamics is entirely generated by constraints. The dynamical data do not explicitly include a time variable," says Karel Kuchar [snip]

> All the best with your theory

It's Heraclitus' theory. If you ignore it, you will keep wondering about 'more and more space appears' for many years to come.

If you wish to respond professionally, do yourself a favor: follow the links at

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

All the best,

Dimi


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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1107.5894v1 [physics.gen-ph]
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:28:47 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Рылов Юрий <yrylov2006@yandex.ru>
Cc: Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>

Юрий Алексеевич,

> About relative localization of the gravitational field.

In GR, you don't have any 'localization of the gravitational field' in the first place; see my web site for references. The "localization" cannot be 'relative to itself', nor 'relative to any *finite* volume of space', which is why I asked about your thoughts regarding 'localization relative to the rest of the universe'. It is the last remaining option IMHO.

If some day you or any of your colleagues discover the proper mathematical presentation of 'quasi-local', we all will hear about it on CNN Breaking News.

> My relation to connection with Mach's approach can be expressed by
> "Глубокая философия на мелком месте" .

I know what you mean. If some day you or any of your colleagues discover the origin and mechanism of those "instantaneous" inertial reaction "forces", ... see above.

More at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Heraclitus

All the best,

Dimi

>> Hi Yuri,
>> Ernst Mach would have probably said that there is a sense to ask about
>> the value of gravitational field at the point x , but *only* relative
>> to the values of the gravitational field at 'the rest of the
>> universe',
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#GR
>> Do you agree with such Machian relational ontology?
>> Regards,
>> Dimi
>
 

 

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


Subject: Jonathan Dowling on enhancing LIGO's "sensitivity"
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:58:08 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan <jdowling@phys.lsu.edu>
Cc: Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Barry Sanders <sandersb@ucalgary.ca>,
Kavita Rajanna <mail@fqxi.org>,
Carlton Caves <caves@info.phys.unm.edu>


http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45535

"Dowling says that if the American LIGO detector could operate with a sensitivity that scales as 1/N3/2 rather than as 1/N1/2 then either its sensitivity could be greatly increased or its laser power enormously reduced, which would avoid potential heating and deformation of the facilities' optics. "This opens up a whole new ball game in nonlinear interferometry," he adds."
------

Jonathan:

You are again wrong. LIGO has been a dead turkey from the outset: just drive the linearized approximation of GR to its inevitable "predictions", and you'll get reductio ad absurdum,

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

You already wasted $102,061 from FQXi, remember?

Would you like to learn *exactly* why you failed, or shall I follow your advice (Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:25:08 -0800, Message-ID:
<3C638B65.88ACE03@earthlink.net>) "Never give oxygen to Morons....." ?


D. Chakalov
--------

$102,061 Quantum Measurement in the Timeless Universe
http://fqxi.org/grants/large/awardees/view/__details/2008/dowling

"Our goal is to reconcile this timeless nature of the universe with quantum theory's definite "arrow of time." To accomplish this, we need to go back to the foundations of quantum theory and re-write the measurement postulate itself, using the modern-day tools of information theory."


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

Subject: Re: Jonathan Dowling on enhancing LIGO's "sensitivity"
Message-ID: <4D8C0613.3000902@lsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:03:47 -0500
From: Jonathan Dowling <jpwdowling@gmail.com>
Reply-To: jdowling@lsu.edu
Organization: LSU
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
CC: Jonathan <jdowling@phys.lsu.edu>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Barry Sanders <sandersb@ucalgary.ca>,
Kavita Rajanna <mail@fqxi.org>,
Carlton Caves <caves@info.phys.unm.edu>


Gobble, gobble, gobble — quack!

--

Dr. Jonathan P. Dowling
Hearne Professor of Theoretical Physics
Co-Director, Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics

Quantum Sciences and Technologies Group
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Louisiana State University
202 Nicholson Hall, Tower Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Tel: (225) 578-0887
Admin: (225) 578-2163
Fax: (225) 578-0824

Email: mailto:jdowling@lsu.edu
Admin: mailto:quantum@phys.lsu.edu
URL: http://phys.lsu.edu/~jdowling/

------

Note:
The response from Jonathan P. Dowling -- "Gobble, gobble, gobble — quack!" -- is an exact summary of his knowledge in GR and foundations of quantum theory, and his relentless efforts to reconcile the timeless nature of the universe with quantum theory's definite "arrow of time", using the modern-day tools of information theory. All this for just $102,061 from FQXi (oxygen is free).

Back in February 2002, I wrote:

---


Now, I declare that I will accept your view iff you can suggest a theory of Lorentz invariant nonlocality.

Please answer my objections above, and then state the conditions under which you will declare that the task for quantum computing is not feasible in principle.

I extend this request to all physicists reading this critical note on "quantum computing", regardless of who their contractor is -- DoD, DERA, or someone else.

Let's put our cards on the table. It's about time.

Sincerely yours,

D. Chakalov
February 9, 2002

P.S. Carlton M. Caves, whose work on "quantum computing" is partly sponsored by U.S. Office of Naval Research, also decided to play ostrich [Ref. 9], just like his colleague Jonathan P. Dowling [Ref. 5]. But what if they stand on ONR concrete instead of sand?

D.C.
February 11, 2002
---

Jonathan P. Dowling is already Co-Director of Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics at Louisiana State University. He still cannot, of course, suggest a theory of Lorentz invariant nonlocality, only now he is milking FQXi.

Christoph Adami, the co-author of arXiv:quant-ph/0202039v1, has also left the Quantum Computing Technologies Group (Section 367, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech), and is now interested in "how evolution shapes biological and engineering systems, and how information evolves in these systems".

The third person, Carlton M. Caves, is still involved in "quantum computing". His dreams are explained at his web site here:

"Crudely speaking, the classical counterpart can occupy any one of a complete set of orthogonal quantum states, whereas the quantum system can occupy not only the orthogonal states, but also any linear superposition of the orthogonal states. Hilbert space is a big place!---this slogan underlies research on information and complexity in quantum systems. Even simple quantum systems, having only a few Hilbert-space dimensions, have the potential for considerable complexity because of quantum superposition."

None of these people have read Ernst Specker.

Not surprisingly, the "quantum computing" project at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Quantum Computing Technologies Group, Section 367), has been abandoned:

http://cs.jpl.nasa.gov/qct/


D.C.
March 25, 2011


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


Subject: Re: Netiquette
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 04:59:01 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: ra@ift.unesp.br, jpereira@ift.unesp.br
Cc: ratra@phys.ksu.edu, pjep@princeton.edu

Dear Ruben,

Thank you for your kind feedback. I have learned a lot from you and Jose, and am very much looking forward for more.

I found a crucial point in your textbook (cf. attached),



... and am wondering what kind of 'time' you imply by saying that the metric is "time-dependent": is this some global time from the dynamic dark energy of [X], defined w.r.t. the vacuum [X] being at 'absolute rest' ?

For an opposite viewpoint, look at Peebles and Ratra, arXiv:astro-ph/0207347v2, footnote 19, p. 15:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207347

"This defines a preferred frame of motion, where the stress-energy tensor is diagonal, which is not unexpected because we need a preferred frame to define kc. It is unacceptable as a model for the properties of dark energy, of course."

I think the preferred frame of motion/global time is unavoidable, hence must be made 'acceptable',

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

A penny for your thoughts!

All the best,

Dimi

--------

>> Dear Jose and Ruben,
>>
>> I mentioned one of your fundamental papers at
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#LIGO
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Dimi
>>
--------

Note: Ruben Aldrovandi and Jose Geraldo Pereira will probably prefer to avoid the issue of 'the global time' in which the metric is "time-dependent" (cf. above). The issue is indeed very tricky, because any time you look at your wristwatch, you can only "measure" the so-called coordinate (physical) time, much like the story about KS Theorem.

So, what kind of animal is 'the global time' ?

Think of GMT. It isn't some preferred place located in Greenwich, UK. All clocks around the world read some local, coordinate time, yet the "intrinsic time interval associated to any timelike displacement" (T. Jacobson, pp. 18-19) belongs to 'the global time'. It is like a global metronome which keeps all local "times" in accord with the infinitesimal timelike displacement along the Arrow of Space.

Thanks to this 'global metronome' from the dynamic dark energy of [X] -- defined with respect to the vacuum being at absolute rest  -- we can suggest Gedankenexperiment about 'one second', which no physical object can possibly reproduce. Physically, it's a miracle, and I don't like it.

In the case of GR, all one-second local readings are "global" as well, in the sense that they are "a legitimate definition of (global) time" (Butterfield and Isham, 1999). Yet we can never observe 'the global time' directly: see again the story about KS Theorem.

The vacuum/ether/reference fluid must not be 'physical' or Lorentz-invariant stuff, because it will be exposed. It can only be "dark", as some (otherwise smart) people called it.

Jim Peebles and Bharat Ratra won't like it, of course. Eighteen years ago, Jim Peebles acknowledged (Principles of Physical Cosmology, p. 193):

"The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local concept, as in equation (6.18), and can be defined more generally in the special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space, there is not a general global energy conservation in general relativity."

Of course not. Any "general global energy conservation" in today's GR is red herring (check out a polite and obnubilated explanation from Sean Carroll here). You can't have "an isolated system" in present-day GR in the first place, and can only seek the "right" answer to a wrong question (MTW, p. 467).

The only truly isolated system is The Universe -- cf. Eq. 1 on p. 35 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf; its total energy is always conserved — it is always zero — during the global time from the Arrow of Space. The symmetry transformations (cf. below) and energy conservation law, along the lines of Noether's Theorem (Hamiltonian formulation), are expected to be worked out by 25.11.2015.

In summary, the metric is always time-dependent in the global time. The obvious fact that we enjoy finite things, such as 'one second' and 'one meter', requires careful reexamination of the differentiable manifold postulated in the current GR. We don't like miracles, do we?


D.C.
April 4, 2011
Last updated: April 5, 2011, 20:45 GMT

 

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


Subject: Tachyons in GR
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:57:40 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Charles Schwartz <schwartz@physics.berkeley.edu>

Dear Dr. Schwartz,

I just finished reading your latest arXiv:1011.4847v2 [math-ph], and came to the conclusion that I may never understand the three forms of mass -- see [Ref. 2] in

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

See also the footnote on L74 at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf

... and some Russian speculations,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304018

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: I tried to raise the question of space inversion above, because the theory outlined at this web site requires that the dimensions of 'space' and of 'time' will swap places, that is, an "inverted" spacetime will have 3-D time and 1-D space. These two worlds (one of them will be "mirror") cannot interact over an extended spacetime domain: they could "meet" only on null-surfaces. Anyway.

D.C.
March 30, 2011

 


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


Subject: Knocking on the Specker's door
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 01:15:05 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinZi97V-WwWbYtc1AmUcLAH8ng0dYEPZ9NfCcV8@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Guido Tonelli <cms.outreach@cern.ch>
Cc: James.Gillies@cern.ch, cern.courier@cern.ch, pippa.wells@cern.ch,
james.dacey@iop.org, michael.banks@iop.org, randall@physics.harvard.edu,
georgi@physics.harvard.edu


The hunt for the elusive Higgs, Mar 31, 2011
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/45587

Guido Tonelli (06:37): "We need billions of events to produce a handful of candidates."


Dear Dr. Tonelli,

You already took billions of euro -- all taxpayers' money -- and still haven't sorted out your "theory".

You cannot detect an artifact from your incomplete hypothesis. You will face Georgi's UNparticles. If you insist on the standard hypothesis, the number of quarks will jump to 8 and more, in a Fibonacci sequence.

May I suggest you to consult Ernst Specker,

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

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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


Subject: "Fantastically stupid students ... "
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:57:49 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37361003260557x34e959b3n9581ea36185d6e06@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>
Cc: david.corfield@tuebingen.mpg.de, alex@math.ucr.edu,
t.leinster@maths.gla.ac.uk, shulman@math.uchicago.edu,
urs.schreiber@gmail.com, s.willerton@sheffield.ac.uk


"Fantastically stupid students - five times I repeat proof, already I understand it myself, and still they don't get it."
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 294)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week294.html


John:

Regarding your last email from 14 Jan 2002, check out a simple explanation, with two clear drawings, at

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

Any chance to qualify for your 'This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics' ?

Or maybe the grapes are too high for you ?

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

Dimi
 

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


Subject: Re: Black Holes and Schwarzschild's actual solution
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:06:03 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Christian Corda <cordac.galilei@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
Diego Lucio Rapoport <xxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx>,
Jeremy Dunning-Davies <J.Dunning-Davies@hull.ac.uk>


On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Christian Corda <cordac.galilei@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> Mr. Chakalov is a poor man who understand NOTHING about physics
> and mathematics. He contacted my in the past by trying to convince me
> that gravity-waves do not exists but I stopped to discuss with him when
> I realized that he does not understand the principle of overlapping waves,
> i.e. a principle that people learn during High School...

Instead of shouting with capital letters, all you have to do is prove me wrong:

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:07:04 +0200 (CEST), Subject: Re: Netiquette, <christian.corda@ego-gw.it> wrote:
>
> I can agree with your point of view, but the important point here is that
> such a overlapping and conflating, like spaghetti bolognese, could in
> principle, generate a signal which is different from zero in the arm of an
> interferometer.

So, you agreed with my point of view -- see SBG argument at the link above -- but claim that one can "generate a signal which is different from zero in the arm of an interferometer".

How would you extract such signal from the 'spaghetti bolognese' ?

You've keeping quiet for two years.

Don't be shy, Christian. Go ahead. Make your best shot.

D.
 

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


Subject: Re: Black Holes and Schwarzschild's actual solution
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:27:22 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Diego Lucio Rapoport <xxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx>,
Cc: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
Christian Corda <cordac.galilei@gmail.com>

Dear Diego,

> of course, a man that strives to assess GR by probing for gravitational
> waves at a distance of 10_24, without having a quantum theory, is a defender
> of the faith, not a scientist.

Moreover, it's a dimensionless ghost that shows up only with ... "2.3×10-26" ,

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

Anyway.

All the best,

Dimi

>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Christian Corda
>> <cordac.galilei@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Mr. Chakalov is a poor man who understand NOTHING about physics
>> > and mathematics.
[snip]


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

Note: Regarding the subject of this email correspondence, Black Holes and Schwarzschild's actual solution, I will post Christian Corda's reply to Stephen Crothers, regarding 'The Schwarzschild Solution and its Implications for Gravitational Waves: Part I' at

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

Stephen Crothers: "The quantity  r  appearing in ‘Schwarzschild’s solution’ has never been correctly identified by the physicists. It is irrefutably the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of a spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section, not a distance of any kind in the manifold. The signatures of the black hole, an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and an event horizon, have never been identified anywhere, and so no black hole has ever been found."

Here's what Christian Corda wrote to Stephen Crothers:

Subject: Re: Black Holes and Schwarzschild's actual solution
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:11:32 +0100
Message-ID:
<AANLkTima0pZPngN1fbWUg5GcHxVX53PcBFHnznJ3ne=F@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Corda <cordac.galilei@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>
Cc:
Diego Lucio Rapoport <xxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx>,
dchakalov@gmail.com



Christian Corda: "I want have NOTHING to do with lowest people like Mr. Dimi Chakalov and Mr. Diego Lucio Rapoport.

[snip]

"Originally, I was "philosophically" in agreement with you (Stephen Crothers - D.C.).

"Unfortunately, by performing the computation, I realized that you (Stephen Crothers - D.C.) should be wrong. In fact, I have shown in my latest paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.6031 that the "the original Schwarzschild solution" results physically equivalent to the solution re-adapted by Hilbert, i.e. the solution that is universally known like "the standard Schwarzschild solution", and the authors like you, who claim that "the original Schwarzschild solution" implies the non existence of black holes give the wrong answer. The misunderstanding is due to an erroneous interpretation of the different coordinates. I further clarify this point.

"In my opinion, it is wrong also claiming that Hilbert's supposed mistake spawned the black hole. The concept of black-hole arises from the study of the INTERNAL geometry of the collapsing star, not from the EXTERNAL solutions like the ones of Schwarzschild, Hilbert, Brillouin etc. The key point is that, when you match the internal solution with the external solutions, ALL the geodesics of the collapsing matter look to fall in a single point in the core of the star. This happens in both of the cases of the original Schwarzschild line element and of the Hilbert's one.

"I have shown this point in my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.6031 . It is also simple to show that this key point remains when one matches ANY other EXTERNAL solution given by any other analytic function R(r) without violation of spherical symmetry and without violation of Ric = 0 with the internal solution.

"Thus, the infinite number of analytic functions that satisfy Ric = 0 become, for this reason, i.e. for the collapsing of the matter in a single point in the core of the star in the internal solution, NOT infinite different solutions for the external geometry, but THE SAME solution in infinite different coordinate systems!! They describes the singular and EXTERNAL spacetime of a sole un-dimensional point where all the mass is collapsed. If one finds the way to avoid ALL the geodesics of the collapsing matter to fall in a single point in the INTERNAL, not in the EXTERNAL solution the matter does not arrive to the horizon and the black-hole does not form.

"On the other hand, you (Stephen Crothers - D.C.) also claim that the quantity r that appears in the “Schwarzschild solution” is NOT a radius of anything in the associated manifold and that it is NOT even a distance in the associated manifold but that it is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of the “Schwarzschild” manifold.

"Even admitting that you (Stephen Crothers - D.C.) are right, in my opinion this point is NOT important. In fact, you can call this quantity like you prefer, but in any case he remains a coordinate for a 4-dimensional manifold, i.e. the spacetime, that we use to describe physics. The interpretation of coordinates is NOT univocally defined in General Relativity."

 

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


Subject: arXiv:1002.4153v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:23:51 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37361002222123g55b2b1b0j738aed180f0ff096@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Curt Cutler <Curt.J.Cutler@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Michele Vallisneri <vallis@vallis.org>
Cc: Kip <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>

Gentlemen:

Your custom-made mock data will only mock you:

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

If this email does not automatically bounce back, I will consider it delivered.

Once the scandal with LIGO erupts, you will be kindly asked to explain your self-mocking. I'll be there to help.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov

 

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


Subject: Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie Neufassung ?
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:43:40 +0200
Message-ID:
<bed37361003250843u104281c0h9e233d4ee4d2888b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: To:
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Charles Torre <torre@cc.usu.edu>



P.S. Details and drawings (25.03.2010) at

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

Should you have questions, please write me back.

D.C.

----------
Subject: A future directed, time-like unit vector field
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:46:18 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de, Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de

Dear Dr. Friedrich,

You acknowledged that a future directed, time-like unit vector field, for which no natural choice exists in general, is characterized indirectly and becomes explicitly available only after solving the equations (arXiv:0903.5160v1 [gr-qc], p. 17).

I've been trying to argue that this problem can only be solved by recovering the reference fluid in GR.
[snip]
 

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

Re: Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie Neufassung ?
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:56:25 +0300
Message-ID:
<bed37361003290356g7c4c1abera571d57293886e8f@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To:
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Charles Torre <torre@cc.usu.edu>,
rendall@aei.mpg.de


P.P.S. Updates at

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

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

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

Have a nice summer.

D.C.

---------
Subject: Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie Neufassung ?
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:43:40 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
[snip]

 

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


Subject: ATTN Mike Lazaridis: Total confusion, total socialism at PI
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:25:32 +0300
Message-ID:
<bed37361003290625q7a232020w3ec65bf3bec8cbb8@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Neil Turok <nturok@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Robert W Spekkens <rspekkens@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Lucien Hardy <lhardy@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Chris Fuchs <cfuchs@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
John Berlinsky <jberlinsky@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
John Matlock <jmatlock@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
psi@perimeterinstitute.ca,
lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca, fmarkopoulou@perimeterinstitute.ca,
elivine@perimeterinstitute.ca, dgottesman@perimeterinstitute.ca,
hburton@perimeterinstitute.ca, tthiemann@perimeterinstitute.ca,
rmyers@perimeterinstitute.ca, lfreidel@perimeterinstitute.ca,
marzano@perimeterinstitute.ca, dbenedetti@perimeterinstitute.ca,
sbilson-thompson@perimeterinstitute.ca,
fconrady@perimeterinstitute.ca, bdittrich@perimeterinstitute.ca,
jryan@perimeterinstitute.ca, psingh@perimeterinstitute.ca,
ipremont-schwarz@perimeterinstitute.ca,
cweinstein@perimeterinstitute.ca, ywan@perimeterinstitute.ca


Please pass this email to Mr. Mike Lazaridis, permalink
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Lazaridis
----

Dear Mr. Lazaridis,

I'm afraid your people are seriously confused.

For example, Neil Turok (“What Banged?”, 5 March 2008) speculates that "a cyclical model of the universe becomes feasible in which one bang is followed by another, in a potentially endless series of cosmic cycles"; Lucien Hardy and Robert Spekkens (arXiv:1003.5008v1 [quant-ph]) deeply believe that "the mathematics of Hilbert space is sufficient for quantum theory"; and Chris Fuchs' "best candidate" (arXiv:1003.5182v1 [quant-ph]) "involves a mysterious entity called a symmetric informationally complete quantum measurement" (this "mysterious entity" is also supported by U.S. Office of Naval Research Grant No. N00014-09-1-0247, as Chris Fuchs acknowledged).

Perhaps you will be interested to check out KS Theorem,

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

Please notice the letter by Schrödinger from November 1950, quoted at the link above.

Your people have always ignored my arguments, and have never replied professionally. Surely they all are "crazy enough", but I'm afraid they got your money and their Barbies, and don't care anymore. That's the result from working in a total socialism, after your generous financial support,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lazaridis#Philanthropic_work

If you insist on supporting PI, that's your choice. Just don't expect anything but total confusion & socialism.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
----

Note: Here's the opposite opinion, by the former PR guru Howard Burton:

WATERLOO, ON, May 2007 - "Howard Burton, Founding Executive Director, has left Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) and is seeking new challenges. (...) Burton had headed the Institute, fostered through the determination and overwhelming generosity of Mike Lazaridis, PI’s founder and Board Chair, since inception and achieved an impressive list of accomplishments."

Where is this "impressive list", I wonder. Check out Peter Knight. If you wish to play with your hobby, get a job at some university and teach there, like a typical Cambridge don. Don't waste Mike Lazaridis' money. Is this simple enough?

If I was in the shoes of Mike Lazaridis, I would introduce a few simple rules, effective immediately. For example: You want to study quantum cosmology, quantum gravity, quantum information, quantum computing, or quantum [whatever -- make sure it sounds very exciting] ?

Fine, but you won't get paid for sheer philosophy anymore -- enough is enough. If you wish to work at PI, you must clearly define the underlying presumptions in your hypothesis, and declare -- in writings -- the conditions under which you will acknowledge that your hypothesis is wrong, after which you will have to either start from scratch, or leave PI. That's the difference between philosophy and science, and also the recipe for success, which I'm sure Mike Lazaridis knows very well.

Besides, just like with RIM Blackberry Bold, you need a healthy competition to top the competitors. I will be happy to compete with any quantum scholar at PI. Please don't hesitate.
 

D. Chakalov
March 30, 2010


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

Subject: BMO Financial Group Isaac Newton Chair in Theoretical Physics at Perimeter Institute ?
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:04:27 +0200
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimWjzEKeXA+FYLYsq+VJ=piivvK9ZJSoWnuBLek@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: David A Galloway <feedback@bmo.com>


Dear Mr. Galloway,

I learned that you have decided to invest $4m in 'BMO Financial Group Isaac Newton Chair in Theoretical Physics at Perimeter Institute', provided your money are matched by an equal amount of $4m from Mr. Mike Lazaridis et al.:

http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/11/by_matin_durrani_the_bmo.html

"As for what the BMO Financial Group Isaac Newton Chair in Theoretical Physics at Perimeter Institute will do during their 10-year stint, well, they’ll be “free to engage in investigator-driven research, without limits or mandates”."

"The chair will be “identified through a highly competitive international search, and only scientists of the highest international calibre will be considered”."

I've been trying to contact Perimeter Institute for many years, on different occasions, prompted by the "research" papers published by their "leading" scientists, and even left a memo to Mr. Mike Lazaridis at my web site:

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

Nobody has so far replied.

In my not-so-humble-opinion, Perimeter Institute has become a very convenient place for particular group of theoretical physicists to scratch their ego -- nothing more, nothing else. Your money, as well as those from Mike Lazaridis, will be converted into a string of esoteric publications without any significant value.

To be precise: the research at Perimeter Institute (PI) is *incompatible* with the legacy of Margenau and Schrodinger.

One of the two parties, PI vs Margenau & Schrodinger, is on a wrong track. Details at

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

Please feel free to pass this email to any interested individual.

NB: I will be more than happy to engage in professional discussion with any research scientist at PI.

If you happen to know Mr. Mike Lazaridis personally, please convey him my best regards and deep admiration.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU, UK


 

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


Subject: Global existence for the Einstein equations
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:10:34 +0300
Message-ID:
<w2pbed37361004060310t33f53375x866186ed0f69f6ed@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Philippe G LeFloch <pglefloch@gmail.com>, LeFloch@ann.jussieu.fr
Cc: Bing-Long Chen <mcscbl@mail.sysu.edu.cn>, rendall@aei.mpg.de,
blanchet@iap.fr, larsa@math.miami.edu, eric.gourgoulhon@obspm.fr,
alanw@math.berkeley.edu, e.deadman@damtp.cam.ac.uk,
j.m.stewart@damtp.cam.ac.uk, demetri@math.ethz.ch,
seri@math.princeton.edu, Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>,
Lau Loi So <s0242010@gmail.com>

Dear Dr. LeFloch,

May I share with you and your colleagues my concerns about your efforts.

In your latest paper with Alan Rendall (arXiv:1004.0427v1 [gr-qc]), you tackled the initial value problem for the Einstein equations, and tried to elaborate on "a global foliation of the maximal future development of a given initial data set", with "a local-in-time existence result in the class of spacetimes with bounded variation. The present work is a continuation of this work and is aimed at constructing a global foliation of such spacetimes."

You take for granted that the spacetime of GR is "time-oriented" (arXiv:0812.5053v1 [gr-qc]). In my opinion, the time-orientability of 3-D space can be achieved *only and exclusively only* if the 3-D space itself is dynamical. That is, the (global) time in GR comes from the dynamics of space: check out the "stack of Photoshop layers"

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

and

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

If you stick to GR textbooks and consider some stuff that only changes its coordinates in 3-D space, without allowing the 3-D space itself to evolve (cf. the two drawings at the first link above), you are confined into a frozen block world, which will never, in *no circumstances* allow you to prove the global existence for the Einstein equations and solve the initial value problem. It's a dead turkey.

Sorry for being frank. Should you or any of your colleagues disagree, I will be happy to quote from your papers and pin down the exact cause of your insurmountable problems.

Kindest regards,

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

Note: People like G. 't Hooft claim that "the energy in gravity and that in matter always balances out to zero" (see also M. Montesinos), and seek comfort in the Bianchi identities (George F R Ellis and Henk van Elst, Eq. 2); application in Sec. 15.2, 'Bianchi universes and observations', from Wainwright and Ellis' Dynamical systems in cosmology. Notice there Eq. 5.31, which (supposedly) fixes the relation between a "dimensionless time [tau] and clock time t". But all this pertains to GR without DDE: see Landau and Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, 4th ed., 1980, Ch. 11, p. 301; more from Denisov and Logunov.

If you believe in such dubious things like 'dynamics of GR without DDE', try to define some "dimensionless time [tau]" that can be used to seek 'the right answer to the right question', to paraphrase MTW, p. 467. That's the test of the pudding: in what sort of time is the energy of gravitational field "conserved"?

As to the recent paper by Philippe LeFloch and Alan Rendall, I think the Gowdy symmetry assumption and the "future-oriented, time-like, unit vector" (p. 10) are 'searching for the right answer to the wrong question'. It reminds 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. Here, the key is in the "dark" energy from "empty" space.

D.C.
April 6, 2010


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


Subject: Smooth ghosts in mathematical general relativity: a sampler
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:32:15 +0300
Message-ID:
<g2gbed37361004071932lb626bec9p9224645eb97610af@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Piotr Chrusciel <chrusciel@univ-tours.fr>, chrusciel@maths.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Gregory Galloway <galloway@math.miami.edu>,
Daniel Pollack <pollack@math.washington.edu>,
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga <torsten.asselmeyer-maluga@dlr.de>,
Carl H Brans <brans@loyno.edu>, Helge Rose <rose@first.fhg.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>, Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>, Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>, Charles Torre <torre@cc.usu.edu>,
rendall@aei.mpg.de, Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>


Piotr,

Regarding my email from Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:41:45 +0300: I'm afraid you've included too many ghosts in your latest essay [Ref. 1]. You and your co-authors listed twenty "Open problems" in Appendix A (ibid., pp. 69-70), none of which deals with the puzzle of "smoothness",

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

Moreover, regarding the positive mass conjecture [Ref. 2], you believe it has been "solved", but how would you reconcile the so-called dark energy with the dominant energy condition [Ref. 1, p. 37] ? You never mentioned this 'dark energy from empty space' in [Ref. 1].

If you wish to reply professionally, please write up an update to your essay, arXiv:1004.1016 v2 [gr-qc].

If you or any of your colleagues cannot understand the arguments at the link above, it will be entirely my fault. Feel free to write me back, and I will do my best to explain. The puzzle of 'smoothness' is very old, and there are two alternative approaches: one of them doesn't work, and the other is being explored at my web site.

Regards,

Dimi

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

[Ref. 1] Piotr Chrusciel, Gregory Galloway, and Daniel Pollack, Mathematical general relativity: a sampler, arXiv:1004.1016v1 [gr-qc], 372 refs; http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1016

Sec. 2.1. Lorentzian manifolds, p. 3:
"A Lorentzian manifold is a smooth (Hausdorff, paracompact) manifold...
"A Lorentzian metric is a smooth assignment to each point p є M ...
--
p. 6: "The notion of a causal curve extends in a natural way to piecewise smooth curves, ...
"There are various ways to make the
phrase “continuous assignment” precise, but they all result in the following fact (it isn't a 'fact' but mathematical poetry - D.C.): A Lorentzian manifold (Mn+1, g) is time-orientable if and only if it admits a smooth timelike vector field Z. If M is time-orientable, the choice of a smooth time-like vector field Z fixes a time orientation on M ...
"By a space-time we mean a connected time-oriented Lorentzian manifold (Mn+1, g). Henceforth, we restrict attention to space-times."
--
p. 9: "By a smooth time function we mean a smooth function t with everywhere past pointing timelike gradient. This implies that t is strictly increasing along all future directed causal curves, and that its level sets are smooth spacelike hypersurfaces.
---
p. 37: "The long-standing question of its positivity was resolved by Schoen and Yau [336] in dimension three, and is now known as the Positive Mass Theorem ... The result was generalized in [338,339] (compare [334]) to asymptotically flat initial data sets (M, h,K,F) satisfying the dominant energy condition (5.15)."


[Ref. 2] Piotr T. Chrusciel, Mass and angular-momentum inequalities for axi-symmetric initial data sets I. Positivity of mass, arXiv:0710.3680v1 [gr-qc]; http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3680, p. 6.

 

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

Subject: Re: Smooth ghosts in mathematical general relativity: a sampler
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:17:53 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Piotr Chrusciel <piotr.chrusciel@univie.ac.at>
Cc: Gregory Galloway <galloway@math.miami.edu>,
Daniel Pollack <pollack@math.washington.edu>,
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga <torsten.asselmeyer-maluga@dlr.de>,
Carl H Brans <brans@loyno.edu>,
Helge Rose <rose@first.fhg.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Charles Torre <torre@cc.usu.edu>,
rendall@aei.mpg.de,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Jim Isenberg <isenberg@uoregon.edu>


P.S. In the second version of your essay arXiv:1004.1016v2 [gr-qc],

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

you used "smooth" and "smoothness" 66 times. You declared that "the local accuracy of special relativity is built into general relativity" (p. 4), and regarding the twice contracted second Bianchi identity, Eq. 2.10, you wrote (p. 5):

"This plays a fundamental role in general relativity, as, in particular, it implies (notice the poetry - D.C.), in conjunction with the Einstein equation, local conservation of energy, [XXX] = 0."

If everything were so "smooth", with "local accuracy of special relativity" pre-built into GR, how come you cannot cope with the wegtransformierbar faculty of gravity "over a point" ? References at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Zinkernagel2

If you or some of your colleagues care about GR, please make an effort to reply professionally.

D.C.
--------
"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



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


Subject: Re: Albert Einstein's last lecture, April 14, 1954
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:15:08 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ted <newman@pitt.edu>
Cc: Richard Price <Richard.Price@utb.edu>,
Josh Goldberg <goldberg@phy.syr.edu>

Dear Ted:

> You should allow us each to our own 'silliness' and 'errors'. If we
> are wrong then history will bare that out and we will look silly.

Sorry, this is not a professional response. The arguments at the links below are one-click away. Please check them out. We aren't taking philosophy here.

> But maybe there is a chance that we are correct.

But I'm not talking about your H-space nor arXiv:1007.4351v1 [gr-qc].

It's all about LIGO, which has been a dead turkey from the outset -- see ExplanatoryNote.pdf below.

Josh started all this mess, with the 1957 Chapel Hill "Conference on the Role of Gravitation in Physics", organized by Bryce De Witt with US Air Force money. See what he emailed me on 14 Jan 2009 (printed below): do you see any argument in support of the "theory" of LIGO?

Do you believe LIGO is designed to measure *anything* related to Bondi-Metzner-Sachs (BMS) group ? See ExplanatoryNote.pdf below.

How long will you, Josh, and Richard keep quiet ?

Please act professionally, and save hundreds of million US dollars -- taxpayers' money -- from wasting with the "advanced" LIGO and LISA.

It is not fair to keep quiet.

Yours,

Dimi

----------
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:53:30 -0500, Message-ID: <496E34AA.2090703@phy.syr.edu>,
Joshua Goldberg <goldberg@physics.syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Chakalov:
>
> I have read most of your comments and don't agree with them. I no
> longer have the energy to detail my opinion. Apart from my own work
> in the '50's, for me the definitive paper on gravitational waves is that
> by Bondi et al written in 1960, but published in '62. Therefore, I make
> no comment on your work.
>
> Josh Goldberg
-----------


> On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
>> Dear Ted:
>>
>> In case you are professionally interested in GR, see
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Zinkernagel_note
>>
>> I trust you and Richard Price know that LIGO is for the birds:
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/ExplanatoryNote.pdf
>>
>> When are you going to respond professionally? Time is running out!
>>
>> Dimi
>
>
 

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


Subject: Does the Universe Have a Handedness?
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 06:24:01 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Michael J Longo <mlongo@umich.edu>
Cc: Craig J Copi <cjc5@po.cwru.edu>,
Glenn D Starkman <glenn.starkman@case.edu>,
Dominik Schwarz <dschwarz@physik.uni-bielefeld.de>,
Dragan Huterer <huterer@umich.edu>

Dear Dr. Longo,

Regarding your arXiv:astro-ph/0703325v3, I think the answer to the question in the subject line could be YAIN, due to the totally different physics one can expect from the two modes of spacetime,

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

In other words, you can have your cake and eat it. But you'd have to "challenge the model", as your colleagues put it.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

--------
Craig J. Copi et al., Large angle anomalies in the CMB, arXiv:1004.5602v1 [astro-ph.CO], http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.5602

"Even so, the cosmological model we arrive at is baroque, requiring the introduction at different scales and epochs of three sources of energy density that are only detected gravitationally -- dark matter, dark energy and the inflaton. This alone should encourage us to continuously challenge the model ... "
---
 

Note: I won't pester the readers with any detailed speculations (D. Schwarz hasn't replied to my email sent in May 2003), and will only highlight the main puzzle:

Dragan Huterer (24 November 2005), Mysteries at Universe's Largest Observable Scales,

http://cfcp.uchicago.edu/research/highlights/highlight_2005-11-24.html

"Copi, Huterer and Starkman, together with Dominik Schwarz from Bielefeld University in Germany, found statistically significant and completely unexpected correlations of the CMB quadrupole and octopole with the ecliptic plane. In particular, planes defined by the quadrupole and octopole are perpendicular to the ecliptic plane."

That's what we observe:

 

As to the "cosmic equator", perhaps we'll have a better picture from the Planck mission (exposing the elusive "B-modes", which are believed be determined by the density of primordial GWs), once the angular power spectrum is revealed in 2012; animation here.

But instead of modifying gravity by introducing a "dynamical Aether (or time-like vector field) with non-canonical kinetic terms" (Glenn D. Starkman et al., arXiv:astro-ph/0607411v4), I suggest to replace the Aether with the so-called global mode of spacetime (cf. Fig. 2 above), and offer a scale relativity principle, pertaining to hypothetical symmetry presentations or "views" on objects in space. Then the "handedness" of spacetime arrow will cast its blueprints on the distribution of matter in 3-D space, since the space itself has become dynamical, endowing the whole universe with a (global) time. As to the "spin handedness" and torsion effects, recall that reference frames associated with 'spin' are different from those associated with motion along a line, as noticed by Ernst Mach many years ago. If you imagine an absolute or "meta" observer placed in the frame of "fixed stars" (called here 'global mode of spacetime'), she should be able to "see" the input from the global mode, cast on the local mode in terms of some "geometric force", but a physical observer will see these affects as "dark".

To explain such "dark geometric force", in the framework of 'the universe modeled as a brain', consider the text below:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.  The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn biran deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Pritie amzanig huh?

Your brain operates with 'potential reality' (recall the main demonstration above), and can "shuffle" the letters and re-construct the text, even ignoring the typo in the last sentence. If the universe also works as a brain, it can exert the asymmetry or "handedness" of spacetime arrow on the distribution of matter, and re-organize it along the pattern observed in CBM above, but an observer in the local mode of spacetime will interpret these geometrical effects as "dark".

I've acknowledged, on may occasions, that the mathematical presentation of these ideas is unknown to me. Tomorrow I will write to Prof. Amos Altshuler, regarding his paper on the topology of space, and will ask for advice. I can only hope he won't reply like Prof. Chris Isham.


D. Chakalov
May 3, 2010
Last update: July 9, 2010


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


Subject: Machian gravity and the Bootstrap Principle
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 03:31:33 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Amos Altshuler <alt@math.bgu.ac.il>, Amos Altshuler <amosalt@bezeqint.net>

Dear Professor Altshuler,

I very much like the statement by Einstein (Albert Einstein über Kepler, Frankfurter Zeitung, 9 November 1930): "Es scheint, dass die menschliche Vernunft die Formen erst selbständig konstruieren muss, ehe wir sie in den Dingen nachweisen können." (It seems that the human mind has first to construct forms independently, before we can find them in things.)

I have an immodest request for information and advice, prompted by your latest paper, entitled: "On Space's Topology", arXiv:1004.1831v1 [gr-qc]. I am trying to find papers or just ideas regarding some new 3-D manifold, which could supply the mathematical basis for Machian gravity and the Bootstrap Principle of Geoffrey Chew.

Regarding Fig. 1 from your paper: I imagine the 2-sphere, as shown in Fig. 1c, as a spherical balloon, which can be inflated by some "dark energy".

 


 

Is it possible to conjecture that any given point from the 2-sphere (balloon) surface can be *somehow* (I'm speechless here) produced by "gluing" all (infinitely many) points from the disk depicted in Fig. 1a? What I mean is the following: if some Flatlander living on the 2-sphere (balloon) surface decides to zoom on the "infinitesimal" from her balloon surface, she will find out that it actually has an inner geometrical structure -- not a dimensionless point but a 2-D disk that has shrunk to its infinitesimal "size". Also, if *the same* disk has been multiplied into infinitely many "points" from the 2-sphere (balloon) surface, the Flatlanders have to consider two types of connections on their (base) manifold: a "local" one, by ignoring the initial "mother" disk, and a "non-local" connection, which goes through *the same mother disk*, bootstrapping all points on the 2-sphere (balloon) surface. Thus, all interactions on the 2-sphere (balloon) surface will be inherently quasi-local from the outset.

Now, lets move up by one dimension. Can you think of some 3-D manifold, which can possess similar inner geometrical structure of its infinitesimal "points"? Namely, each and every "point" would be produced by shrinking *the same* 3-D "mother sphere", and again two types of connections will occur on the 3-D manifold, enabling quasi-local interactions.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I am aware that my efforts are not related to your latest paper, but hope you will be so kind as to advise me on these issues.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
[snip]
-------

Note: If you wish to construct a physical space out of this new 3-D manifold, make sure that its topology has been dynamically fixed as "asymptotically flat", so we could "look around, and see as far as we can" (Lee Smolin). Good luck.

D.C.
May 5, 2010


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


Subject: Re: Machian gravity and the Bootstrap Principle
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 13:46:09 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Amos Altshuler <amosalt@bezeqint.net>
Cc: Robert Geroch <geroch@uchicago.edu>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>,
Anthony Zee <zee@kitp.ucsb.edu>

Dear Amos,

Thank you for your reply from Sun, 16 May 2010 08:05:43 +0200.

> Sorry, but I don't know the answer to your question. I am also not sure
> that I understood the situation you described.

I suppose you've seen the collective behavior of a shoal of fish. Suppose every fish follows the rule 'think globally, act locally', such that every *point* from the trajectories of each and every fish is pre-correlated (Leibnitzian pre-established harmony) with 'the rest of fish' from the shoal. The ongoing correlation "takes place" in a putative 'global mode of spacetime', and the dynamics of every fish
becomes *quasi-local*, in the sense that the "bi-directional" negotiation of every *next* point from the trajectories of all fish is being *already-completed* at the instant at which every fish makes the infinitesimal displacement x --> x +ds : please see my email to Robert Geroch at

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

In the quantum-mechanical version of the story above, replace the fish with dice. Think of four dice, which have to be correlated "in the air" (global mode of spacetime), in such a way that the sum of their readings must be confined in the interval [10, 20] , at the instant they are fixed/dropped on the table. You can see only the dice on the table, where they exist as 'facts' (local mode of spacetime).

So, suppose you observe consecutive sets of readings like (3, 5, 1, 6), (4, 4, 3, 5), (5, 6, 2, 5), (1, 3, 5, 1), etc., all of which are correlated by the requirement [10, 20] . The trajectories of all dice are composed of these quasi-local states 'on the table', and all dice will be pre-correlated like a shoal of fish. They will be pre-bootstrapped 'on the table', and will display a "quantum wave", without any localized source of such "wave", as we know from QM textbooks,

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

Only the math is unknown.

With all good wishes,

Dimi

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




How do they do it?

"[This] question occurs naturally to anyone watching a school of silversides moving slowly over a reef in clear tropical waters. Hundreds of small silver fish glide in unison, more like a single organism than a collection of individuals. The school idles along on a straight course, then wheels suddenly; not a single fish is lost from the group. A barracuda darts from behind an outcropping of coral and the members of the school flash outward in an expanding sphere. The flash expansion dissolves the school in a fraction of a second, yet none of the fish collide. Moments later the scattered individuals collect in small groups; ultimately the school re-forms and continues to feed, lacking perhaps a member or two."

Brian L. Partridge, Structure and function of fish schools, Scientific American 246 (1982) 114-123; cf. p. 119.

See also Birds flock with scale invariance: "a change in direction of one bird can affect the behavior of all its companions -- regardless of the size of the flock. (...) This means that information about the change of direction of any individual is quickly shared throughout the entire flock (the UNdecidable potential state -- D.C.), and its transmission is not limited by a fundamental distance scale."

See also 'Neurophysiology 101 For Quantum Physicists' here.
 If neuroscientists were following the "logic" of their colleagues from the established theoretical physics community, they would have to postulate some totally invisible, hence "dark", computer in the human brain, which could correlate some 100 billion neurons and 60 trillion synapses. Such "dark" computer would also have to remain unchanged during the life of all people, and would be the "neural correlate" of the human self.

In our case, the "dark" bootstrapping mechanism, which correlates every "fish" from the local mode of spacetime (cf. Fig. 1 above), is sought in the mechanism that fixes only one "charge" of mass, by cancellation of two gravitational "waves" in the global mode, as depicted in Escher's hands. The two tug-of-war effects of the bootstrapping mechanism (CDM & DDE), which produce 'asymptotically flat spacetime', do not originate from some physical stuff with positive energy density, nor from some stuff with negative energy density. The end result is perfectly embedded in the positive-mass "fish", and makes its trajectory quasi-local (cf. Brown and York and Cooperstock and Dupre below).

All this "happens" in the global mode (cf. Fig. 2 above), just like the invisible cat Macavity, which shows up "only when no one is looking at it".

That is, Macavity lives in the non-Archimedean, global mode of time, which is needed to define a finite bounded region of 3-D space (local mode) endowed with differentiable structure (cf. Brown and York). The 'time rate of change' is in turn defined by 'the arrow of space' (AOS) on a perfect continuum (local mode).

That's the meaning of 'quasi-local', be it a fish or quantum observable or "any observable of the gravitational field" (Laszlo Szabados).

Have a nice summer.
 

"just another crank" D.C.
May 20, 2010
Last update: July 14, 2010



J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravitational action, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1407 (1993)

"In nonrelativistic mechanics, the time interval  T  between initial and final configurations enters the action as fixed endpoint data. The classical action Scl, the action functional evaluated on a history that solves the classical equations of motion, is an ordinary function of the time interval and is identified as Hamilton's principal function. Therefore Scl satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation H = -dScl/ dT, which expresses the energy (Hamiltonian) H of the classical solution as minus the time rate of change of its action.

"By a similar analysis, we shall define the quasilocal energy for gravitational and matter fields in a spatially bounded region as minus the time rate of change of the classical action."

 


F.I. Cooperstock, M.J. Dupre, Covariant energy-momentum and an uncertainty principle for general relativity, arXiv:0904.0469v2 [gr-qc]

"The Positive Energy Theorem itself has been a major factor in the acceptance of the quasi-local approach, but it must be noted that it depends on the assumption of the dominant energy condition. However, recently, all the energy conditions of general relativity have come into question [10]."
---
[10] C. Barcelo and M. Visser, gr-qc/0205066v1.

 

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


Subject: Re: Request for advice
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:47:10 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mark Burgin <mburgin@math.ucla.edu>

Dear Mark:

Thank you for your feedback.

> What do mean writing "construct a trajectory of
> such _already-correlated_ n-states "?

RE _already-correlated_ : if we look at a school of fish,

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

we can't notice the non-linear negotiation (modeled with the [10, 20] requirement below) b/w every fish and 'the rest of fish'. Perhaps the four dice will show a pre-correlated, wave-like rays.

If I knew how to calculate these correlations "in the air", I could perhaps make an animation, and model the emergence of a quantum wave, without any localizable source of such wave.

All the best,

Dimi


> Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dr. Burgin,
>>
>> I read with great interest your latest "Interpretations of Negative
>> Probabilities", arXiv:1008.1287v1 [quant-ph], and wonder if you could
>> advise me how to formalize a Gedankenexperiment with four dice at
>>
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#bootstrap
>>
>> Think of four dice, which have to be correlated "in the air", in such
>> a way that the sum of their readings on the table must be confined in
>> the interval [10, 20], at the instant they are fixed/dropped on the
>> table. You can observe only the dice on the table, where they exist as
>> 'facts'.
>>
>> So, suppose you observe consecutive sets of readings like n_1: (3, 5,
>> 1, 6), n_2: (4, 4, 3, 5), n_3: (5, 6, 2, 5), n_4: (1, 3, 5, 1), etc.,
>> all of which are correlated by the requirement [10, 20] . How can we
>> construct a trajectory of such _already-correlated_ n-states ?
>>
>> Hope you can help. I extend my immodest request to Dr. Hájek as well.
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Dimi Chakalov



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


Subject: Machian quantum gravity
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:02:37 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Mario Novello <novello@cbpf.br>
Cc: Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>


Re: M. Novello, Mach or Higgs? The mechanisms to generate mass, arXiv:1008.2371v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2371v1


Hi Mario,

May I offer two suggestions. In your recent paper, you posed the following question (p. 9):

"We start by considering Mach principle as the statement according to which the inertial properties of a body A are determined by the energy-momentum throughout all space. How could we describe such universal state that takes into account the whole contribution of the rest-of-the-universe onto A ?"

My suggestion: include the contribution of A onto the rest-of-the-universe. It's a bi-directional "talk".

You also wrote: "There is no simpler way than consider this state as the most homogeneous one and relate it to what Einstein attributed to the cosmological constant or, in modern language, the vacuum of all remaining bodies."

There is a simpler way to find this "universal state": solve the main problems of QM

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

and GR,

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

First things first.

Take care,

Dimi


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


Subject: The scale factor R(t): Why would "distance" change with time, and if so, in what "time" ?
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 04:16:48 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Alain Blanchard <alain.blanchard@ast.obs-mip.fr>
Cc: Elemér Rosinger <eerosinger@hotmail.com>


Dear Dr. Blanchard,

Regarding your comment on Newton theory of gravity and the "unexpected new element in modern physics" [Ref. 1, p. 39]: it seems that the definition of the scale factor R(t) and the Hamiltonian formulation of GR may be wrong.

Instead of adding time "as the fourth coordinate" [ibid., p. 3] and speculate about "distance changes with time" [ibid., p. 7], we may introduce a global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean [Ref. 2] time, as depicted in Fig 2 at

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

Specific considerations at

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

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

-------

[Ref. 1] Alain Blanchard, Evidence for the Fifth Element: Astrophysical status of Dark Energy, arXiv:1005.3765v1 [astro-ph.CO], http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3765v1

Footnote 1: "Newton theory of gravity is wrong, but nevertheless it remains a high quality scientific theory because of its past (and present) successes. It is in this sense that modern cosmology should be regarded as successful, and this will remain in the future, even if it might be regarded as being ”wrong”..."
....

p. 3: "R is a characteristic size (in the spherical case, that is the radius of the 3D-sphere embedded in a 4D space). We then add the time as the fourth coordinate ... "
....

p. 7: "2.6 The proper distance

"In GR, space changes with time, and there is no proper time, so that the “intuitive” notion of distance between two points is not a well defined quantity. (...) The fact that this distance changes with time is the direct consequence of the expansion of the Universe.
....

p. 25-26: "5.2 Einstein Cosmological constant or Vacuum contribution

"The most direct explanation one can provide to the cosmic acceleration it that it is due to a true cosmological constant appearing in the geometrical part of Einstein’s equation, i.e. the left hand side of eq. 4. However, it is much more common to believe that this term arises from some contribution to the energy-momentum tensor on the right hand side. As we have seen, from a classical point
of view the vacuum might have a non zero density and behaves identically to a cosmological constant. In addition, quantum mechanics provides an intriguing hint in this direction. (...) This non-zero value is often noticed in standard text book of quantum mechanic, but, because observable quantities correspond to transitions from one state to an other one, is not regarded as being problematic. However, as soon as gravitational interaction has to be added, one cannot avoid to take the absolute energy into account. (...) For all energy scales in physics does p_v end up with an unacceptable large value, which looks like a fundamental problem (footnote 9).
----
Footnote 9: "It has been suggested that the zero-point fields should not be regarded as real, despite the fact that they are at the basis of the calculation of the Casimir effect (167)."
[167] Michel, F. C., Comment on Zero-Point Fluctuations and the Cosmological Constant, ApJ , 466, 660 (1996)
.....

p. 39: "... the actual origin of dark energy remains totally unknown and the presence of dark energy in the present day universe represents probably the most fundamental and unexpected new element in modern physics."


[Ref. 2] Elemer E Rosinger, Special Relativity in Reduced Power Algebras, arXiv:0903.0296v2, http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0296

"3.1. Why Hold to the Archimedean Axiom ?

"It is seldom realized, especially among physicists, that ever since ancient Egypt and the axiomatization of Geometry by Euclid, we keep holding to the Archimedean Axiom. This axiom, in simplest terms, such as of a partially ordered group G, for instance, means the following property

(3.1.1) [XXX]

"or in other words, there exists a ”path length” u, so that every element x in the group can be ”overtaken” by a finite number n of ”steps” of ”length” u.'
-------
 

Note: Regarding the notion of a global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean time, recall the proposal of William G. Unruh, from 1988, about a Heraclitean time -- an "explicit (but unmeasureable) time", also called "nondynamical time". To explain the core idea of "explicit (but unmeasureable) time", I'll use a simple metaphor of a flat 2-D section of 3-D sphere: the Flatlanders will notice that their dynamics involves an "explicit but unmeasureable" time and space, in the sense that all points from their 2-D world are also points from the 3-D sphere, yet the intrinsic dynamics of the 3-D world will be "unmeasureable". Again, this is just a metaphor in Euclidean space; the real case may be far more complicated -- check out Fig. 2 above, and notice that the infinitesimal displacement in spacetime (compare it with ADM presentation) is completely sealed off by the so-called speed of light, rendering the local mode of spacetime a perfect continuum. Thus, the global mode of spacetime is totally "dark" from the outset. Hence the confusion in GR.

Now, let's see if we can unscramble some 'explicit but unmeasureable time and space' in our 3-D world made of finite things obeying the Archimedean Axiom.

If you ponder on the operational definition of 'second', you will notice that it is an unverifiable Gedankenexperiment: it is being "defined" as the sum of durations 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" [Ref. 3].

Here's how we are conditioned to think about such Archimedean second: imagine that every two neighboring dots from the closed interval of 'one second' below refer to one transition between the two levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom, and that the number of dots below is exactly 9,192,631,768:
 

[..............................................]


Surely your wristwatch does somehow read this finite interval, but you can't claim that 'time in GR' is a relativistic observable if the determinant of the metric itself (cf. Einstein's talk from April 1919 below) is a variable determined in turn by the
global Expansion of Space (EoS) -- read Michal Chodorowski [Ref. 4].

To cut the long story short: the principles of GR explicitly ban the global mode of space (see Fig. 2 above) from direct observation. We cannot directly observe any 'absolute space' or 'aether', just as we cannot directly observe the UNdecidable KS state. The "bare points" (cf. 'bare finger nails' and 'absolute structures', James L. Anderson) can exist only in the global mode of spacetime. Once the singularity is resolved, a vast new region of 'the universe as ONE' appears (compare with A. Ashtekar, p. 15). It provides a global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean matrix for finite things in the local mode of spacetime, such as 'one second' or 'one meter'.

Without
the global mode of spacetime, the existence of finite things like 'one second' and 'one meter' will be a miracle, since no physical phenomenon alone (local mode of spacetime) can reproduce them as comprised from finite number of finite things -- see the dots above.

NB:
The duration of the transition
between the two levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom -- the distance between two neighboring dots above -- is an Archimedean entity, a finite ”path length” u . Were the emergence of "more and more space" [Ref. 4] an Archimedean phenomenon, the Hubble Law would correspond to actual velocities of distant bodies, as inferred and calculated from their red-shifted light, and we would directly observe an effect of 'absolute space', endowed with "an additional attribute: expansion." [Ref. 4] But notice that you can inject any "number" of infinitesimal "points" into the global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean space, and it won't "expand" a bit. Not at all.

The explanation is with the famous song "Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall", only here the "expansion" of space is produced by adding 'bottles of beer' -- "more and more space" [Ref. 4] emerges along the arrow of spacetime denoted with  w  in Fig. 2 above. Notice also that, in present-day GR, the "horizontal" cross-sections of the arrow of spacetime (the local mode of spacetime, like Photoshop layers) are "flattened", and the local mode of spacetime becomes a perfect continuum -- no "dark gaps" from the global mode of spacetime are present in the local mode -- so it is impossible to get a glimpse at the global Expansion of Space (EoS) pertaining to the 'absolute space' and 'reference fluid'.

Stated differently, we may talk about a 'real actual expansion of space' only to the extent to which we can talk about any other 3-D blueprint from the global (Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean) mode of spacetime. Example: the global position of Earth in the "absolute" reference frame of the cosmic equator -- the "handedness" of the universe, produced by the arrow of spacetime, can show up only through the cosmic substratum [Ref. 4], yet its source and "force" will never be directly observable or traceable (try an experiment with your brain above). 

Even if 'one meter' can "expand" due to the emergence of "more and more space" [Ref. 4], the underlying 'body of reference' -- the global Expansion of Space (EoS) -- will not be physically observable. It is GR itself that makes it "dark". You can trust the present-day 'GR without DDE' only for adjusting the GPS system.

Needless to say, you cannot capture 'the entire space' with some conformal recipe either, being confined within the Archimedean local mode of finite things. Sorry for repeating this all over again; the crux of the argument is known after Lucretius. He didn't use math, but neither did Karel Kuchar some 2060 years later, regarding the "hidden unmoved mover".

The implications for "GW astronomy" are obvious: LIGO, Virgo, GEO, LCGT, LISA, etc., are supposed to detect the "ripples" of metric, as visualized below, in line with Kip's mantra:
 


Notice that one space dimension is omitted in the animation below: it shows a 2-D plane (not 3-D space), which is being modulated by a passing GW, propagating along an axis orthogonal to that flat plane, yet the very same axis of GW propagation is supposed to match the "direction" of GW scattering in 3-D space as well. Which is why Kip Thorne and his colleagues suggested an L-shaped (x/y) "antenna" to catch the signal coming from the orthogonal (to that plane) z direction.  Do you smell a rat?

 



Markus Pössel, "The wave nature of simple gravitational waves",
Einstein Online, Vol. 2 (2006), 1008


Take a look at the non-relativistic picture from NASA above, and notice that the very same "direction" of GW propagation, used to make the GW animation, has been employed to display an accelerated "expansion" of space -- again by omitting one space dimension. Now, if we were 2-D Flatlanders, we'd introduce a "temporal" dimension to model our 2+1-D universe, but we would not like that "temporal" dimension to pertain to 'the whole 2-D Flatland en bloc', because it will point to some anti-relativistic aether, and any force from it will be totally "dark". Not surprisingly, Michal Chodorowski doesn't like some global Expansion of Space either [Ref. 4], yet the global "direction" of GW propagation, orthogonal to the 3-D space en bloc, is perfectly fine for LIGO Scientific Collaboration: they simply use an L-shaped (x/y) "antenna" and wait, patiently, for the GW strain to come from the orthogonal (to that plane) z direction. Isn't this GW parapsychology?

To make the case decipherable, recall the (utterly misleading) picture of "GW lake", in which the two spatial dimensions of the expanding/contracting plane in the animation above are omitted: you can imagine the GW lake below only by compactifying all "stretching 'n squeezing distances" on the 2-D plane into one point from the 1-D "radius" of the GW lake below. Notice that the 1-D "radius" is the alleged "longitudinal direction" of GW propagation (cf. Jose G. Pereira et al.).

You also need another "axis" [Ref. 4] for the dimensionless wave amplitude, and yet another axis to picture the GW lake in 3-D (to impress your taxpayers), which makes the picture below an utterly misleading muddle.

 

 

LIGO is supposed to be located "near the shore", where the lake is "effectively flat", so you can think of LIGO as some point-like fishing rod float waiting, patiently, for the (initially strong) GW from the lake center to wiggle it, transverse to the 1-D "radius" of the GW lake. But in order to picture the transverse (to the 1-D "radius") directions of GW strain, you need to endow the point-like fishing rod float (LIGO) with two spatial dimensions, hence recover the 2-D plane in the animation above.

Total mess. For if you "upgrade" the point-like fishing rod float to 3-D space, where would the "longitudinal direction" point to? To "the center of the Galaxy"?

Let me quote Ray Weiss, from a video clip "Gravity: Making Waves", intended to the taxpayers who pay for all this mess (video transcript, American Museum of Natural History, November 2004).

Ray Weiss in lab, stretching and collapsing a mesh wine bottle protector:

"The waves can be represented by this object I found on a wine bottle. And it's a mesh that you can see. And the waves cause transverse to the direction in which they're moving. They're moving forward, and transverse to that the space gets tugged like this, and collapses like that. Tugged like this. And if you look carefully at this, and I'll do this a few times, you'll notice that the little squares in this, how they're exercising a motion where along one direction, it's obvious which direction -- I mean, the direction I'm pulling in -- space is getting  expanded. But transverse to that, up and down, space is getting contracted. And that's the key to the whole thing."

That's the key to the whole thing: you can't monitor some "expanding" [Ref. 4] or "collapsing" space if you are confined inside that same space: measurements "across" space are unphysical (B. Schutz, Fig. 24.3, p. 349).




Fig. 24.3
 

However, B. Schutz and his colleagues from LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) need exactly such measurements "across" 3-D space to determine the amplitude of the "passing" -- with respect to some absolute space [Ref. 4] -- GWs, and also "see" the animation above as ripples of the 3-D metric itself.

No background (regardless of being "undisturbed" or "disturbed") can exist for (i) "expansion" of 3-D space [Ref. 4] nor for (ii) GW propagation, yet Bernard Schutz and his LSC colleagues managed to "obtain" it for case (ii), with their spherical cow approximation.

There is also a tantalizing story by B. Schutz, regarding the "time parameter" of the propagation of GWs, depicted with the horizontal line in Fig. 22.1 below, from his book "GRAVITY from the Ground Up" (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003), p. 312. Notice also that the small vertical line refers to
"something that is dimensionless" (exact quote from Kip Thorne's Physics 237-2002 Course).




Fig. 22.1


B. Schutz argues that "the force of the Moon comes from the curvature of
time" (ibid., p. 310), and "the deformation produced by the Moon is partly directed towards the Moon (the longitudinal direction), whereas gravitational waves are transverse" (ibid., p. 311).

Therefore, LSC members have to separate two crucially distinct cases: curvature of time, as in the example with the tidal effect on Earth caused by the Moon (no GWs in principle), from curvature of space, as in the case of time-dependent spatial curvature (lots of GWs waiting for the "advanced" LIGO and LISA), depicted with the horizontal line in Fig. 22.1 above, and denoted with  t  as well.

To elucidate the situation, let me quote further from B. Schutz: "The fact (there are no "facts" here - D.C.) that gravitational waves are transverse and do not act like the Moon does on Earth implies that they are not part of the curvature of time, since that is where the Newtonian forces originate. They are purely a part of the curvature of space (emphasis mine – D.C.). When gravitational waves move through a region they do not induce difference between the rates of nearby clocks. Instead, they deform proper distances according to the pattern in Fig. 22.1" (ibid., p. 312). More from Bernard Schutz here.

Perhaps LSC members will try to separate (safely) the curvature of time from the curvature of space at GR19. I wish them best of luck with the SBG argument too.

In my "just-another-crank" opinion, the splitting of 3-D space into some x/y plane and an orthogonal "transverse direction" of GW scattering, denoted usually with  z , is sheer parapsychology. Check out the precise recipe for detecting "local perturbations in the space-time metric from astrophysical sources", by LIGO Scientific Collaboration (540 people), arXiv:1007.3973v1 [gr-qc], p. 11:

 



NB: If someone tells you that the ongoing "expansion" of spacetime metric, driven by [we-do-not-know-it], is along a straight line in space (say, 'from the center of the Galaxy toward Earth'; cf. my email to
Gabriela González from 8 June 2005), would you believe it? Of course not. Then how come people believe in the drawing above? Can you separate the "expanding" metric in the two cases?

Notice also the dimensionless GW amplitude and the analogy with the EM waves in 3-D space, suggested by Bernard Schutz: you can prove that light is a transverse wave by using Polaroid, hence a simple Gedankenexperiment with GW "amplitude" will require that it will inevitably acquire dimensionality, upon projecting the "amplitude" on the transverse  x/y  plane.

The proper GW detectors should be endowed with the faculty of self-acting (resembling the human brain), in order to be triggered by GWs. But this is a different thread.

Notice the crucial global "direction" of GW propagation, orthogonal to the whole 3-D space en bloc, in Fig. 2 above, and its holistic effect in the shoal of fish here; more from Anthony Zee above. Just as there is no source that is "waving" to produce quantum waves, there is no material source that is "waving" to produce GWs propagating from one location in 3-D space to another location. It would be tantamount to claiming that some material source, located somewhere in 3-D space, can produce a finite period of cosmological time (say, 8 min). If we use such Archimedean geometry for 'the source of DDE' [Ref. 4], the task for understanding the cosmological "beginning" and "end", as well as the problems with singularities and 'boundary of space' will be insurmountable. There is a lot to be done for revealing Einstein's "total field of as yet unknown structure."

Here comes a difficult (to my teenage daughter) exercise: try to recover the ripples of the 3-D metric following the 1-D case (see the GW lake) and 2-D case (the Flatland animation above).

If you endow the "stretching 'n squeezing" 2-D plane (Ray Weiss' mesh) with a third space dimension, the "direction" of GW propagation will be omnipresent in 3-D space, similar to the 2-D case in which it was "acting" on the whole 2-D plane en bloc. To explain 'omnipresent', imagine a brand new axis in 3-D space, along which you can discriminate between Small and Large. The spherically symmetrical 3-D "breathing" of the metric is along this new T-invariant axis, so if you dare to talk about the dynamics of the metric-filed "breathing", you have to use different signs for  t , say, +t for the "inhaling" mode and -t for the "exhaling" mode. Then the arrow of spacetime will require another axis, denoted with  w  in Fig. 2 above, which is orthogonal to the omnipresent axis of the Small viz Large in our good old 3-D space.

Thus, the cosmological arrow [Ref. 4], as well as the dynamics of GW scattering in 3-D space, can only be defined w.r.t. the unobservable, global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean time (see above): once we "look" at 3-D space from the global mode, the very nature of time changes accordingly. As explained in Wiki, we would see "all points in 3-dimensional space simultaneously, including the inner structure of solid objects and things obscured from our three-dimensional viewpoint". However, our (inanimate) wristwatch can read only one instant from this global mode of time. It can't read +t ("inhaling" mode) and -t ("exhaling" mode) simultaneously, hence it will report the global mode of time as "atemporal" and "frozen" (recall the problem of time in canonical quantum gravity).

I bet nobody at GR19 will make the slightest effort to mention the unobservable, global, Heraclitean, and non-Archimedean time, pertaining to GWs and the global expansion of space. Eight years ago, B. Schutz explained only a fraction of the problems, and didn't even mention the problems of GW dynamics stemming from the global expansion of space: you cannot detect GWs along the time read by your wristwatch, as Kip Thorne speculated above, just as you cannot take the stand of some meta-observer to monitor the global GW dynamics 'on the whole spacetime en bloc', or count to infinity, like Chuck Norris.

The usual excuse of LIGO Scientific Collaboration is that they use a linearized approximation of GR, only this 'spherical cow' is "a shadow without power" -- check out Hermann Weyl.

Yet LSC persistently ignore all arguments against the "theory" of GW detection with LIGO and the like. Okay, I used their linearized approximation of GR to derive the conditions under which LIGO Scientific Collaboration (700+ people) might succeed: LIGO needs a schizophrenic behavior of gravity, as explained here. But of course nobody at GR19 will mention Hermann Weyl nor the SBG argument.

LIGO Scientific Collaboration stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that there are no bans on the dipole radiation anymore, simply because the alleged conservation of gravitational mass-energy and momentum, in a world dominated by an evolving cosmological "constant", is a wishful thinking: all the energy conditions of GR have come into question.

In October last year, I asked 75 physicists to endorse the submission of my manuscript "Taxpayer's perspective on GW astronomy" to ArXiv.org server. Two of them refused (Jonathan Thornburg and Stanley Deser), while the rest didn't even bother to respond to my email. Surely GWs exist, but we may have to construct brand new detectors for the dipole radiation, and even re-examine the crux of GR [Ref. 5]: the quasi-local energy density of the gravitational field and the "boundary conditions" [Ref. 6] fixed in the global non-Archimedean spacetime. In simple words, the wegtransformierbar quality of gravity "over a point" (Afriat and Caccese, p. 27) indicates its specific quantum origin; details above.

Nobody from GR19 has so far responded to my email. I cannot argue with silent spherical cows either, once they have collected all the money -- taxpayers' money -- to play with Einstein's GR.

There is no sense to "enhance" the sensitivity of LIGO, for it has been a dead turkey from the outset. I suggested in March 2006 that LIGO tunnels should be converted to wine cellars, but what can be done with LISA? How much will cost that space junk?

When is enough, enough?


"just another crank" D.C.
June 1, 2010
Last update: July 29, 2010

 


[Ref. 3] Orfeu Bertolami, The mystical formula and the mystery of Khronos, arXiv:0801.3994v3 [gr-qc], http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3994

"In practical terms, one defines the second, the fundamental unit of time, as 1/86400 of the duration of the average solar day, or 9,192,631,770 periods of transition the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom. (4)
...
Footnote 4: "This definition concerns a cesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0K, such that the ground state is defined at zero magnetic field.
....

"Another interesting idea is the so-called “Heraclitean time proposal” [63, 64]. This is based on a suggestion by Einstein [65] according to which the determinant of the metric might not be a dynamical quantity."
--
[65]




[Ref. 4] Michal Chodorowski, A direct consequence of the expansion of space? arXiv:astro-ph/0610590v3, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610590v3

"We argue that, unlike the expansion of the cosmic substratum, the expansion of space is unobservable."

"To ‘explain’ these and other GR effects in cosmology, the idea of the Expansion of Space (EoS) is evoked.
...

" • On a philosophical level, it suggests that the expansion of the universe can be detached from the matter that is participating in the expansion. However, we know that, as he was constructing GR, Einstein was greatly influenced by the thoughts of German physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. In the words of Rindler (1977), for Mach “space is not a ‘thing’ in its own right; it is merely an abstraction from the totality of instance-relations between matter”. Therefore, the idea of expanding space ‘in its own right’ is very much contrary to the spirit of GR.

"• On a physical level, it suggests that the EoS is a geometric effect, so space itself is absolute. Then, though abolished in SR, in cosmology absolute space reenters triumphally the cosmic arena, endowed with an additional attribute: expansion.

"• Again on a physical level, it suggests the existence of a new mysterious force. If so, one can expect non-standard effects also on small scales. For example, one might expect particles to be dragged along by the EoS.
...

"Still, isn’t space expanding from a global point of view? Spatial sections of a closed FL model are three-spheres, whose radius of curvature increases as a(tau). Here, a(tau) is the so-called scale-factor, a universal function of cosmic time which describes how the distances between all elements of the cosmic substratum (or, fluid) grow with time. Therefore, the proper volume of a closed FL universe increases as [a(tau)]3; more and more space thus appears."



[Ref. 5] Bahram Mashhoon, Necessity of Acceleration-Induced Nonlocality, arXiv:1006.4150v1 [gr-qc]

"Ideal inertial (non-Archimedean - D.C.) observers are imaginary and do not really exist (yes they do exist: check out the UNdecidable KS state above - D.C.).
....

"The locality postulate states that an accelerated observer is at each instant physically equivalent to an otherwise identical momentarily comoving inertial observer. The latter follows the straight world line that is tangent to the world line of the accelerated observer at that instant. Thus an accelerated observer may be replaced in effect by an infinite sequence of hypothetical momentarily comoving inertial observers; mathematically, the world line of the accelerated observer is the envelope of the straight world lines of the corresponding hypothetical inertial observers (for reality check, see Alan Rendall - D.C.).

"This locality assumption originates from Newtonian mechanics, where the state of a point particle is determined at each instant by its position and velocity. The (hypothetical - D.C.) point particle and the hypothetical comoving inertial particle of the same mass share the same state (only in Newtonian mechanics - D.C.) and are thus physically equivalent."



[Ref. 6] Emil Mottola, The Trace Anomaly and Dynamical Vacuum Energy in Cosmology, arXiv:1006.3567v1 [gr-qc], Sec. I.

"Hence [lambda] may take on any value whatsoever with no difficulty (and with no explanation) in classical General Relativity.
.....

"This is a clear indication, confirmed by experiment, that the measurable effects associated with vacuum fluctuations are infrared phenomena, dependent upon macroscopic boundary conditions, which have little or nothing to do with the extreme ultraviolet modes or cutoff of the integral in (1.4).
.....

"In calculations of the Casimir force between conductors, one subtracts the zero point energy of the electromagnetic field in an infinitely extended vacuum (with the conductors absent) from the modified zero point energies in the presence of the conductors. It is this subtracted zero point energy of the electromagnetic vacuum, depending upon the boundary conditions imposed by the conducting surfaces, which leads to experimentally well verified results for the force between the conductors.
.....

"In the case of the Casimir effect, a constant zero point energy of the vacuum, no matter how large, does not affect the force between the plates. In the case of cosmology it is usually taken for granted that any effects of boundary conditions can be neglected (can't and shouldn't - D.C.).

"It is not obvious then what should play the role of the conducting plates in determining the magnitude of ρv in the universe, and the magnitude of any effect of quantum zero point energy on the curvature of space has remained unclear from Pauli's original estimate down to the present.
.....

NB, p. 4: "A vacuum energy with ρ > 0 and w = pvv-1  leads to an accelerated expansion, a kind of "repulsive" gravity in which the relativistic effects of a negative pressure can overcome a positive energy density in (1.6). Taken at face value, the observations imply that some 74% of the energy in the universe is of this hitherto undetected w = -1 dark variety [3, 4]. This leads to a non-zero inferred cosmological term in Einstein's equations ... (Eq. 1.7).
.....

"A naturalness problem arises only when the effects of quantum zero point energy on the large scale curvature of spacetime are considered. This is a problem of the gravitational energy of the quantum vacuum or ground state of the system at macroscopic distance scales ... "
 


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


Subject: Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:51:05 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Shan Yu <yushan.mail@gmail.com>,
Danko Nikolic <danko.nikolic@googlemail.com>
Cc: Thomas Metzinger <metzinger@uni-mainz.de>,
Philip Pearle <ppearle@hamilton.edu>,
Hans Primas <primas@ggaweb.ch>,
Atamalek Ghorbanzadeh <ata1@sharif.edu>,
Wolf Singer <singer@mpih-frankfurt.mpg.de>,
Horst Stöcker <stoecker@uni-frankfurt.de>,
Karlheinz Langanke <k.langanke@gsi.de>
 

Dear Dr. Yu,

May I comment on your latest arXiv:1009.2404v2, "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)".

I fully agree with you and Dr. Nikolic that (pp. 5-6) "quantum mechanics may have not left any space for the observer’s consciousness to manipulate the experimental results". There is no need for any "observer" in QM, provided we can formulate the latter in accordance with 'no observer' requirement from quantum cosmology -- please see Sec. Summary, pp. 35-36, at

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

Instead, the whole universe should act as "observer" (or rather "chooser", Philip Pearle), in line with 'the universe modeled as a brain',

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

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

Please notice that I strictly follow W. Pauli's proposal for solving the mind-brain problem (H. Atmanspracher and H. Primas (1997), The Hidden Side of Wolfgang Pauli, Journal of Scientific Exploration 11(3) 369-386; cf. Sec. VI, Matter and Psyche as Two Aspects of One Reality, p. 381).

I will appreciate your professional comments. I trust your German colleagues have received my previous email (Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:19:34 +0300), regarding the physics of binding phenomenon. It's all about the brain, again.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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





Excerpt from "ripples on space-time,"
http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-GW2.php

"For physicists, a strong gravitational wave will produce displacements on the order of 10-18 meters - this is 1000 times smaller than the diameter of a proton."

It is a dimensionless ghost that would show up only with ... "2.3×10-26". It is also supposed to "cause a periodic strain (i.e., stretching and contraction) of the proper distance between points (altered by the "dark energy" - D.C.) in spacetime" (G. Jones, p. 182).

What is the dimensionality of GW amplitude, h , in Kip's mantra?



The very entity that fixes the "proper distance" of [one meter] cannot be presented with what is produces -- 'one meter'. It is indeed dimensionless, just like the "amplitude" of quantum waves. Can you display at macroscopic scale the ongoing dynamics of quantum-gravitational waves at distances of
"2.3×10-26" without a proper theory of quantum gravity?

How can you detect, with some "advanced" LIGO or LISA, the very "dark energy" which "expands" space by altering the proper distance between "points" ?

Nobody cares. Nobody.
 

D.C., 11 April 2011
Ceterum autem censeo, LIGO esse delendam
 

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

Subject: Re: "yes, I do understand GR, but cannot discuss that now."
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 00:35:59 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTikHX9GK8L1c8CzgshEANVFLubEcXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu>
Cc: LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Andrew Waldron <wally@math.ucdavis.edu>,
Andrzej Mariusz Trautman <amt@fuw.edu.pl>,
Angelo Tartaglia <angelo.tartaglia@polito.it>,
Bernd Brügmann <b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Bruce Goldstein <Bruce.Goldstein@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Carl H Brans <brans@loyno.edu>,
Charles Torre <torre@cc.usu.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Curt Cutler <Curt.J.Cutler@jpl.nasa.gov>,
David B Malament <dmalamen@uci.edu>,
Denise S Henry <dshenry@nsf.gov>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Donald C Shapero <dshapero@nas.edu>,
Drew Keppel <drew.keppel@ligo.org>,
Eric Gourgoulhon <eric.gourgoulhon@obspm.fr>,
Fiona Harrison <fiona@srl.caltech.edu>,
Fred Cooperstock <cooperstock@phys.uvic.ca>,
Günther Hasinger <guenther.hasinger@ipp.mpg.de>,
Hans-Jürgen Schmidt <hjschmi@rz.uni-potsdam.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
J Anthony Tyson <tyson@physics.ucdavis.edu>,
Jarmo Mäkelä <jarmo.makela@puv.fi>,
Jim Isenberg <isenberg@uoregon.edu>,
Joel Franklin <jfrankli@reed.edu>,
John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>,
John Carlstrom <jc@oddjob.uchicago.edu>,
John Friedman <friedman@uwm.edu>,
John Huchra <huchra@cfa.harvard.edu>,
John W Barrett <john.barrett@nottingham.ac.uk>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@imperial.ac.uk>,
Jonathan Lunine <lunine@physics.arizona.edu>,
Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu>,
Jong Hyuk Yoon <yoonjh@konkuk.ac.kr>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>,
Jose M M Senovilla <josemm.senovilla@ehu.es>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Lars Bildsten <bildsten@kitp.ucsb.edu>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Luca Bombelli <bombelli@olemiss.edu>,
Lynne Hillenbrand <lah@astro.caltech.edu>,
Malcolm MacCallum <m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk>,
Marcia J Rieke <mrieke@as.arizona.edu>,
Martha Haynes <haynes@astro.cornell.edu>,
Michael Cohen <mcohen@caltech.edu>,
Michele Vallisneri <vallis@vallis.org>,
Naresh Dadhich <nkd@iucaa.ernet.in>,
Natalie Kiriushcheva <nkiriush@uwo.ca>,
Nikolaos Mavromatos <Nikolaos.Mavromatos@cern.ch>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Paulett C Liewer <Paulett.C.Liewer@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Piotr T Chrusciel <piotr.chrusciel@univie.ac.at>,
Richard Price <Richard.Price@utb.edu>,
Richard Woodard <woodard@phys.ufl.edu>,
Robert Brandenberger <rhb@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>,
Roy Maartens <roy.maartens@port.ac.uk>,
Ruth Durrer <Ruth.durrer@unige.ch>,
Saeed Mirshekari <smirshekari@wustl.edu>,
Saul Teukolsky <saul@astro.cornell.edu>,
Scott Tremaine <tremaine@ias.edu>,
Sergiu Klainerman <seri@math.princeton.edu>,
Seth Major <smajor@hamilton.edu>,
Stefan Krückeberg <Stefan.Krueckeberg@dfg.de>,
Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu>,
Steven G Harris <harrissg@slu.edu>,
Thomas A Prince <prince@srl.caltech.edu>,
Timothy Heckman <heckman@pha.jhu.edu>,
William G Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca>,
Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>,
Yi Wang <wangyi@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>


Stanley:

Five years ago, on 31 March 2006, you claimed that you "do understand GR, but cannot discuss that now."

Regrettably, neither you nor any of your colleagues agreed to endorse the submission of my manuscript, entitled: "A Taxpayer's Perspective on GW Astronomy." An outline can be read at

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

General considerations at

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

Any comments?

Dimi


---------
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: The wine cellars of LIGO
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:29:57 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTik6NZehtJyA7MauFWbEoeTKsbERPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Sanjeev Dhurandhar <sanjeev@iucaa.ernet.in>
Cc: Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Gabriela González <gonzalez@lsu.edu>,
Curt Cutler <Curt.J.Cutler@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Kip <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Karsten <karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de>,
David <garfinkl@oakland.edu>,
Valerio <vfaraoni@ubishops.ca>,
Warren <johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu>,
lsfinn@psu.edu,
Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov

Dear Dr. Dhurandhar,

Five years ago (Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:59:31 +0200), I suggested to Jorge Pullin to convert the dark, air-conditioned tunnels of LIGO to wine cellars (it is important to keep the temperature at 13ºC - 15ºC).

I wonder what can you do with your "interferometric detectors", arXiv:1104.2968v1 [gr-qc],

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

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

The suggestions from your colleagues will be greatly appreciated, too.

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 April 1985


The next wine cellar (pictured above) will cost at least $1,280,000,000 (€790M). It will be built underground at a depth of about 100–200 m and will consist of three large wine cellars, each linked by two 10 km long wine shelves. Cheers!

D. Chakalov
May 19, 2011



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

Subject: Re: The wine cellars of LIGO
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:56:28 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxnvwukGbCF823KX7sjHY4pZxD1hby6iQV5-o8qCcvrwoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joan Centrella <Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov>
Cc: Vivian Drew <vdrew@stanford.edu>,
Sanjeev Dhurandhar <sanjeev@iucaa.ernet.in>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Gabriela González <gonzalez@lsu.edu>,
Curt Cutler <Curt.J.Cutler@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
Kip <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Karsten <karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de>,
David <garfinkl@oakland.edu>,
Valerio <vfaraoni@ubishops.ca>,
Stephen Merkowitz <stephen.m.merkowitz@nasa.gov>,
Meredith Gibb <meredith.gibb@nasa.gov>,
Karen Smale <karen.m.smale@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,
sheila.rowan@glasgow.ac.uk,
matthew.pitkin@glasgow.ac.uk,
stuart.reid.2@glasgow.ac.uk,
james.hough@glasgow.ac.uk,
Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk,
B.Sathyaprakash@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Stefan.Krueckeberg@dfg.de,
Cliff <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>


Hello Joan:

As a civil servant employee of NASA, you should be *very* careful to avoid elementary errors, which could undermine the reputation of NASA.

Yet in your latest essay arXiv:1109.3492v1 [astro-ph.HE], you wrote:

"Far from their source, these ripples are small perturbations (xxx) on a flat background spacetime."

No they aren't:

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

STOP wasting taxpayers' money for your fantasies.

When you and LIGO "scientific" collaboration ultimately fail, people all over the world will not laugh at your wishful thinking.

They will laugh at NASA.

Capiche?


D. Chakalov


--------------
Subject: The wine cellars of LIGO
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:29:57 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTik6NZehtJyA7MauFWbEoeTKsbERPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Sanjeev Dhurandhar <sanjeev@iucaa.ernet.in>
Cc: Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Gabriela González <gonzalez@lsu.edu>,
Curt Cutler <Curt.J.Cutler@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Kip <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Karsten <karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de>,
David <garfinkl@oakland.edu>,
Valerio <vfaraoni@ubishops.ca>,
Warren <johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu>,
lsfinn@psu.edu,
Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov

Dear Dr. Dhurandhar,

Five years ago (Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:59:31 +0200), I suggested to Jorge Pullin to convert the dark, air-conditioned tunnels of LIGO to wine cellars (it is important to keep the temperature at 13ºC - 15ºC).

[snip]

----------

Note: You cannot, not even in principle, derive the so-called "weak limit."

You cannot estimate the quasi-local "loss" or "gain" of energy due to gravity either [Ref. 1]. All you could do is to admit the consequences from the so-called "dark energy" (Sean Carroll), get yourself a blank notebook and sharp pencils, and start from scratch.

D. Chakalov
September 21, 2011

 


[Ref. 1]
 Carl Hoefer, Energy Conservation in GTR, Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 31(2), 187 (2000); see pp. 193-195, pdf file available from here.

p. 191: "Intuitively, if energy-momentum is really being conserved locally, then when one integrates up it should be conserved over regions as well. Since this fails, we have to fall back on a different understanding of what (1) represents.
...
p. 193: "It is called the gravitational stress-energy pseudo-tensor, and its non-tensorial nature means that there is no well-defined, intrinsic 'amount of stuff' present at any given point.

Regarding GWs, see p. 196: "If energy is not conserved quite generally, there is no need to make up a story about where it has gone when a system loses it."

See also footnote 11, p. 195.

 

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





Subject: Re: The wine cellars of LIGO
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:44:12 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmbWB_2nTzZWDuSWdpVT2TU+62ZNtsAWc_DoEoK3jQL8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: James Ira Thorpe <James.I.Thorpe@nasa.gov>, john.g.baker@nasa.gov
Cc: Joan Centrella <Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov>,
stmcwill@princeton.edu,
markodh@googlemail.com,
robin.t.stebbins@nasa.gov,
Karen.m.Smale@nasa.gov,
Catherine.m.Corlan@nasa.gov,
notoya.r.russell@nasa.gov,
mor.vimmer@nasa.gov,
johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu,
stephen.m.merkowitz@nasa.gov,
meredith.gibb@nasa.gov,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Kip <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Karsten <karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de>,
David <garfinkl@oakland.edu>


Hello Dr. Thorpe,

In your latest arXiv:1201.5656v1 [gr-qc], you and you co-author wrote: "LISA was identified as a priority in the most recent decadal survey of astronomy and astrophysics[10] but has yet to be implemented due to funding constraints."

LISA will never fly, not because of "funding constraints", but because your hypotheses are wrong:

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

I explained the facts to Mrs. Centrella (Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:56:28 +0300), but she refused to reply.

Again, once you and LIGO "scientific" collaboration fail with the "advanced" LIGO, people all over the world will not laugh at your wishful thinking.

They will laugh at NASA.


D. Chakalov
------------

Note: "People sometimes make errors," said Edward Weiler, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science, on September 30, 1999, after the crash of Mars Polar Lander spacecraft. One of the teams used English units (e.g., inches, feet and pounds), while the other used metric units.

It happens. But the case here is totally different: science has been contaminated with money. I believe both NASA and NSF are fully aware of the game, but keep quiet.

In my not-so-humble opinion, the linearized approximation of GR is applicable to specific task such as adjusting the GPS system, but not for the transport of energy by GWs, which is "a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon":

Sir Hermann Bondi (Gravitational Waves in General Relativity, February 1, 1990): "From the beginning I was very suspicious of the value of linearized treatments of the topic. Not only is general relativity by its nature a nonlinear theory, but the question of the "reality" of the waves essentially concerned whether they transported energy. Such transport is a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon."

To quote from M. Maggiore's "Gravitational Waves" (Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 32): "In special cases (English translation: spherical cow approximations; cf. [Ref. 1] - D.C.) one can find exact wave-like solutions of the full nonlinear Einstein equations, see, e.g. Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (1973), Section 35.9, and then there is no need (Sic! - D.C.) to perform a separation between the background and the waves. However, it would be hopeless to look for exact solutions for the gravitational waves emitted by realistic astrophysical sources."

Voila, straight from the horse's mouth. You'll need the medieval magic of the "linearized approximation" to "eliminate" by hand the insurmountable problems of detecting GWs [Ref. 2], plus billions of USD to perform "a separation between the background and the waves" and endow GWs with "an energy–momentum tensor" (Michele Maggiore, p. 34; see also [Ref. 1]).

Or just the cash, which is much easier.

As Johann Makowsky put it (The Jerusalem Post, 19.4.1985), "Overfunded research is like heroin: It makes one addicted, weakens the mind and furthers prostitution."
 

D.C.
January 31, 2012
Last updated: February 4, 2012, 14:35 GMT


[Ref. 1] MTW, p. 968:

(Comment: By the same token, suppose I decide to "cope with the complexities"
(
MTW, § 35.9) of Quantum Mechanics (QM) by suggesting an approximation of QM based on classical statistical theory, to achieve "a compromise between realism and complexity" (ibid.), and claim that one can measure simultaneously non-commuting QM observables with arbitrary precision, provided we 'enhance the sensitivity' of our macroscopic measuring devices, for which I need just a couple of billion USD and EUR.
Catch my drift? - D.C.)
 

p. 970:

(A gentle suggestion to those who deeply believe that LIGO "scientific" collaboration has some theory somehow related to General Relativity: Once you introduce "stress-energy tensor for gravitational waves" and explain the energy exchange of "mass-energy m of gravitational waves" with LIGO's arms -- locally, 'at a point' -- please proceed to the puzzle of 'gravitational energy density at a point' (MTW, p. 467) and all quasi-local features of gravity - D.C.)


Figure 35.3, p. 959: "an exact plane-wave solution to Einstein's vacuum field equations."
 

 




[Ref. 2] L.P. Grishchuk, Update on gravitational-wave research, arXiv:gr-qc/0305051v2

"It is often stated that “gravitational waves are oscillations of space-time itself”. The next phrase seems to be logically unavoidable: “gravitational waves act tidally, stretching and squeezing any object that they pass through”.

"If this phrase were correct, we would never be able to notice gravitational waves. The device measuring, say, the displacements of free mirrors in an interferometer would be "stretched and squeezed" as well. In this situation, we can probably find comfort in the wise observation [67]: "I agree that much of what one reads in the literature is absurd. Often it is a result of bad writing, rather than bad physics. I often find that people who say silly things actually do correct calculations, but are careless in what they say about them.
----
"[67] I am grateful to S. Weinberg for the permission to quote his e-mail message of 25 Feb 2003."
 

L. P. Grishchuk and A. G. Polnarev, Gravitational Waves and Their Interaction with Matter and Fields, in General Relativity and Gravitation, ed. by A. Held, Vol. 2, Ch. 10, Plenum, New York, 1980, p. 427:

"Due to the nonlinearity of gravitation a weak gravitational wave can interact with a smooth background gravitational field. This interaction may result in dispersion of the gravitational waves, their amplification, etc."

 



Addendum

An excerpt from Lectures on Mathematical Cosmology by H.-J. Schmidt, gr-qc/0407095, Sec. 4.2, p. 35, Why do all the curvature invariants of a gravitational wave vanish?

"The energy of the gravitational field, especially of gravitational waves, within General Relativity was subject of controversies from the very beginning, see Einstein [66]. Global considerations - e.g. by considering the far-field of asymptotically flat spacetimes - soon led to satisfactory answers. Local considerations became fruitful if a system of reference is prescribed e.g. by choosing a timelike vector field.

"If, however, no system of reference is preferred then it is not a priori clear whether one can constructively distinguish flat spacetime from a gravitational wave. This is connected with the generally known fact, that for a pp-wave, see e.g. Stephani [250] especially section 15.3. and [65] all curvature invariants vanish, cf. Hawking and Ellis [107] and Jordan et al. [123], but on the other hand: in the absence of matter or reference systems - only curvature invariants are locally constructively measurable.
....

"At page 97 of [123] it is mentioned that for a pp-wave all curvature invariants constructed from

Rijkl;i1...ir  (4.18)

by products and traces do vanish."


--
[66] Einstein, A.:
1914, Sitzungsber. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin, 1030.
1916, Sitzungsber. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin, 688.
1918, Sitzungsber. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin, 154.
1921, Sitzungsber. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin, 261. 35, 145

[65] Ehlers, J., Kundt, W.: 1962, in: Witten, E., ed., Gravitation, an introduction to current research, Wiley New York, 49. 36

[107] Hawking, S., Ellis, G.: 1973, The large scale structure of space-time, Cambridge University Press. 36

[123] Jordan, P., Ehlers, J., Kundt, W.: 1960, Abh. Akad. Wiss. Mainz, Math./Nat. Kl. 2, 21. 36

[250] Stephani, H.: 1982, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press. 7, 36, 164; section 15.3.
----------

Prof. Hans-Jürgen Schmidt hasn't yet replied to my email of Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:05:02 +0200:

"Isn't it true that the *necessary* condition for detecting gravitational waves is that the distribution of energy-momentum of a physical system in the gravitational field must be uniquely defined on a continual trajectory, not just in one instant of measurement?"

Again, all those who deeply believe that LIGO "scientific" collaboration has some theory somehow related to General Relativity should try the following simple exercise:

Once you introduce "stress-energy tensor for gravitational waves" and explain the energy exchange of "mass-energy m of gravitational waves" with LIGO's arms -- locally, 'at a point' -- please proceed to the puzzle of 'gravitational energy density at a point' (MTW, p. 467) and all quasi-local features of gravity.


D. Chakalov
February 2, 2012

 

 


============================
 


Subject: Re: NSF OIG has received your submission. Thank you.
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:30:50 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: OIG <oig@nsf.gov>

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:14:59 -0500,
Message-ID: <2D1C5457CACAB04F9325751A96F342D904BC4966@NSF-BE-03.ad.nsf.gov> ,
OIG <oig@nsf.gov> wrote:
>
> Re: NSF OIG has received your submission. Thank you.

Thank you for confirming the receipt of my warning message.

I stand ready to provide all information you may deem necessary for your investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Dimitar G. Chakalov
[snip]
------------

Note: I hope that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at NSF does provide independent oversight of the NSF’s programs and operations, "preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse". Here, the key word is waste: hundreds of million USD and EUR have been already wasted, and even more is scheduled to be wasted with the "advanced" LIGO and LISA.

I also wrote to NASA Science (cf. my ref # below) and to the Inspector General at NASA <HQ-OIG-Counsel@mail.nasa.gov> , and will offer my manuscript, entitled: "A Taxpayer's Perspective on GW Astronomy". In October 2009, I asked seventy-five theoretical physicists whether they would endorse the submission of this manuscript to [gr-qc] -- two of them flatly denied (S. Deser and J. Thornburg), the rest didn't even bother to acknowledge my email.

D.C.
January 31, 2012
 




 

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

Subject: Re: The wine cellars of LIGO
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:36:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM7EkxkqR2MbZ8AnMxwwZTUcv69LRnuLdOVrPHJa7Cw6Wj7+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Warren Johnson <johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu>
Cc: James Ira Thorpe <James.I.Thorpe@nasa.gov>,
john.g.baker@nasa.gov,
Joan Centrella <Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov>,
stmcwill@princeton.edu,
markodh@googlemail.com,
robin.t.stebbins@nasa.gov,
Karen.m.Smale@nasa.gov,
Catherine.m.Corlan@nasa.gov,
notoya.r.russell@nasa.gov,
mor.vimmer@nasa.gov,
stephen.m.merkowitz@nasa.gov,
meredith.gibb@nasa.gov,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Kip <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Karsten <karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de>,
David <garfinkl@oakland.edu>,
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>,
Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>


Dear Mr. Johnson,

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:12:18 -0600,
Message-Id: <C37B47CC-49F9-436E-B3A0-D8923CDB9B2B@ligo.phys.lsu.edu> ,
you wrote:

> For years you have accumulated taunts and insults on your
> website http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net. Your targets have included
> all the scientists who have worked on gravitational wave physics and are
> connected with the LIGO and LISA projects.

My first warning message, recorded at my web site, is from Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:40:26 +0200.

In the past (almost) nine years, nobody has responded professionally to my objections to your absolutely ridiculous wasting of taxpayers' money -- nobody has made even a modest effort to read and study the articles published in peer reviews journals, which prove, beyond ANY reasonable doubt, that LIGO "scientific" collaboration and VIRGO
collaboration do NOT have any scientific theory. Just wishful thinking based on wild guesses.

Your efforts to detect GWs is indeed based solely on wishful thinking: read carefully the text and references at

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

Yes, I will expose the dirty little secrets of LIGO "scientific" collaboration.

> At your website you explain how these detectors are supposed to work. I
> agree that your explanation is nonsense, so I understand how you conclude
> that these experiments can never work. However, the fault lies in your
> understanding, and not in the detectors themselves.

As a member of LIGO "scientific" collaboration, you demonstrate total lack of understanding the basic basics of General Relativity: your linearized approximation is your problem. Not my web site.

Read the references and my objections, and don't try to guess what I wrote.

> We, who work on these detectors, know how the equations of general
> relativity can be used to calculate the difference of the round-trip travel
> times for light in the two arms of the interferometer (the instrument at the
> heart of both detectors). In short, if no gravity wave passing by, then the
> round-trip travel time for each arm will remain constant and the same for
> both arms. But, during those moments when a gravity wave is passing by, one
> round trip time will be longer than the other, and we can observe and
> measure that time difference directly. Of course, literally tons more of
> technical detail can be added, but it really is that simple.

Totally irrelevant. You haven't even glanced at the URL from my initial email, which I reproduced above.

The problem is not in the "round-trip travel time for each arm will remain constant and the same for both arms."

The problem is that you and your 800+ colleagues don't want to face the inherent limitations from the LINEARIZED approximation of GR.

All you want is money -- more and more taxpayers' money earned with hard labor by millions of people.

Yes, I will expose the dirty little secrets of LIGO "scientific" collaboration.

> So for the record, you can not say that your charges have gone unanswered.

For the record: You, Mr. Johnson, have not read any of the papers cited at my web site, and tried instead to guess what I might have stated. And of course you are wrong.

> More to the point, hundreds of highly skilled scientists have repeatedly
> reviewed every technical aspect of these projects, and all of your charges
> against them are baseless.

To begin with, read the article by Hermann Weyl from 1944. That's just for a start. More at the link above.

My advice to you and your 800+ colleagues: Get real. Don't hide your head in the sand. Read all arguments and facts about your problems. And most importantly: do not ever say that your efforts are related to General Relativity. As I showed at the link above, you don't have any scientific theory, but two wild guesses (cf. the two "if"-s), which have nothing to do with General Relativity.

Should you or any of your colleagues wishes to respond, please do your homework first. First things first.

Yes, I will expose the dirty little secrets of LIGO "scientific" collaboration.

And don't even think about LISA.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:14:57 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> P.S. Note added at
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#ESA
>
> Any comments? Please don't hesitate.
>
> D.C.
>

 

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


Subject: LISA: Unveiling a hidden Universe
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:46:07 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=q970kBurwTnV9jr_bPBjuB76RSCUfGuUqNA-_HNzU8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Oliver Jennrich <oliver.jennrich@esa.int>, SciTech.Editorial@esa.int


LISA assessment study report
03 Feb 2011
Reference: ESA/SRE(2011)3
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/doc.cfm?fobjectid=48363
-------


Dear Dr. Jennrich,

LISA won't fly, ever.

Check out

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

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

Please confirm the receipt of this email.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
 


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


Subject: Re: ... it is necessary to let the clock tick once.
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:48:15 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTin-6DyAcGNAJHDSjswBVvZMX2_pJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Louis H Kauffman <kauffman@uic.edu>
Cc: p.rowlands@liverpool.ac.uk, info@theresonanceproject.org,
adam@math.missouri.edu, laan@aei.mpg.de

Dear Lou,

Regarding my email from Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:20:39 +0300, may I draw your attention to the proposal for 'potential reality' at

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

Perhaps it is relevant to "the ‘rest of the universe’ that the fermion sees and interacts with" and the hypothetical massless particles suggested by Peter Rowlands (arXiv:0810.0224v1 [physics.gen-ph], p. 11).

Implications for GR and other crazy ideas at

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

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

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

The text at the last URL is essentially incomplete, because I haven't spelled out the hypothetical kinematics of space and its symmetry transformations,

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

Will be happy to learn whether you or some of your colleagues are interested. The challenge is strictly mathematical.

Regards,

Dimi


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


Subject: Cosmic equator: Request for update
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 04:47:51 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Craig J Copi <cjc5@po.cwru.edu>,
ahajian@cita.utoronto.ca, adammoss@phas.ubc.ca,
dscott@phas.ubc.ca, zibin@phas.ubc.ca,
i.k.wehus@fys.uio.no, mdesouza@ufs.br,
lusanna@fi.infn.it, tegmark@mit.edu,
mlongo@umich.edu, glenn.starkman@case.edu

Dear colleagues,

May I ask you to help me find an explanation (if any) of the 'cosmic equator' (statistically anisotropic microwave fluctuations), as shown at

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/101082/index.html
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/101082/101082_w_7yr_WMAP_256.png

As Max Tegmark admitted eight years ago, "The octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That's weird. (...) We did not expect this and we cannot yet explain it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2814947.stm

Details from Craig J. Copi et al., astro-ph/0605135v2, p. 15: "It is difficult for us to accept the occurrence of a 10^-8 unlikely event as a scientific explanation."

Could this 'cosmic equator' be interpreted as a blueprint left from some (global) cosmological arrow driven by the "dark" energy of [you-name-it]?

Spin is a fundamental phenomenon, and if 'the whole universe' has angular momentum along some (global) cosmological arrow, the cosmic equator may be a visual manifestation (blueprint) of the "dark" energy of [you-name-it].

The cosmic equator may not break the Galilei invariance (Luca Lusanna et al., arXiv:1007.4071v1 [gr-qc]) by defining some preferred observers at rest with respect to the cosmic background radiation, who could literally watch the spinning universe "online", and time it: 13.7 Gy "after" [you-name-it]. I mean, the *topology* of time (and space) is still unknown, after Aristotle,

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/time/#TopTim

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note:
In the case dual age cosmology, the topology of time will be highly non-trivial, namely, time will evolve both along a line and a circle. Don't try to picture this in the Archimedean geometry of 3-D space, however.

Locally -- to be precise, quasi-locally -- the universe looks like an unbroken ring with no circumference, for the circumference is nowhere, and the "center" is everywhere. Globally, it may possess "spin" which would cast its 3-D blueprints on all finite subsystems, the observable universe included.

As to the "cosmic equator" itself, perhaps we'll have a better picture from the Planck mission (exposing the elusive "B-modes", which are perhaps determined by the density of primordial GWs), once the angular power spectrum is revealed next year; animation here.

Last but not least, notice the terribly misleading "explanation" of the so-called "dark matter" with the read sausage below.





Only Chuck Norris can "see" the whole space en bloc and verify its "curvature".

Yet some (otherwise credible) people claim that there exists "matter" that is "dark", or simply "missing" (Leonard Susskind), and have even coined a name for it: WIMPS. Trouble is, what you can "see" is only the local impact from a global, tug-of-war effect of gravity, CDM&DDE.

If you think of this global tug-of-war effect of gravity as being produced directly by some stuff with positive energy density, you'll be destined to publish papers and books until you retire.

Sorry for being frank. All I'm trying to say is that nobody knows the global properties of spacetime and the origin of inertia (A. Einstein), and the 'cosmic equator' is a wonderful opportunity to gain insights into this puzzle of spacetime.
 

D. Chakalov
April 20, 2011


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

Subject: Re: arXiv:1103.5870 v3 ?
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:18:35 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTinxoqWZJXr4SBTNJ1xUBk7-bA9Oww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Miao Li <mli@itp.ac.cn>
Cc: Xiao-Dong Li <renzhe@mail.ustc.edu.cn>,
Yi Wang <wangyi@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>,
Yi-Fu Cai <ycai21@asu.edu>

Dear Professor Li,

After my email posted at

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

... you assured me, in your private email, that will consider my comments on your arXiv:1103.5870v2 in its next update, which is arXiv:1103.5870 v3.

Look again at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#error

It explains the huge ERROR made by many people. Yet you still repeated it in arXiv:1103.5870 v3 !

Unbelievable!

To quote from your arXiv:1103.5870 v3, p. 69: "Phenomenologically, cosmological experiments are typically carried out by measuring redshift and distance."

p. 85: "The most common approach to probe dark energy is through its effect on the expansion history of the universe. This effect can be detected via the luminosity distance dL(z) and the angular diameter distance DA(z)."

I noticed that you haven't mentioned my name even in Sec. Acknowledgments, p. 153 in arXiv:1103.5870 v3 .

If you or any of your colleagues cannot understand the ERROR at the link above, please write me back with your professional questions.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note: The review article by Miao Li et al. (cf. above) is one of the best I've read. Pity they ignored the arguments about the error with "luminosity distance".

You can't use intrinsic evaluations (i.e., "working solely within the 4-dimensional spacetime in which we find ourselves", J. Baez) when dealing with the global properties of spacetime. You would need some non-Archimedean "global" observer, such as Chuck Norris. Which is absurd, of course. Let me elaborate.

The conventional recipe from GR textbooks is to evaluate local and finite (comprised from infinite many "sufficiently small") deviations from the connection (not "curvature") in a counterfactual manner -- something which might have happened in some fictitious flat spacetime (then the effect from the connection would have been zero), but didn't actually happen, hence the effect from the connection is observable. And then people say: look, the spacetime is indeed "curved" (they also measured the angles of some large size triangle), and there is a lot of "dark matter" in it, and because the standard "candles" are receding from us in line with the Hubble Law, the space is also "expanded" by its "dark energy". What a mess.

Such counterfactual approach presumes some "Euclidean eyes" as a reference object (cf. matter-free homogeneous spacetime of constant curvature as "the background reference," Naresh Dadhich, arXiv:1105.3396v1 [gr-qc], p. 2), and that could be very misleading. People tend to "explain" GR by reducing the dimensions of space, and then picture some "deformed" 2-D surface or 2-D closed domains of "dark matter" inside 3-D space (cf. the red sausage above). Ditto for "black holes", as depicted inside 3-D space (you may also find intelligent life there, with lots of advanced Russian math).
 


 

Such naïve "explanations" might be suitable for general audience only (e.g., Michio Kaku), provided the TV anchor explains the inevitable deceptions. Which is by no means an easy task, because nobody has so far defined 'event horizons'.

Well, such approach works for local effects, say, adjusting the GPS system. And if you endorse some metaphysical assumptions about the homogeneity of space, you may also assume that everything you see in a domain of space with size, say, 1B light years is not different from what you could have seen in another domain of size 1B light years, which can be parallel-transported (Sic!) 10B light years away from you. You never know with metaphysics, so you could be right.

But the task for evaluating global properties of spacetime is totally different. You cannot possibly presume that you may "expand" indefinitely the initial size of your 1B light year domain, without reaching some critical size limit at which the gravity itself will break down. The tacit presumption that gravity will work in arbitrary large volumes of 3-D space is ridiculous, to say the least. There is no guarantee that the space geometry will remain Archimedean indefinitely.

Notice the insurmountable problem from assuming exclusively Archimedean geometry: you actually invoke some absolute space in which "more and more space" appears from its "dark source" (cf. Michal Chodorowski). Such "dark stuff" doesn't get diluted as space "expands". On the contrary: at every instant of time it appears in greater quantities. It is the ultimate free lunch. By comparison, every perpetual motion device would look boring and terribly inefficient.

The usual claim presented in thousands of papers is that space is globally expanding, being driven by some "perfectly smooth" (cf. Matt Visser) fluid with 'positive energy density'. Such statement requires verification, which in turn can only be performed by some absolute non-Archimedean "observer" who can 'count to infinity', and is able to "see" the whole space en bloc, hence can time its "expansion" online, along her/his global wristwatch, and finally write down "the absolute equation of state" of this absolute and perfectly smooth "dark" fluid.

Summary on the error. Firstly, you inevitably hit "absolute space". Secondly, you can't work "intrinsically" with global properties of spacetime. And thirdly, you cannot promote yourself to an absolute non-Archimedean "observer", not even with some Gedankenexperiment.

You may seek some "upper limit" or "boundaries" on space, at which space could become self-wrapped (Einstein), but such task may requite non-Archimedean geometry (global mode of spacetime) and a modified Finite Infinity.

Trouble is, your diff geometry textbooks say nothing about the fine structure of 'geometrical point' in the postulated 'differentiable manifold', and even the texts about 'modern differential geometry' (e.g., C. Isham) are dead silent about how these "points" get "connected" in the first place. For you can't connect these bare geometrical points with any physical stuff whatsoever (do you speak Mandarin?). And since you can only observe the local effect from this truly fundamental connection (called here The Aristotelian Connection), you cannot "see" its global holistic source. It will be inevitably "dark" to you, as some (otherwise credible) people have called it.

Apart from these minor objections, prompted by the usage of the adverb 'marginally' by Miao Li et al. (cf. above), I strongly recommend their review paper.

They repeated in arXiv:1103.5870 v3, p. 5, the following claim: "In principle, before we understand the origin of the vacuum energy, the energy density can be positive, negative and zero". My suggestion: before we address the origin of the vacuum energy, we should first try to understand the mechanism by which we observe positive energy densities only. As I noticed previously, we shouldn't have jumped into conclusion that the "dark puzzle" originates directly from some mundane stuff with positive energy density: it comes out far too much, and suspiciously well-tuned during all cosmological stages. It just doesn't work.

When will they update their manuscript (arXiv:1103.5870 v4?), as Miao Li hinted in a private email?

When pigs fly, of course.

Xiao-Dong Li and Shuang Wang already rejected my email below.

Maybe they didn't like my Mandarin ...?


D. Chakalov
April 21, 2011
Last updated: May 20, 2011


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

Subject: Re: arXiv:1103.5870 v3 ?
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:18:50 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Miao Li <mli@itp.ac.cn>,
Xiao-Dong Li <renzhe@mail.ustc.edu.cn>,
Yi Wang <wangyi@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>,
Shuang Wang <swang@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Cc: Yi-Fu Cai <ycai21@asu.edu>,
Lau Loi So <s0242010@gmail.com>,
Xiao Zhang <xzhang@amss.ac.cn>


P.S. Explanatory note at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Li_error

Comments welcomed.

D.C.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

 


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


Subject: Suggestion
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:32:22 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>

Hi Adam,

You've published a *very* important article, which I think is barely known:

Adam D. Helfer, The Kinematics of the Gravitational Field, in: Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, ed. by R. Greene and S.-T. Yau, Vol. 54 (1993), Part 2, American Mathematical Society, 1993, pp. 297-316.

It would be great if you post it on [gr-qc] section of ArXiv.org, perhaps with a brief appendix explaining the problems of introducing the dynamics of that "field", after the so-called DDE,

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

You certainly don't need an endorsement from ArXiv "moderators", who deleted my paper on LIGO,

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

I posted today some scattered thoughts on the kinematics of space at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#25_11_2015

Have a nice Easter.

Dimi


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

Subject: Re: Suggestion
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:38:54 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTikywdRT-jC667F9P7NVvfVyL0aJBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Adam D. Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>
Cc: Pankaj S Joshi <psj@tifr.res.in>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
George F R Ellis <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>,
William G Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca>,
Larry Ford <ford@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu>

Hi Adam,

Pity you ignored my preceding email from Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:37:39 +0300. It concerns all papers you've posted at
http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Helfer_A/0/1/0/all/0/1

A few comments on your latest manuscript:

Adam D. Helfer, Black holes reconsidered, arXiv:1105.1980v1 [gr-qc],
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1980

The problem of teleology: a *complete* model of spacetime requires re-formulation of Ellis' Finite Infinity, but in the framework of the current stipulations (p. 3, footnote 1), I'm afraid this is impossible. Once you start with what you should derive at the end (Lorentzian metric), you are on a wrong track. You can never define rigorously the hypotheses on the asymptotic regime (Sec. 1.2), nor understand the paradox of naked singularity (p. 6).

I also think quantum fields in curved spacetime would seem "natural and attractive" (p. 23) only to people who neglect the fact that "we do not yet have a practical understanding of how to treat the nonlinear case" (p. 44). In your words, "the usual theory of quantum fields in curved space–time is not adequate for treating black holes" (p. 40). I fully agree, but the current GR mantra (p. 3, footnote 1) is inadequate for describing "black holes" that are outside the
applicable limits of this GR mantra in the first place.

You also wrote (p. 42): "I am going to describe here the results of measurements of Hawking quanta and their precursors, according to conventional quantum theory [49]."
---
49. A. D. Helfer, Phys. Lett. A329, 277–283 (2004), gr-qc/0407055

In ref. [49], your wrote: "Energy, in quantum theory, is measured by the Hamiltonian operator. Since this operator generates temporal evolution, energy will be conserved if the operator remains constant. (...) Again, since the stress–energy is the source for Einstein’s equation, a quantum stress–energy implies a quantum gravitational field and a deeper, quantum-gravitational, treatment of the entire question is really required. Again, this is in line with the main argument here, that quantum gravity must be considered in the quantum physics of gravitational collapse."

I fully agree. Recall my comments to your essay "The Production of Time", arXiv:0812.0605v1 [gr-qc],
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0605

We need quantum gravity (cf. my preceding email from April 25th) to understand Fig. 5 and footnote 18 regarding the "dressed vacuum" (p. 45), and Sec. 5.4 regarding how quantum fields can act as sources for gravity, in your latest arXiv:1105.1980v1 [gr-qc].

You also wrote (arXiv:1105.1980v1 [gr-qc], p. 48): "For questions about the detectability of negative energy densities, see [55]."
---
55. A. D. Helfer, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 1169–83 (1998).

Ref. [55] is your arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v2,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9709047
http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/15/5/008

Do you remember my email from Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:28:18 +0200 ? I wrote about your arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v1, from Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:18:34 GMT (15kb), which was entitled: "Are Negative Energy Densities Detectable?" Here's your abstract of arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v1:

"T. S. Eliot described a ‘mystery cat,’ Macavity, responsible for all sorts of mischief, But when the crime’s discovered, Macavity’s not there! I investigate the negative energy densities predicted by relativistic quantum field theories, and find they have a similar character. The energy in a region, plus the energy of a device which detects it, must be non-negative. Indeed, as far as has been checked, the total four-momentum density, of the field plus the observing device, must be future-pointing. In consequence the semi-classical Einstein equation can at best describe negative energy-density effects only as long as no observers are present to test it: Macavity, Macavity... he breaks the law of gravity."

The updated version, arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v2, was entitled ‘Operational’ Energy Conditions, and was published in Class. Quant. Grav. The phrase "breaks the law of gravity", from arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v1, is missing.

Pity you ignored your arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v1 from Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:18:34 GMT.

I will be happy to elaborate on Macavity, in case you'd consider an arXiv:1105.1980 v2 [gr-qc].

Take care,

Dimi

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

Subject: Re: Suggestion
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:37:39 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>

Hi Adam,

> At the moment, though, I have no plans to rewrite
> (or repost) this article; I am too far behind with other things!

You have the kinematics, now all you have to do is to add the dynamics from that "dark" energy of Macavity, and you're done! What could be more important?

[snip]

Dimi
---------


Note: Notice that the negative energy-density effects are (in the way explained above) always "present"  iff  no one is "there" (local mode of spacetime) to look at them -- just like the invisible cat Macavity. Notice also that Adam Helfer suggested two concepts of time in "The Production of Time", arXiv:0812.0605v1 [gr-qc], Sec. 5, and "cosmic time vector" (ibid., p. 10), even though he used linear quantum fields in "curved" spacetime. As he admitted above, "we do not yet have a practical understanding of how to treat the nonlinear case" (arXiv:1105.1980v1 [gr-qc], p. 44).

Well, I do: forget about Hilbert space. Let me briefly explain.

I stated above that once you "start with what you should derive at the end (Lorentzian metric), you are on a wrong track." The reason is that I endorse the opinion of Jim Hartle that the Lorentzian signature of classical spacetime "is an emergent property from an underlying theory not committed to this signature."

In order to derive the Lorentzian signature of classical spacetime as an emergent entity from some underlying [we-do-not-know-it], I think we should first elucidate the precise meaning of 'finite space' and 'finite time interval' of classical spacetime. Regarding the latter, we contemplate a bare Archimedean "template" that we label with 'one second', and then we imagine filling in this finite "template" with "9,192,631,770 periods of transition the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom" (cf. above), after which we are search for some realistic physical process to manufacture atomic clocks. But this is metrology. We need quantum gravity.

The crux of the matter is in the very existence of such invariant finite templates, which define the "intrinsic time interval associated to any timelike displacement" (Ted Jacobson, pp. 18-19). To be precise, the missing phenomenon (should be related to the "speed" of light) is some process of "reading" all infinitesimal "points" from any such 'finite template' en bloc, and with precise and invariant "speed", as 'uncountably-infinite infinitesimal "frames" per second' (say). Unless we encounter relativistic effects (time dilation), this "reading" does not slow down (for comparison, watch a slow motion of a water drop here).

This "reading" can originate only from the Arrow of Space. The invisible Macavity is the charge-neutral (the two signs of "mass" included) potential reality. It always exists 'out there', but in the global mode of spacetime. Can you take a snapshot from a dark room with a torch? Replace the 'torch' with an already linearized snapshot of [gravity & type I matter fields], and you'll get the main idea in GR and the intricate problems with the geodesic hypothesis and the "proper time" along causal curves (A. Helfer, arXiv:0812.0605v1 [gr-qc], p. 1).

Notice the seemingly obvious notion of "locally" in [Ref. 1]. It originates from what I called above 'GR mantra'. It is a very misleading mantra, because once you add gravity, the world is quasi-local. Adam Helfer acknowledged elsewhere the unsolved problem of "quasi-local kinematics" (arXiv:0903.3016v1 [gr-qc]), which I believe can only be resolved by the proper dynamics.

As promised above, I will be happy to elaborate, should Adam Helfer considers an arXiv:1105.1980 v2 [gr-qc]. If not, I will keep working on Macavity -- my way.

Does a fish need a bicycle?


D. Chakalov
May 13, 2011



[Ref. 1] Raymond Angélil and Prasenjit Saha, arXiv:1105.0918v1 [astro-ph.GA],
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0918v1

"The (apparent - D.C.) equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, or that gravity can be cancelled (not quite - D.C.) by transforming to a freely-falling frame, was tested within classical celestial mechanics to high precision by the end of the nineteenth century. After all, if Mercury had a gravitational constant differing from (say) Jupiter’s by one part per million, Mercury’s orbit would not have fitted classical dynamics well enough to highlight the anomalous precession (43′′ per century, or 10−7) that was later explained by general relativity.

"The Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) adds to the classical or weak equivalence principle the further physical postulate that special relativity holds locally (emphasis mine - D.C.) in a freely-falling frame. A consequence of the EEP is that the effects of gravity on test particles are fully described by endowing spacetime with a Riemannian metric, and having the particles follow geodesics of that metric."

 

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


Subject: Re: Suggestion
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 15:24:31 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikeeEbBf=+PPj5eJvU1Gk+W3v=6Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>
Cc: Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
George F R Ellis <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>,
William G Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Dear Adam,

Let me be perfectly clear: it's all about the fundamental unresolved issues of GR.

There is no way you could make any progress on your ideas without the so-called 'global mode of spacetime'. It is *the only possible* solution to the task for defining an 'isolated system', by reaching the limit at which

"... the system becomes “self-contained.” Roughly speaking, this should mean passing to an appropriate asymptotic regime such that all gravitational effects are localized inside of it" (Angular momentum of isolated systems in general relativity, arXiv:0903.3016v1 [gr-qc]).

My suggestion is to use the 'global mode of spacetime' (notice its non-Archimedean geometry) for new versions of 'asymptotic spacelike regime' and George's Finite Infinity.

All this inevitably leads to the Arrow of Space: Time does not originate from 'change in space', but from 'chance *of* space'.

Again, there is no other way you could make *any* progress on your ideas.

I have so far offered you and your colleagues only my web site, for the following reasons:

You haven't responded professionally to any of my email messages sent since Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:02:51 +0300. You didn't even acknowledge my invitation sent on Monday, 2 June 2008, nor my request for endorsement (Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:10:26 +0200).

In fact, nobody from your colleagues has done so. Which is why I have offered you only my web site, and nothing more.

To sum up, it seems to me that you're treating your field of expertise with *total disrespect*. You treat GR as some hobby. In your words, "we each need to work on our own ideas."

Point is, one of us -- either you or I -- have taken a totally wrong path.

If you, or any of your colleagues, agree with Chris Isham that I am "just another crank" -- don't bother to reply.


Dimi
-------
D. Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU


On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dimi,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I think we each need to work on our own ideas.
>
> Good luck, Adam. I will continue to work on your Macavity,
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Macavity
>
> Dimi

 

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


Subject: arXiv:1106.0394v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:42:16 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTin84r1jFZseFE5SAnf=CEuy0OnsnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Alberto Chamorro <alberto.chamorro@ehu.es>
Cc: Lluis Bel <wtpbedil@lg.ehu.es>,
Luca Lusanna <lusanna@fi.infn.it>,
Massimo Pauri <pauri@pr.infn.it>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>


Dear Dr. Chamorro,

May I ask a question regarding the *physical* individuation of point-events in spacetime: in what shape or form do the "proto-points" exist prior to their physical individuation, so that 'more and more space appears' due to the dynamic dark energy (DDE) of these proto-points ?

I will appreciate the opinion of your colleagues as well.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

P.S. My efforts can be read at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#GR
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Macavity

D.C.


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


Subject: "Finally, results from Gravity Probe-B", arXiv:1106.1198v1 [gr-qc]
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 05:33:30 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTimqQ_Gtj5J6Q=7G3=rRfXdo=W4cjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clifford M Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>
Cc: Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>

Clifford M. Will, "Finally, results from Gravity Probe-B", arXiv:1106.1198v1 [gr-qc]
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/43
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1198
"A massive body warps spacetime, the way a bowling ball warps the surface of a trampoline. A rotating body drags spacetime a tiny bit around with it, ..."
------


Cliff:

GR cannot explain the gyroscopic effect itself, yet your colleagues used gyroscopes to "test" GR.

Do you have a theory of the gyroscopic effect and conservation of gravitational angular momentum?

Do you believe that "frame dragging" (if any) can be modeled with some parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) approximation and the so-called “relaxed” Einstein equations, Sec. 4.3,

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/articlesu14.html#x21-430004.3 ?

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

I think your wife is right about you.

Dimi
----------
"At the end of Bernie’s talk, a member of the audience asked whether Cliff had ever been known to be wrong on a serious issue. Bernie answered that to his knowledge, this had never happened. At this moment Leslie, Cliff’s wife, raised an eager hand and offered to present many examples of Cliff being in error."

B. Schutz, "Will and Testament", MATTERS OF GRAVITY, Number 29, Winter 2007
------------------

Note: The most puzzling paradox of GR is that you can use obviously wrong ideas, such as the PPN approximation, to make calculatory recipes which could match the recorded data very well. Another startling example is the pseudo-tensors. And even the Newtonian gravity, with its instantaneous "propagation" of gravity, works perfectly well FAPP.

The application of GR for adjusting the GPS system is not a confirmation of GR, just as the projection postulate in QM textbook does not confirm nor reject any speculation about the quantum world. In the case of the alleged "frame dragging", notice the tacit presumption of some ideal observer who can "see" the whole asymptotically flat spacetime en bloc, and verify the speculations that a massive body "warps spacetime," while a rotating body "drags spacetime".

There is no such thing as "curvature". Mrs. Leslie Will is right about her husband. Which isn't surprising, given the fact that Cliff's mentor was Kip Thorne. The two GR "experts" fully endorse the linearized approximation of GR for detecting the "ripples" of spacetime metric. And that's a serious error. But because they live in total socialism, their pay check is secured and, as long as other people pay for LIGO, LISA, etc., they will enjoy their hobby until they fully and totally retire.

By 2015, the "advanced" LIGO will fail miserably to detect any GW strain, and LIGO "scientific" collaboration will have to come up with some "explanation" -- they will claim that their total failure is actually of fundamental importance, like the negative result for the ether drift in the experiment of Michelson and Morley. Hence they will "prove" GR wrong.

There's none so blind as those who will not think.

D. Chakalov
June 10, 2011

 

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


Subject: Group Action in Topos Quantum Physics, arXiv:1110.1650v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:41 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxk=ptY0mkiZTGe+CiqThHA2vFg7VB301jtFT+PSbfGFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Cecilia Flori <cflori@perimeterinstitute.ca>
Cc: Karol Horodecki <khorodec@inf.ug.edu.pl>,
Rafael Sala Mayato <rsala@ull.es>,
Andreas <andreas.doering@comlab.ox.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
Ieke Moerdijk <I.Moerdijk@uu.nl>,
Daniel Bedingham <d.bedingham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Warren Leffler <wkleffler@aol.com>,
Josef Tkadlec <tkadlec@fel.cvut.cz>,
Karl <svozil@tuwien.ac.at>


Hi Cecilia,

May I ask a question regarding your arXiv:1110.1650v1 [quant-ph], and ask for clarification of your understanding of Quantum Theory.

Look at the Peres-Mermin version of KS Theorem,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Hermens2

It is impossible that (i) all nine observables, at (ii) one instant (as recorded by your wristwatch), would possess (iii) context-independent, pre-existing values.

Rafael Sala Mayato and Gonzalo Muga explained the so-called Mermin’s square (N. D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell, Revs. Mod. Phys. 65 (1993) 803-815) in arXiv:1110.1723v1 [quant-ph] as follows:

"[T]he observables are the Pauli matrices, with eigenvalues ±1, for two independent spin−1/2 particles. The nine observables are arranged in groups of three columns and three rows, and within each of them they are mutually commuting. The product of the three observables in the column on the right is −1, and the product of the three observables in the other two columns and all three rows is +1. It is easy to check that it is impossible to associate with each observable preexisting values, +1 or −1, in such a way that they verify the
identities satisfied by the observables themselves."

So, we reject the assumption (iii), about context-independent, pre-existing values, under the conditions (i) and (ii).

David Mermin says (arXiv:quant-ph/9912081v1): "The Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem (...) exhibits a finite set of finite-valued observables with the following property: there is no way to associate with each observable in the set a particular one of its eigenvalues so that the eigenvalues associated with every subset of mutually commuting observables obey certain algebraic identities obeyed by the observables themselves [1]. Such a set of observables is traditionally called uncolorable."

Q: Can you start counting the 'observables' from the "uncolorable" ones, in such way that they will obtain "color" at the expense of other 'states', which will be, *in the context of this particular* counting, "uncolorable" ?

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

1. If you can, the assumption (iii) may show you something that is missing in present-day quantum theory and its "toposification": the 'pre-existing values' do exist, albeit in an UNdecidable pre-quantum state (never in plural); more from Henry Margenau.

2. If you can't reverse the counting (cf. the link above), please explain why. I extend this request to all recipients of this email.

All the best,

Dimi
--------

Note: The notion of 'pre-existing values' is the crux of our understanding of 'reality'. In classical physics, the form of reality we encounter is 'objective reality', while in Quantum Theory the new (to some theoretical physicists, at least) form of reality is 'potential reality'. Notice that the latter can accommodate totally new things to emerge during the non-unitary evolution of the universe, which may, from the perspective of the fixed rigid 'objective reality', look like creatio ex nihilo or rather 'the set of all sets that have never been considered' (David Batchelor). Relative to the history of the universe up to the instant 'now', it's an empty set, but we cannot know what might come out from the 'the unknown unknown' -- it's a Free Will universe. As John Wheeler put it, "Time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once". Stated differently, our common 'potential reality' evolves non-unitarily as well, resembling the "memory" of 'the universe as a brain'.

Why has the "state vector collapse" been a hugely effective, FAPP calculation tool? It has captured an essential germ of truth: the UNdecidable pre-quantum state does not, and cannot "collapse"; it only casts one pre-correlated "state" -- one-at-a-time, along the Arrow of Space -- which is being explicated with certainty in the intact quantum world 'out there'. The UNdecidable pre-quantum state itself must not be included in the set/topos of its color-able explications.

In the current QM, the only "link" we have between the macroscopic world and the quantum realm is provided by "probabilities", as explained eloquently by Chris Isham (C.J. Isham, Lectures on Quantum Theory, 1995, p. 17, Eq. 2.8).

NB: I invite all people who disagree with my interpretation of the KS Theorem to check out the generation of particle's path in Wilson cloud chambers; cf. Alessandro Teta, arXiv:0905.1467v1, pp. 8-11: "The cloud chamber is filled by a supersaturated vapour which can undergo local phase transitions induced by the exchange of even a small amount of energy." The key word is energy. As pointed out by Sir Nevill Mott in 1929, ”It is a little difficult to picture how it is that an outgoing spherical wave can produce a straight line.”

Let's see how "little" this challenge is. Sean Carroll stressed in arXiv:0811.3772v1 [gr-qc], p. 6, that "the basis states [xxx] and the coefficients [xx] are completely time-independent; all of the time evolution is encoded in the phases [XXX]". Notice, however, the imaginary unit in Eq. 4 and in Alessandro Teta's paper.

How do you represent 'time evolution' with complex phases (Chen Ning Yang), in such fashion that (i) the imaginary unit will be kept intact throughout the whole track of the particle in Wilson cloud chamber, yet (ii) the time evolution of the particle will be represented, at the same time, with a real number? This is the essence of the 'macro-objectification problem' bzw. the problem of reconciling the present-day quantum theory with Special Relativity. If we wish to speak about 'time in quantum mechanics', we should never abuse Quantum Theory by imposing 'the time of facts' from Newtonian mechanics or Special Relativity.

Go ahead. Feel free to try some "decoherence" with "zeroing the off-diagonal elements" (John Gamble). I offered this task to Jonathan Halliwell and his colleagues from Imperial College (Chris Isham included) two years ago, but haven't heard from them. Dorje Brody acknowledged, in a private talk in Imperial College London some eleven years ago, that Nevill Mott's paper encapsulates the essence of QM. I fully agree, and hope that some of the readers of these lines will try to refute my suggestion about 'the UNdecidable pre-quantum state' (never in plural) by solving the problem identified by Sir Nevill Mott in 1929.

NB: Unlike QM textbooks, Nature provides smooth transitions between 'the word of facts', governed by Special Relativity, and the quantum realm. It is crucially important for any theory of quantum gravity to discover the 'back bone' of these smooth transitions: the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state. Moreover, it is impossible to attach gravity to the color-able presentations of quantum fields alone. No way. Before even contemplating about some 'quantum gravity', we need to resolve the puzzle of these smooth transitions, and also fix the problem of quasi-local gravitational energy in present-day GR textbooks (MTW, p. 467).

However, Chris Isham boldly stated nine years ago (23 October 2002): "You do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area." He still hasn't backed his insulting claim with any evidence, nor has resolved the problem of QM known since 1929. Hopefully, some of the readers may help him.

Going back to the KS Theorem, people picture the color-able "states" in some Hilbert space (or try some "toposification"), and impose our Boolean thinking upon the colored "observables" explicated at the length scale of tables and chairs. I suggest to reflect on the ability of your brain to handle its UNdecidable state.

The crux of the complex phases is exposed in assumption (ii) above: "at one instant (as recorded by your wristwatch." You inanimate wristwatch cannot read both the "observables" and their UNdecidable pre-quantum state (Henry Margenau called it Onta). It is manifestly wrong to assume that "single atomic events" exist 'out there', so we only need to "amplify" their "effects" (cf. Alessandro Teta above) in order to be "readily observed by large systems" [Ref. 1].

Briefly, the structure of spacetime at macroscopic scale acts like a "filter" imposed on the quantum world, which produces artifacts, such as "quantum jumps", but on the other hand this "filter" makes the projection postulate (introduced in QM textbooks by hand) a very effective, FAPP calculation tool.

All you need is to consider the possibility that the universe works like a brain. Sorry for repeating this again.

It's a free world. Steven Weinberg, for example, has chosen to publish a new collection of essays, entitled: Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. I've been trying to reach him since May 2003, with no success; my last email is printed below. Soon on DVD.

D. Chakalov (a.k.a "just another crank")
October 13, 2011
Last update: October 25, 2011, 17:00 GMT


[Ref. 1] Richard P. Feynman and Albert R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals: Emended Edition (1965 edition, emended by Daniel F. Styer), Dover Publications, 2010, p. 22.


 

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


Subject: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him read and think.
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:59:31 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Steven Weinberg <weinberg@zippy.ph.utexas.edu>
Cc: Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Steven Weinberg, arXiv:1109.6462v3 [quant-ph], 12 Oct 2011 01:32:12 GMT: "We assume as in ordinary quantum mechanics that the state of the system is entirely described by a vector in Hilbert space."

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

D.C.

 

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



Subject: Marc Lachièze-Rey: Where is the vertical in empty space ?
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:30:53 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Marc Lachieze-Rey <mlr@apc.univ-paris7.fr>
Cc: Henrik Zinkernagel <zink@ugr.es>,
Hans Westman <hwestmanxx@gmail.com>,
Brendan McMonigal <mcmonigal@gmail.com>,
eanderso@apc.univ-paris7.fr,
malcubi@nucleares.unam.mx


Space, time, Spacetime, by Marc Lachièze-Rey, Slide #4
http://www.ugr.es/~zink/cosmo/LachiezeGranada.pdf;
Espace, Temps et Espace-Temps, 8 février 2012
-----------


Dear Dr. Lachièze-Rey,

Perhaps you will be interested to check out

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

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

I hope you can help Eddie Anderson with his "ice dragon".

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov

 

 

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




Subject: Re: Quantum gravity
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:18:06 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmJ-A=fOCnpRWa0Yc1axbDgPvVaQ3vQ68OoTyUHspO6eA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>,
Cecilia Flori <cflori@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Andreas <andreas.doering@comlab.ox.ac.uk>,
Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@ic.ac.uk>,
Amihay Hanany <a.hanany@imperial.ac.uk>,
Helen Fay Dowker <f.dowker@imperial.ac.uk>,
J M Yearsley <james.yearsley03@imperial.ac.uk>,
Daniel Bedingham <d.bedingham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Josef Tkadlec <tkadlec@fel.cvut.cz>,
Karl <svozil@tuwien.ac.at>,
Roland Omnes <roomnes@wanadoo.fr>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Domenico Giulini <giulini@zarm.uni-bremen.de>,
Alessandro Teta <teta@univaq.it>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>,
Sean Carroll <seancarroll@gmail.com>,
Dorje Brody <d.brody@imperial.ac.uk>


Chris,

Nine years ago, on Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:24:15 +0100, you wrote:

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

You still haven't made any effort to show any evidence supporting your insulting claim. Instead, four years ago (Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:14:09 +0100), you pictured me as "just another crank".

May I offer you and your colleagues a simple task from 1929: check out the NB section in the note at

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

If you can resolve the problem, you will obliterate my efforts to suggest a new path toward quantum gravity, but most importantly we all will hear about your discovery at CNN Breaking News.

Please go ahead. Say something as a physicist. Don't be shy.


"just another crank"


Note: Many physicists are inclined to endorse the opinion of Chris Isham by simply pointing to the fact that I have not offered math. But there is no math available in the first place. None. You guys do diff geometry like bartenders. The math I need is not present in your textbooks (included the one from Chris Isham), simply because you introduce 'differentiable structure' in GR by referring only to the color-able states of 'physical reality', and have totally missed the fine structure of "points" where the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state quietly resides, along with 'the ideal monad without windows' (cf. A. Döring and C.J. Isham, quant-ph/0703066, p. 2, footnote 3).

I will be happy to elaborate, starting from Thompson Lamp Paradox and some simple examples with the Cauchy sequence and the infinitesimal [Ref. 1].

To paraphrase Lord Rutherford, we haven't the math, so we've got to think!


D.C.
October 24, 2011


[Ref. 1] George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez, Where Mathematics Come from: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, Basic Books, New York, 2001, p. 189.


Comment: The exercise above is cast in the Archimedean geometry of the local (teleological) mode of spacetime; there is no direct link to the non-Archimedean realm of the global mode spacetime, hence it "shows up" as an empty set (R).

The old saying 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts' should be understood in the sense that 'the whole' contains an unique element -- an "empty set" -- that is different from its physical constituents ("all members of the sequence", cf. the drawing above). In other words, Baldy's Law [Ref. 2] should read “some of it plus the rest of it is all of it, plus the empty set of the infinitesimal.” The latter may FAPP be considered "zero" only at the length scale of tables and chairs, and only for inanimate systems, while in the quantum-gravitational realm its physical influence will look "dark", simply because it does not exist as 'physical reality' or "members of the sequence."

As Alexandre Grothendieck put it, "These “probability clouds”, replacing the reassuring material particles of before, remind me strangely of the elusive “open neighborhoods” that populate the topoi, like evanescent phantoms, to surround the imaginary “points”."  See also John Wheeler's "cloud" and the parable of John's jackets here.

If we examine the physical, color-able "quantum states" only, the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state "shows up" as an empty set as well; it does not belong to 'physical reality, because it is non-colorizable in principle. Physically, we can only observe its 'shadows on the cave's wall', as Plato would have said.

In QM textbooks, the 'cave's wall' is replaced with Hilbert space, while in the Isham-Döring approach it is replaced with topos, yet again everything is dropped in 'one pot' (Eintopf gemacht). Total mess, totally wrong, from the outset.

To be specific: the value ascribed (the result of measuring) to the physical quantity B is contextual, in the sense that it depends on whether the ascribed (color-able) "value" is considered together with A1, or together with A2, as explained by Chris Isham (arXiv:1004.3564v1, Sec. 5.1, 'The Kochen-Specker theorem and contextuality', p. 20), but the non-colorizable, UNdecidable, pre-quantum Kochen-Specker (KS) state -- the 'back bone' along which the contextual quantity B flips over, if it is considered together with A1 or together with A2 -- is an 'empty set'.

All questions about its physical existence yield the same answer: YAIN. Not "somewhere in between".

I'm not aware of such YAIN (dual-valued) logic of propositions, however. Certainly not in topos theory.

D. Chakalov
October 24, 2011
Last updated: October 27, 2011



[Ref. 2] Baldy's Law: “Some of it plus the rest of it is all of it”.

 


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



Subject: Re: Quantum gravity
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:58:07 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Roland Omnes <roomnes@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
[snip]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:03:28 +0200, Roland Omnes <roomnes@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Mister Chakalov,
>
> I am not used to receive this kind of message

According to your Rule 1 from "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (reviewed by William Faris), an individual isolated physical system is *entirely* formulated in terms of a specific Hilbert space and a specific algebra of operators, together with the mathematical notions associated with them. You were quite precise: “The word ‘entirely’ that occurs in it will be taken in its strongest sense, to mean that not only dynamics, but also the logical structure of the theory and the language one uses when applying it to observations and experiments will be cast into the mold of Hilbert space.”

Only you should forget about Hilbert space. If you disagree, check out the task from 1929; the link is in my preceding email.

You also wrote: “One must distinguish between the facts, the microscopic properties that may be said to be true, and also the vast number of microscopic properties that cannot even be said to be true or false.”

Well, I only wanted to help you, from the perspective of Henry Margenau and the Kochen-Specker Theorem.

Recall my email from Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:00:04 +0300, Subject: Is "reduction" a last step in completing "decoherence"?, regarding your arXiv:quant-ph/0411201v2. Pity you ignored it.

> and I ask you to never again send anything to me.

Mais bien sûr, mon cher ami. You can read my preceding email at

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

My web site will be available on DVD, and I hope it will help kids understand Quantum Theory and never repeat your errors.

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:18:06 +0300, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

 

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


Subject: What observational quantities need to be isotropic in order to enforce isotropy of spacetime geometry ?
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:08:26 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkUtaXU0-nBe3XpiXEhb5EKOw_iWS70b_s=Ee6VJEqOuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Roy Maartens <roy.maartens@port.ac.uk>

Dear Roy,

Thank you for your arXiv:1104.1300v2. Beautiful paper.

My proposed answer: the Heraclitean time, after Weyl's principle (Rugh and Zinkernagel, arXiv:1006.5848v1 [gr-qc], p. 2),

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

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

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

All the best,

Dimi
-------

Note: Can we have our cake and eat it? In the case of 'homogeneous vs inhomogeneous universe', the answer is: yes we can. Namely, the universe is indeed homogeneous, to the extent to which it is endowed with perfect isotropy of spacetime geometry due to the Arrow of Space; yet it is also "inhomogeneous" in terms of its physical structure (e.g., the cosmic equator; more above). One reason for the latter faculty is the fundamental asymmetry in the tug-of-war manifestation of gravity: the so-called DDE points to the future, while the so-called CDM points to the past.

Don't ever say you knew nothing about it!


D. Chakalov
October 13, 2011

 


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


Subject: Structure and dynamics of the cosmic vacuum/quantum aether vs. arXiv:1110.3358v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:27:02 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmQO3y-OUxqW5t28VGgiMnwCUX=2q=mzL8-kfSRALP9yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ronald J Adler <adler@relgyro.stanford.edu>
Cc: hm@berkeley.edu, martin@slac.stanford.edu,
saurya.das@uleth.ca, evagenas@academyofathens.gr,
saslanbeigi@perimeterinstitute.ca


Hi Ron:

Since "we know essentially nothing about the nature of dark energy on a smaller and presumably more fundamental scale", one can expect that "dark energy (i.e. the cosmic vacuum) has a more interesting structure than if described entirely by the cosmological constant."

So far so good, but regarding your assumption that "dark energy on the cosmological scale is well-described by the cosmological constant," check out what you and your colleagues have missed at

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

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

If you and your colleagues don't wish to consider ideas that contradict yours, please at least confirm the receipt of this email.

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov
--------

Comment: The only reply from Ron Adler arrived roughly ten years ago, after my email praising his 'vacuum catastrophe' article (Ronald J. Adler et al., Vacuum catastrophe: An elementary exposition of the cosmological constant problem, Am. J. Phys. 63 (1995) 620-626, cf. Sec. IX, 'An ad hoc canceling term: The cosmological constant'). Surely we can afford such 'canceling terms' -- check out the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state above.

In January last year, Ron Adler acknowledged the following (see above): "At present it is certainly not clear what might replace our present concept of spacetime at the Planck scale." Let me try to help: first of all, forget about all "uncertainly principles" and "quantum fluctuations". We have a rock solid physical reality -- one-at-a-time, along the Arrow of Space -- explicated with certainty.

Stated differently, the normalization procedure ("the sum of the squared moduli of the probability amplitudes of all the possible states is equal to one," Wiki) does not include the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state above. Otherwise you cannot attach gravity to quantum fields. No way.

Needless to say, the structure and dynamics of the cosmic vacuum/quantum aether is not about some "dark" entity: see Heraclitus, Aristotle, and [John 1:1].

D.C.
October 18, 2011



 

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


Subject: The initial orientation of the physical space itself, arXiv:1110.5876v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:43:22 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Florin Moldoveanu <fmoldove@gmail.com>
Cc: Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>,
Joy Christian <joy.christian@wolfson.ox.ac.uk>

Dear Dr. Moldoveanu,

Joy Christian repeated his claim that his *model* of the EPR-Bohm correlations is "complete, local, and realistic, in the precise senses defined by EPR and Bell [6]," and is "perfectly cogent and error free", because "the hidden variable in this picture is the initial orientation of the physical space itself, which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions in the EPR-Bohm scenario. As a result, the measurement results are not contextual in any sense."

I think Joy Christian is one of those Russian-type physicists, who does not reply to my email and will never, in no circumstances, look at the KS Theorem,

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

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

I wouldn't mind if Mr. Christian writes manuscripts, provided they aren't publish on paper -- it is a valuable commodity and should not be wasted.

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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



Subject: Re: Tue 24 Nov 13:30pm - 14:30pm
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:53:56 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxn5u7+WwHsS0+3wsEO0jU9S17eVSFDVtKxySH6kDWedXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Halliwell <j.halliwell@ic.ac.uk>
Cc: theoryseminar@googlemail.com,
James Yearsley <james.yearsley@imperial.ac.uk>,
Amihay Hanany <a.hanany@imperial.ac.uk>,
Dorje Brody <d.brody@imperial.ac.uk>,
J G Muga <jg.muga@ehu.es>,
Andreas Ruschhaupt <andreas.ruschhaupt@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Adolfo del Campo <adolfo.delcampo@gmail.com>,
Helen Fay Dowker <f.dowker@imperial.ac.uk>


Jonathan,

I attended your talk two years ago (was sitting next to Fay Dowker), told you about the problems of your "decoherence" hypotheses, and sent you the link to A. Teta's paper regarding the 1929 paper by Sir Nevill Mott.

I looked today at the Ph.D. Thesis of James Yearsley, arXiv:1110.5790v1 [quant-ph], and searched for "Mott." No reference. None.

Why did you let your younger colleague muse on "what exactly is the status of the variable t that appears in Schrödinger's equation", but didn't tell him what you learned from me at your talk on Tuesday, 24 November 2009?

James Yearsley considers himself "incredibly fortunate" to have had you as a teacher and collaborator, but you left him in the dark.

It's not fair, Jonathan. You should know very well that all those "decoherence" hypotheses cannot explain the path of a single particle, nor the dwell time problem.

More at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#QG_final

Dimi
----------

Note
:
At the Tuesday Seminar on 24 November 2009, I raised my hand and asked Jonathan Halliwell whether he can explain the "trajectory" of particle with "decoherence", and also reminded him of my email messages prior to his talk, with reference to Alessandro Teta's paper. Jonathan Halliwell firmly stated that one can explain these "paths" with "decoherence", but didn't mention any paper dealing with this issue.

Jonathan Halliwell is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London. It should be agonizingly clear to him that the reason why his so-called decoherence hypotheses cannot explain the path of a single particle in Wilson cloud chambers is encoded in the key issue of energy exchange: "The cloud chamber is filled by a supersaturated vapour which can undergo local phase transitions induced by the exchange of even a small amount of energy" (A. Teta, arXiv:0905.1467v1, pp. 8-11).

Let's examine Halliwell's favorite phrases (emphasis mine) "strongly peaked about the classical evolution equations" or "quite strongly peaked about one path" in quant-ph/0501119v1. Does he mean some delocalized energy exchange between the particle and the supersaturated vapor in Wilson cloud chamber? Surely the time parameter of the visible path is the one read by his wristwatch, so one can claim that something in the cloud chamber is indeed undergoing 'classical evolution', producing a classical path.

But how can you relate/map this 'something' with the single quantum particle -- not for one instant but for all instants from its trajectory? Check out the dynamical/intrinsic time of the quantum object vs. its observable/event time in Paul Busch's quant-ph/0105049v3, and ponder on the poetic expression "unsharpness of energy", p. 32 therein.

Again, the puzzle is not in the probability for detection of the quantum particle. (The probability can be non-zero only if the "connecting line" of two molecules is parallel to the velocity direction of the quantum particle, as explained by Werner Heisenberg in 1930.) It is about what this quantum particle actually does at macroscopic level, by giving away its "unsharp" energy.

The puzzle is that we observe a path created by exchange of energy between a single quantum particle and its measurement device, throughout its trajectory and during its continuous measurements, as recorded with a classical clock. The so-called "good approximation" (Albert Messiah, Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970, p. 215) cannot elucidate the conversion of particle's "unsharp" energy to well-defined, "sharp" energy of the constituents of the classical trajectory, and back to the "unsharp" energy of the quantum particle.

The famous quote from Lev Landau, "To violate the time-energy uncertainty relation all I have to do is measure the energy very precisely and then look at my watch!" (source here), is typical for people who haven't read Nevill Mott's 1929 paper [Ref. 1].

Another example is Prof. Hermann Nicolai, who suggested on German SAT 1 TV (June 7, 2004) that the classical world emerges from Feynman paths. Just like his colleague from Imperial College London, Hermann Nicolai didn't explain his insights.

Or Wojciech H. Zurek, who was co-editor of Quantum Theory and Measurement [Ref. 1], but conspicuously "missed" to test his hypotheses with Nevill Mott's paper.

Remember, you have to explain the bi-directional transitions between the quantum realm and the macroscopic world at all instants of energy exchange, which build up the trajectory of the quantum particle, as observed in the cloud chamber. And if you use probabilities ("overwhelmingly probable" or "appreciable weight", John S. Bell), you will end up scratching your head and craving for some fresh air. Nothing more, nothing else.

Why? Because energy & time are not related by probabilities. Besides, probabilities alone do not make things 'happen'. All this should be clear to undergraduates.

Unless, of course, you are professor of theoretical physics, like Jonathan Halliwell. Then you'll have the extra choice to ignore the whole issue and keep dead quiet.

To sum up, the 1929 Mott paper showed the ultimate puzzle in Quantum Theory: the smooth transitions between the macroscopic and quantum worlds, facilitated by their 'back bone' -- the UNdecidable pre-quantum uncolorizable KS state, with which one can also recover the smooth continuum from the alleged Planck scale "discreteness", so that we "look around, and see as far as we like" (Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Phoenix, 2000, p. 205). Ignore it at your peril.
 


D. Chakalov
October 30, 2011
Last updated: November 7, 2011, 22:03 GMT

P.S. The quasi-local gravitational energy (MTW, p. 467), also called "the intangible energy of the gravitational field" (H. Bondi, Conservation and Non-Conservation in General Relativity, Proc. R. Soc. London A427 (1990) 249-258), has to be considered as well -- in both cases, we face a quasi-local, intangible energy (wegtransformierbar global mode of spacetime), which shows up only by its physical, color-able state (local mode). Namely, the former is immune to any "collapse" (just like the invisible cat Macavity, it can never be directly observed), while the latter is never "unsharp" or non-local; and they happily live together.

In the interpretation of the KS Theorem explained above, the energy exchange continuously occurs between the color-able states of the quantum particle and the supersaturated vapor in the cloud chamber, while the dynamics of the quantum particle is driven by its UNdecidable, uncolorizable, pre-quantum state that is immune to any "collapse" or "decoherence".

D.C.


[Ref. 1] Nevill Mott, The wave mechanics of alpha-ray tracks, Proceedings of the Royal Society A126 (1929) 79-84. (Reprinted as Sec. I.6 of Quantum Theory and Measurement, Ed. by John A. Wheeler and Wojciech H. Zurek, Princeton University Press, 1983, pp. 129-134)


 


J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 93-94



Sergio Doplicher, The Principle of Locality. Effectiveness, fate and challenges, arXiv:0911.5136v1 [math-ph], p. 21
 


 

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


Subject: Does the Superluminal Neutrino Uncover Torsion?
arXiv:1111.0286v1 [gr-qc], p. 4
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 03:42:46 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=iAQYWR752zXxueoscJtTP6VF+n+svDTXL2yEQKcifCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: M B Altaie <maltaie@yu.edu.jo>
Cc: Asher Yahalom <asya@ariel.ac.il>,
Luca Fabbri <luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it>,
Friedrich W Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>

Dear Basil,

I like your Dakik al-Kalam paper. May I offer some thoughts for your consideration.

You wrote (p. 4):

"Now, if we have to take care of the chiral symmetry of the spacetime and look for the introduction of spinning matter we have to introduce torsion; for torsion is the object that is related in essence to chirality. (...) The fact that torsion is basically antisymmetric motivates one to foresee some connection with the rotational properties of the spacetime, and perhaps this what Cartan had in mind originally."

Check out the rotational properties of the spacetime (some profoundly dumb people called it 'the axis of evil') at

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

I don't know what Élie Cartan had in mind originally, but I would seek the true torsion in the time-orientability (asymmetry) of spacetime and its "driving force",

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

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

As you stated in 'On Physics and Metaphysics', "This is how we may come in touch with the unknown, the most absolute and the most known unknown, Almighty God."

All the best,

Dimi
-----------

Note: One can hardly overestimate the importance of 'spin', but its geometrical origin, ensuing from the fine structure of spacetime points, is very unclear to me.

Why does Mother Nature "rotate" its physical constituents, from the cosmic equator and galaxies to the color-able presentations of quantum particles? Regarding the latter, Wolfgang Pauli stressed in 1924 that we're dealing with "eigentümlichen, klassisch nicht beschreibbaren Art von Zweideutigkeit" (quoted after N. Straumann, physics/0010003v1, p. 7). Any direct comparison with anything we can imagine in Euclidean space may be very misleading.

Suppose we take off our Euclidean spectacles and try to zoom on the fine structure of "points", by approaching 'the empty set R': what can we see? A quantum hedgehog, maybe?
 


 

I have allocated a special place for torsion in the wegtransformierbar global mode of spacetime: the topology of the elementary transition 'now', along the global time (tau) from the Arrow of Space, is some kind of superposition of 'both linear and cyclical', as we could imagine with our classical and distorted Euclidean eyes.

In other words, matter does not produce torsion; it only experience its "dark" physical effects in the local mode of spacetime, cast from the atemporal loop (global mode) that is "located" ]between[ two neighboring points from the continuum of the local (physical) mode of spacetime.

Look at the drawing below, from Bob Wald's textbook:



The event  p  is pre-correlated with 'everything else in the universe' (MQG), at the instant 'now' from the absolute time (tau) generated by the Arrow of Space.

This bootstrapping is an atemporal phenomenon which "takes place" exclusively in the wegtransformierbar global mode of spacetime: its physical duration, recordable by a physical clock, is zero, rendering the local (physical) mode of spacetime a perfect continuum. It does not exist in the local (physical) mode, hence all macroscopic effects from it will be "dark". (In Quantum Theory, this atemporal phenomenon also lives the potential future from the Arrow of Space, and shows up as the UNdecidable, uncolorizable, pre-quantum Kochen-Specker (KS) state (never in plural); cf. above).

In plain words, what lives only in the potential future from the Arrow of Space cannot be directly observed in the local (physical) mode of spacetime. In the case of present-day GR, all physical effects from it will be untraceable, hence its source will look "dark", or 'emerging from spacetime geometry only', at best.

Consequently, we are bewildered by some weird "non-baryonic CDM", which is just as wrong as imagining a physical axis of electron's spin. The gravitational effects known as 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are not entirely produced by matter, just as the time-orientability of spacetime is not entirely produced by physical stuff; this 'not entirely' conundrum is a well-known faculty of the Aristotelian First Cause which cannot be nailed down with causal investigation. Its physical effects will inevitably look "dark" to those who are not familiar with the First Cause. In the current GR paradigm, these new effects will look like emerging from purely geometrical properties of spacetime. Corollary: in the presence of gravity, any energy conservation law is unfeasible, as acknowledged by Sean Carroll.

NB: Perhaps the quantum hedgehog above "rotates" simultaneously along all radial directions taken from any point in 3-D space (including a new symmetry operation, called 'space inversion', along these radial directions), facilitating a web of correlations ('pre-established harmony', Leibniz) of all color-able constituents of the physical universe. If we could take a 'sum-over-rotations' à la Feynman paths, perhaps a macroscopic rotation can be derived. Then we might understand the origin of angular momentum in GR, find out how purely geometrical effects of spacetime lead to rotation, spin, wegtransformierbar torsion and spinors, and learn to extract "dark" energy from the cosmic vacuum/quantum aether.

Not surprisingly, Fred Hehl isn't interested, and neither is any of his colleagues. They take for granted that mass must be non-negative and spacetime must be time-orientable, then introduce differentiable structure and Lorentzian metric by hand, and finally notice that all this exercise is actually valid for 4 % from the stuff in the universe. On the positive side, they have no problems with publishing their essays and posting manuscripts at arxiv.org server.


D. Chakalov
November 2, 2011
Last updated: November 3, 2011




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


Subject: Re: "The torsional effects manifest themselves as spinorial self-interactions," arXiv:1201.5498v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:42:29 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: fabbri@diptem.unige.it, luca.fabbri@bo.infn.it
Cc: vignolo@diptem.unige.it, c.boehmer@ucl.ac.uk, hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de

Dear Luca,

Thanks for your prompt reply; hope you can make it to Prague.

Just to make sure we understand each other: as you wrote in arXiv:gr-qc/0608090v3,

"Given the metric tensor g, the most general connection (called the Levi-Civita connection) that can be defined is decomposable as ... [XXX] (Eq. 1) ... "

But if we try to *derive* the metric tensor from the most general case of spacetime (cf. the first link below), the most general connection won't be the so-called Levi-Civita connection, but a special affine connection called The Aristotelian Connection.

We have torsion and spinorial self-interactions, but no special preferences to Dirac field, because your statement that "if torsion is completely antisymmetric then the spin must be completely antisymmetric as well" doesn't hold for the coupling of torsion to matter in the most general case of spacetime (cf. the first link below).

All the best,

Dimi


On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Luca,
>
> I'll talk about spinorial self-interactions and torsion, but from a
> different perspective:
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Beig
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Einstein_Prague
>
> Any chance to see you in Prague?
>
> All the best,
>
> Dimi
 


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


Subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Arrows-Time-Cosmology-Fundamental-
Theories/dp/3642232582,
December 28, 2011
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:08:10 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Laura Mersini-Houghton <mersini@physics.unc.edu>,
Ruediger Vaas <ruediger.vaas@konradin.de>

Laura and Rüdiger,

See what you missed at

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

Perhaps you were thinking that should ignore the facts I've been communicating to you by email, because I'm not some 'academic scholar', right?

But you ignored the bold facts known since 1929, and much MUCH more.

I will review your collections of essays at my web site (soon on DVD).

No need to reply, please.

Dimi

 

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


Subject: Re: "Robert P. Crease loves priority battles. Robert P. Kirshner does not."
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:27:33 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxnac5jB7n2DG3o64gGCBez9v9-t44owu=vxHrpcAPVV-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Robert P Kirshner <kirshner@cfa.harvard.edu>,
Robert P Crease <rcrease@notes.cc.sunysb.edu>,
Saul Perlmutter <saul@lbl.gov>,
Adam Riess <ariess@pha.jhu.edu>,
Mike Turner <mturner@uchicago.edu>,
Josh Frieman <frieman@fnal.gov>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Sean Carroll <seancarroll@gmail.com>,
Lawrence M Krauss <lmk9@cwru.edu>,
Paul Davies <deepthought@asu.edu>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Malcolm A H MacCallum <m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Luca Bombelli <bombelli@olemiss.edu>,
Luca Lusanna <lusanna@fi.infn.it>,
Domenico Giulini <giulini@zarm.uni-bremen.de>


P.S. RE my email from Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:59:59 +0200, check out the 'tug-of-war manifestation of gravity' at

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47392#comment15133

Some Nobel Prize laureates missed the fact that "expansion" of space cannot be defined with respect to itself,

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

Pity nobody cares.

D.C.

 

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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1106.6053v1
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:03:17 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxmt5WFTiY4GL_hghw9YXg7Dnvnym6RAiX3q39Lmbm-a4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: YUAN K. HA <yuanha@temple.edu>
Cc: Reiner Hedrich <reiner.hedrich@udo.edu>,
Reiner Hedrich <Reiner.Hedrich@phil.uni-giessen.de>,
Manfred Requardt <requardt@theorie.physik.uni-goettingen.de>,
Anthony Zee <zee@kitp.ucsb.edu>

Dear Yuan,

Thank you, once more, for informing me about your very interesting paper on quantum gravity.

Perhaps you've noticed that I proposed an Arrow of Space, because I believe the global time [tau] does not come from 'change in space' (coordinate "time"), but from 'change of space'. The Arrow of Space is also needed to accommodate the "dark" energy from the outset and recover the true dynamics of GR. As Reiner Hedrich wrote in arXiv:0908.0355v1 [gr-qc], p. 25:

"Some people think that such attempts at a construction of a theory of Quantum Gravity are not radical enough, that not only gravity and spacetime, but also the quantum could be an emergent phenomenon. [101] According to those people, the still unknown fundamental theory could quite perfectly be a non-quantum theory, describing a substrate from which gravity, spacetime and the quantum emerge."

The prerequisites come from the KS Theorem and Nevill Mott,

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

Details from Heraclitus,

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

All the best,

Dimi

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:39 AM, YUAN K. HA <yuanha@temple.edu> wrote:
[snip]
 

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



The right hand side is a formal condensation of all things whose comprehension in the sense of a field theory is still problematic. Not for a moment did I doubt that this formulation was merely a makeshift in order to give the general principle of relativity a preliminary closed-form expression. For it was essentially no more than a theory of the gravitational field, which was isolated somewhat artificially from a total field of as yet unknown structure.

A. Einstein
Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, ed. by Paul A. Schilpp, Open Court, 1998, p. 75
------------------
 

Relativity and Gravitation
100 Years after Einstein in Prague
June 25 – 29, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic
http://ae100prg.mff.cuni.cz


Note
: This is an informal and frank outline of my intended oral presentation (not poster) at the Conference in Prague above, entitled 'Arrow of Space'; the abstract below was submitted on Friday, 16 December 2011. The objective of my talk is to offer a candidate for "a total field of as yet unknown structure": a special form of reality (known since Plato), which could serve as the reference fluid of GR,
identifying 'the points of space' and 'the instants of time' from the physical spacetime dynamically, with 'Arrow of Space'. The talk aims at quantum gravity, by suggesting a new (to the best of my knowledge) quantum spacetime unifying Quantum Theory and General Relativity from the outset.

As is well known, Einstein was very much hoping, until the last day of his life, to complete his General Relativity. I also very much hope to deliver my talk at the Einstein Conference in Prague -- after all, it's all about his unfinished theory of the gravitational field.

I sincerely hope that the Scientific Organizing Committee will allow me to address the audience at the Einstein Conference in Prague, June 25 – 29, 2012.

 

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

Arrow of Space
By D. Chakalov

Abstract

I will argue for the existence of (i) General Platonic Ideas (GPIs) in
the human brain, quantum theory (KS Theorem and Nevill Mott), and
general relativity ("colored" spacetime), and (ii) an Arrow of Space,
originating from GPIs, which drives the "colored" (after KS Theorem)
quantum-gravitational reality: Panta rei conditio sine qua non est.
The ideas presented in my talk offer an alternative to the "dynamics
of GR" (ADM) by suggesting a conceptual framework in which Quantum
Theory and General Relativity may be unified from the outset; details at
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague-details

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


The
Arrow of Space requires a new quantisation of the gravitational field, preserving the continual nature of spacetime at all length scales by 'quantum spacetime' -- the "verdammten Quantenspringerei" (Erwin Schrödinger) are eliminated from the outset, after resolving the macro-objectification problem in Quantum Mechanics by smooth transitions between the quantum and classical words, based on General Platonic Ideas (GPIs). The idea is to model the universe as a brain, equipped with GPIs residing in the potential future of the Arrow of Space, in which the universe is self-determined/bootstrapped by the rule 'think globally, act locally' (Machian quantum gravity) of its quantum spacetime: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

What follows is a compilation of brief, frank, and incomplete notes on my intended talk (details on "GW astronomy" here).

The hypothetical 'global mode of spacetime' is postulated to accommodate the so-called General Platonic Ideas (GPIs) -- "a total field of as yet unknown structure," A. Einstein. GPIs are inferred from Quantum Theory (KS Theorem and Mott) and General Relativity ("colored" spacetime), while the 'local mode of spacetime' is reserved for 'the realm of irreversible facts fixed in the past'. The Arrow of Space is introduced to explain the conversion of GPIs into 'facts' (local mode). Notice that GPIs in the human brain are not some mental phenomenon, because they act on the brain; yet they are not 'facts' (local mode) either. They exist as purely geometrical and non-Archimedean 'potential reality', and keep the genidentity (Genidentität, Kurt Lewin) of the physical ("colored") reality explicated in the local (physical) mode of spacetime -- the persistence and endurance of objects during the Arrow of Space, or their 'sameness', due to GPIs. They show up in GR only as 'absolute structures', hence are camouflaged as "gauge-dependent"; see above.

Also, the Arrow of Space is an 'arrow', because the conversion of GPIs into 'facts' (local mode) is irreversible -- there is no link, no connection whatsoever from the local mode of irreversible facts to the global mode of 'potential reality' of GPIs. Any attempt at finding GPIs in the local mode will yield zero result or 'zero term', as in the example from Richard Feynman below. The question of how these two forms of reality, potential (GPIs) and physical, placed in the global and local modes of spacetime, may interact requires new metaphysics. Namely, they do not interact directly, but via their common source (the doctrine of trialism); see the story about the Eskimo observing an elephant's trunk above.

Hence the two forms of reality, potential (GPIs) and physical, follow the rule Panta rei conditio sine qua non est, while their common source is just a Noumenon, or 'the true monad without windows', or maybe [John 1:1]. It could be at 'absolute rest', residing within the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space. As Lao Tzu noticed, "If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to." Yes we can: It is the whole universe as ONE, according to Finite Infinity. The latter may require a new fiber bundle structure, perhaps similar to the "vertical vector field as connecting vector" (R. Geroch).


Notice that the mathematical task hinted with the expression 'Panta rei conditio sine qua non est' is highly non-trivial: with the sole exception of 'the true monad without windows' (or the Aristotelian First Cause, or [John 1:1]), everything else is dynamical. Even the underlying topological manifold is being re-created along the Arrow of Space, at every instant 'now' from the global, explicit (but unmeasureable), nondynamical Heraclitean time (W.G. Unruh and R. M. Wald). The standard prerequisites that
"all manifolds are assumed to be Hausdorff, second countable and C" (Lars Andersson) do not hold for a re-created manifold equipped with differentiable structure from Finite Infinity: the very continuum of the local (physical) mode of spacetime is being re-created at each and every instant 'now'. It is different to the proposal for Phoenix Universe by Abbé Georges Lemaître only by the stipulation that every re-created 'now' is a bona fide Phoenix Universe in its local mode of spacetime: all GPIs are eliminated and all negotiations are fully completed, in the sense that “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). All the problems with "dark energy" stem from examining only the chain of such already created physical states (cf. the Photoshop layers below).

If we try to imagine the Arrow of Space in the world of 'facts' (local mode), it would have to point simultaneously to all directions in 3-D space. The resulting, in the local mode of spacetime, "free fall" will be universal, the "force" of gravity will have to be "fictitious", and 'the fixed reference frame of distant stars' (Ernst Mach) won't be physically present in 3-D space. We cannot picture the "direction" of the Arrow of Space along some "4th spatial dimension" (Ned Wright), because the dimensions of physical bodies along such 4th spatial dimension match the infinitesimal -- see the empty set (R) used to derive Finite Infinity above. In the local (physical) mode of spacetime, it must be non-existent, just like the UNdecidable pre-quantum noncolorizable Kochen-Specker state.

Once we relate geometry and matter with the symbol " = " in the Einstein field equation, we freeze their mutual negotiations (particularly evident in the "problem of time" of canonical quantum gravity), and cast just one "colored" (physicalized) instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space. In a way, geometry and matter "talk" to each other via GPIs. The latter are also dynamical, and not some rigid absolute "ether": at every instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, they act on matter while being affected in turn by matter. Notice that such non-linear dynamics, depicted with the Escher's 'drawing hands' below, cannot be modeled with 1-D Euclidean space, the current geometrical model for 'time'.

The instantaneous, in all (inertial and non-inertial) reference frames, bi-directional negotiations between the two sides of the Einstein field equation require two modes of spacetime: global mode for GPIs and local mode for the physicalized -- one-at-a-time -- geometry & matter. The immediate predictions from the postulated two modes of spacetime lead to dual cosmological time and modifications of G F R Ellis' Finite Infinity: the universe resembles an unbroken ring with no circumference, for the circumference is nowhere, and the "center" (cf. the quasi-local point  x  below) is everywhere. The Weyl Principle applies to all of these (uncountably infinite) "centers", and each of these "centers" can also serve as 'absolute reference frame' in which 3-D space would look like "expanding" with constant acceleration (Java applet here).

As Francis Farley noticed (private communication), Einstein did not ask what was pushing such a frame of reference "outwards." My answer: the Arrow of Space. If we imagine the universe at its largest possible length scale of 'an unbroken ring with no circumference' (denoted by  L  above), it may be a bona fide isotropic universe in which "the metric is automatically flat and remains flat at all times" (F. Farley, arXiv:1005.5052, pp. 6-7). However, the space topology of such 'de facto infinite universe' may be undecidable, in the sense that it should be in some superposition of 'open & closed', while the topology of 'the global time [tau]' (cf. below) should be is some superposition of 'line and closed circle'. Headaches, yes.

Well, I don't like the idea of 'curvature' and balloon metaphors, and prefer to speculate about what happens at just one quasi-local point  x  (cf. below), and then multiply it to uncountably infinite to reproduce 'space' as dynamically emerging phenomenon equipped with 'speed of light'. First and foremost, I need an explanation of the initial 'free fall', because the idea of 'curvature' simply doesn't make sense to me. As Richard Feynman noticed in Character Of Physical Law, 1967, p. 8: "The next question was - what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward."

I expect lively discussions with my opponents in Švejk's favorite pub, but will be utterly polite (not frank, as in the outline here). If we subscribe, faute de mieux, to the idea of d'Alembert and Einstein that gravity is some "fictitious force", the Arrow of Space may provide inertia and "free fall" by driving the whole universe "upwards", with constant acceleration -- all physical objects, light beams included, would seem to "fall" under the influence of gravity exactly the same as any other object.

Point is, trying to stop such "free fall" requires a real force in the "direction" of the Arrow of Space, which we can only describe as 'time' (see the full CPT-invariant phenomenon in the drawing below). This real force is proportional to the object's mass, "which would be equal to, and appear to be, its real weight" (C. Seligman). If the Arrow of Space drives the universe en bloc and with the constant acceleration of 'change of space', then the opposite, 'free fall' image from such "upward" acceleration will be the same for every physical object, be it a feather or a stone block. Well, if we manage to eliminate (reversibly) the initial 'free fall', perhaps we could cancel such zero free fall effortlessly, by zero real force (and build pyramids, say). The first off task is to "dissolve" (reversibly, of course) the initial "free fall" of a stone block (AVC) back to its GPIs (NASA called their project 'propellantness propulsion', which sounds much better than 'space polarization', only they couldn't make it either).

Well, perhaps we could gather at Švejk's favorite pub (Special Agent Bretschneider included) to discuss the origin of inertial "forces" over a pint of beer or five...


Truncated URLs:

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague-details
 

Some history. On 24 August 1920, Berlin’s Philharmonic Hall (which had a capacity of over 1600 people) hosted a rally organized by Paul Weyland and Ernst Gehrcke, at which Einstein was denounced as a fraud. Paul Weyland's talk was "Betrachtungen über Einsteins Relativitätstheorie und die Art ihrer Einführung", while Ernst Gehrcke elaborated on "Die Relativitätstheorie, eine wissenschaftliche Massensuggestion". One month later, Nobel Laureate Philipp Lenard was also involved in "denouncing" the theory of relativity.

You may say, all this happened many years ago; people now are open-minded and prone to consider different viewpoints, right? Well, it depends.

People invariably neglect any theory that may challenge their religious beliefs. If the theory gets published and gains influence, they won't keep quiet anymore, but will strike as harsh as they can. That's how religion works. What I mean is a very strong and sticky religion, known as 'anti-theism': if the universe does indeed function as a brain, the question of whether such brain may, or may not, have its 'mind' cannot be left to philosophers and theologians alone. It will be subject to rigorous quantum cosmology research, and nobody knows what the math could expose from 'the true monad without windows', say.

I suspect many theoretical physicists would hate to get very close to [John 1:1]. For example, how would these people comment on Virgil's statement Mens agitat molem (The Aeneid, Ch. 6, 727)? In German: Der Geist bewegt die Materie. Does time-orientability emerge only and exclusively only from physical (colored) stuff, in such fashion that the Unmoved Mover [Ref. 1] would be redundant? For if matter alone were the necessary and sufficient cause for time-orientability, it would have to be endowed with the faculty of self-acting, much like Baron Munchausen who pulled himself, along with his horse, out of the swamp by his own hair.

Many theoretical physicists would deeply hate to have their anti-theistic religion exposed. They love to picture themselves as 'objective scientists', while in fact they have only subscribed to different religions: they either deeply believe that God does not exist, or consider themselves "agnostics", which means they deeply believe there is nothing to believe in. And if you show them [John 1:1] and the Unmoved Mover [Ref. 1] with quantum gravity -- they will really hate you. Deeply indeed.

In October 2002, while preparing for a seminar at the Imperial College London scheduled on November 27th, I emailed Briton's leading expect in quantum gravity (my email from Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:34:51 +0300) and asked him to explain what kind of "time" is implied with the proverbial phrase 'moving points around in Diff(M)-invariance'. His reply (Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:46:34 +0100) was as follows:

"As for time, wrist-watches and Diff(M), one of the key things that emerged from all the discussions on the problem of time was that although it is true that, because of the Diff(M) action, no physical meaning could be attached to a point on the space-time manifold, a physical meaning *can* be attached to specifying a space-time location by the values of various physical quantities. Karel Kuchar is probably the person who has done most work on this, but it is something that number of people have remarked on in recent years. For example, \phi is a scalar field on the manifold and $X$ represents the space-time coordinate of a particle, then although \phi(x) has no physical meaning (if x is a point in the space-time manifold) nevertheless $\phi(X)$ *does* have a meaning: ie you can talk in a Diff(M)-invariant way about the value of a field where a particle 'is', and similarly for a trajectory. And, after all, general relativity does seem to work well as a theory, and yet I can certainly read the time on my wrist watch!"

Surely the notion of 'spacetime' is to be regarded as an adjective: just as we can't say "dark" without specifying what is "dark" and with respect to what, a bare spacetime manifold doesn't have any physical meaning; we need Type I matter fields to talk about "colored" spacetime, whereas any purely geometric, noncolorizable component of spacetime, such as 'pre-geometric plenum', the reference fluid of GR, and Anderson's absolute structures will be expelled from present-day GR [Ref. 1]: "The generator of change itself, the Hamiltonian, is a constraint only and thus has instantaneous character. This is why time is a mere label in the classical theory and disappears completely in the quantum theory" (Claus Kiefer).

But notice the last sentence from the email above: it contains a typical non sequitur. Surely GR "does seem to work well as a theory", but only for those cases in which we can apply its linearized approximation, say, to adjust the GPS system. GR for sure cannot work for CDM & "dark" energy, firstly, and secondly -- the fact that he "can certainly read the time" on his wristwatch is a profound mystery: the alleged dynamics of GR is "entirely generated by constraints", and the dynamical data "do not explicitly include a time variable" [Ref. 1]. Why not? Because his wristwatch can only read a linearized, change-in-space "time" modeled with 1-D Euclidean space, which is nothing but the (local mode of) time pertaining to the "colored" spacetime. Any input from the purely geometric, noncolorizable (global mode of) spacetime must be perfectly well hidden by the 'speed of light', rendering the local mode a perfect continuum. Stated differently, for a system of gravity coupled to matter fields  tµv  must be zero, or else "the ether would come back!" (Merced Montesinos).

Which brings us to the Equivalence Principle and the misguided search for 'the right answer to a wrong question' (MTW, p. 467): the "ether", with respect to which the global time [tau] from the Arrow of Space is defined, must be hidden in such a way that the energy-momentum inserted from it on the r.h.s of Einstein filed equation must remain a "dark" self-force. We must not be able to reach the Aristotelian First Cause, or else there can be no theory of relativity: "the ether would come back!" No 'energy conservation' can be elaborated within the linearized, change-in-space "time" (Sean Carroll), so the fact that Chris Isham can indeed read any time with his "wrist watch!" is a deep mystery -- nothing to do with those mundane cases of applying a linearized approximation of GR.

We take for granted that "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at the same time - D.C.) affected by, the other fields" (John Baez), correct? The metric "has a double role: it is a field variable and defines the geometry at the same time" (Laszlo Szabados, private communication), right? The key phrase "at the same time" pertains to the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, at which the two modes of time, global and local, coincide.

The resulting dynamics of GR resembles a school of fish: in the atemporal global mode of spacetime gravity 'knows about everything' and acts on the local (colored) mode of spacetime by the rule 'think globally, act locally', which makes the physical (colorized) interactions quasi-local. Hence any observable of the gravitational field is "necessarily quasi-local" (Laszlo Szabados).

There is no need to be a virgin to grasp the eternally present global time [tau] [Ref. 1] from the Arrow of Space; the brain uses it effortlessly.

More importantly, if the universe -- the only truly isolated system -- is wrapped by its own non-Archimedean 'global mode of spacetime', one could seek a modification of G F R Ellis' Finite Infinity to resolve the problem of "passing to an appropriate asymptotic regime such that all gravitational effects are localized inside of it" (Adam Helfer); from mathematical viewpoint, the current asymptotic spacelike regime is pure poetry, just like the statement by Bernard Schutz that "null infinity is very far away." Only Chuck Norris has reached it (twice).

The Arrow of Space is suggested to explain the quasi-local (colored) observables resulting from 'already completed', at each and every instant you look at your wristwatch, negotiations between the two sides of Einstein filed equation. The end result is a perfect continuum of quasi-local "points"  x  (see the animated picture below) at which the wegtransformierbar gravity must indeed be vanishing (present continuous; see the empty set (R) above). Notice also that the duration of the negotiations between the two sides of Einstein filed equation in the atemporal global mode of spacetime (the blue square) is zero, as recorded with Chris Isham's "wrist watch!": it can only read a linearized (polynomial) "time".
 


 


The global mode of spacetime in Flatland (adaptation from Bob Wald's textbook): the point  x  from the animation above is the only point from the local (colored) mode of spacetime, which coincides with the global mode. In 3-D space, the point  x  will inherit three symmetries from the global mode, known as CPT-invariance (charge symmetry cannot be shown in Flatland; it requires 3-D space). The atemporal correlations are simultaneous, and their "duration" is zero in the local mode. Notice that the point  x  is also the global instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, but we can physically (local mode of spacetime) observe only a composition of 'flashes' made by 'the speed of light' (see below). In GR textbooks, these 'flashes' are fused (flattened) like Photoshop layers, hence we end up with a timeless "trajectory" immersed in a dead frozen 4-D "block universe", in which time can evolve just as much as space can: "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes" (Robert Geroch). Yet GR textbooks shouldn't be blamed, because they cannot, and should not reveal the Unmoved Mover, or else there can be no theory of relativity. Which is why we need quantum gravity to explain the empirical fact that Chris Isham can indeed read the global time [tau] & the local, coordinate time with his "wrist watch!"


Well, Chris Isham wasn't interested in the implications from the requirement for general covariance, which "takes away from space and time
the last remnant of physical objectivity". Albert Einstein was, very much indeed, and was struggling to avoid it (cf. John Norton, pp. 802-804). To solace Einstein, it isn't about 'physical objectivity' and 'physical reality out there': yes, there is an underlying reality in spacetime, but it is an UNdecidable, pre-quantum, potential reality. Hence the unsettled issue with the "ripples" of the metric field: yes, GWs do exist, but we cannot detect them with devices that have access only to a linearized, change-in-space "time". At any instant  x  from 'the time read by our wristwatch' we observe an already completed, already linearized end-result from the negotiations between the two sides of Einstein field equation.
 


 

At this single instant,  x , the global time [tau] and the local, change-in-space "time" coincide, which is why we cannot detect with experiments any difference between gravitational and inertial mass: no difference can manifest itself "over" a single instant. And if we try to recover the true dynamics of GR solely from this single instant, we face the insoluble Cauchy problem.

Briefly, once you impose the mystery of 'time-orientability' by hand, along with the unwarranted assumption that "the spacetime and the metric are C" (R. Bartnik and J. Isenberg, p. 3), you cannot recover the true dynamics of GR with the physical stuff that you drop on this 'smooth spacetime' afterwards, and will be haunted by the problems of  C  forever -- check out Ioannis Raptis; details here.

Or take another renowned expert in quantum gravity, Lee Smolin. On July 22, 2010, he delivered a talk to a group of (very polite) kids, explaining his views on the so-called loop quantum gravity (LQG):



ISSYP 2010 - Keynote (Smolin)
Date: 22/07/2010 - 10:30 am
Length: 1 Hour 24 Minutes 34 Seconds
Title: Lee Smolin on Quantum Gravity
http://pirsa.org/10070034/

Lee Smolin, 01:23:28 - 01:23:56: "If there is a fundamental discreteness in Nature, how could all the universe with all its complexity (...) follows laws from something down to the fundamental scale? That's a great question. Do you think I know the answer?"

But is Lee Smolin genuinely interested in finding the answer? Because the answer is not in "loop quantum gravity". That we know for sure, firstly because Lee Smolin and most of his colleagues practice GR as bartenders.

The fine structure of the infinitesimal -- the empty set (R) -- is not covered in Smolin's diff geometry textbooks. The correct interpretation of the KS Theorem is not presented in his QM textbooks either.

Like a drunken man who has lost his keys in the dark, Lee Smolin is trying to find them under the street lamp, just because it is brighter there. In his last email from Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:30:25 +0000 (BST), he wrote: "don't refer me to web pages." Eight years and five months later, he could only offer a rhetoric counter-question to his audience.

The kids were very polite indeed, and perhaps didn't notice that what Lee Smolin did to them was not fair. It was not fair to tell kids only a selective portion from what he knows about quantum gravity, to promote his obsession with "loop quantum gravity" -- it is impossible in principle to recover the continuum of spacetime from those "loops", and "look around, and see as far as we like."

You can't achieve this 'test of the pudding' even with classical GR: "If the theory does not allow us, even in principle, to extend solutions arbitrarily far in one direction, it may be difficult to view this direction as a dimension of the world", says another proponent of LQG, Martin Bojowald, in arXiv:0807.4874v1, p. 12. Properly speaking, "GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable" (Carlo Rovelli, gr-qc/0604045v2, p. 4).

No need to read "web pages", Lee. Just read your book. It is impossible to recover the continuum of spacetime from your QM textbooks in the first place. Besides, the alleged "fundamental discreteness" at Planck scale is an illusion, because there is no "discreteness" in the non-Archimedean realm of 'pure geometry'.
 



Check out 'the quantum principle' and the Gedankenexperiment with four dice: there is no "discreteness" in the quantum world out there. The quantum of action is an artifact from the
linearized (polynomial) "time" of the measuring devices. If Nature were employing only such 1-D linearized time, the trajectory of a fish, negotiated with the school of fish in the global mode (cf. the Escher drawing above), would not be quasi-local but non-local; and it won't be continual but "quantized". To be precise, the quantized energy levels, proposed by Neils Bohr (electrons can be observed only in particular energy levels), are the stable configurations of 'the school of fish' -- every 'fish' selects one of these stable configurations to become its 'next state' along the Arrow of Space, and the transition is perfectly continual; more on November 25, 2015.

It is very difficult to describe properly the quasi-local kernel of spacetime -- the point  x  above -- with the 'time read by your wristwatch', because it will look sequential, as in the animated picture above. It will be certainly impossible to explain it with a poster. No way.

Back in July 2004, I was hoping to talk on these issues at GR17 (Workshop D1, Quantum General Relativity, chaired by T. Thiemann), but Thomas Thiemann, who was at that time with Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute, didn't allow me to talk. He downgraded my oral presentation to 'poster', then buried it in an evening poster session, and granted Lee Smolin three talks: 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).

I can only hope that Thomas Thiemann, Lee Smolin, and the like will not be in the Scientific Committee at the Einstein Conference in Prague next June. Will see. I will file my abstract next month and apply for oral presentation (not poster), hoping to recover "the last remnant of physical objectivity" in spacetime (Albert Einstein, Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik 49 (1916) 769-822) with the Arrow of Space. Will compete with all participants, both individually and en bloc. It will be great fun, as Karel Kuchar [Ref. 1] has already provided the ammunition: GR textbooks can only offer a linearized snapshot at one instant of time along the global time [tau], while the bi-directional "talk" between the two sides of Einstein field equation (cf. the 'pure geometry' smile of the Cheshire cat above) requires an Arrow of Space: Panta rei conditio sine qua non est.

Sorry, quantum gravity cannot be explained with a poster.


D. Chakalov
November 10, 2011
Last updated: December 30, 2011, 22:56:40 GMT

Truncated URL:
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague
 


[Ref. 1] Karel V. Kuchar, Time and interpretations of quantum gravity, in: Proceedings of Fourth Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, May 16-18, 1991 (World Scientific, Singapore), 1992, pp. 211-314.

"These are the laws of an instant in canonical gravity. (...) (T)he super-Hamiltonian constraint (1.2), (1.4) has no counterpart in electrodynamics. It is this constraint that ultimately yields the dynamics of geometry.

"Any reference to the hypersurface E --> M which carries the geometrical data gab(x), pab(x) is conspicuously absent in the constraints (1.1) - (1.4). The hypersurface E --> M represents an instant of time; the fact that it drops out of the constraints (1.1) - (1.4) underlines the problem of time in quantum gravity.
...

"In general relativity, dynamics is entirely generated by constraints. The dynamical data do not explicitly include a time variable."
-----------

Idem, Canonical quantum gravity, gr-qc/9304012v1, 8 April 1993.

"The third alternative is to say that because perennials are constants of motion, it does not matter when they are observed. (...) This does not make me too happy either. If all time [tau] is eternally present, all time is irredeemable."
...
"Perennials in canonical gravity may have the same ontological status as unicorns -- a priori , these are possible animals, but a posteriori, they are not roaming on the Earth. According to bestiaries, the unicorn is a beast of fabulous swiftness, strength, and beauty, but, alas, it can be captured only by a virgin [38]. Corrupt as we are, we better stop hunting mythical beasts."
-----------

Idem, The Problem of Time In Quantum Geometrodynamics, in The Arguments of Time, ed. by Jeremy Butterfield, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, p. 193.

 

 

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


Subject: Re: The dead-end of Ashtekar's quantization program
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:53:02 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Karel Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>
Cc: Abhay Ashtekar <ashtekar@gravity.psu.edu>

Dear Professor Kuchar,

I quoted from one of your fundamental articles at

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

Hope to see you and Prof. Ashtekar in Prague next June.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:13:51 -0700 (MST), Karel Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu> wrote:
[snip]
--------

Note: The only reply from Abby Ashtekar was an automated email from Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:53:05 -0500 (EST), "away from my mail". Which means that he has received my email above, but decided to keep quiet.

Look at the drawing below: What do you see?

 

 

According to the artist, these are "polymer excitations in the bulk puncture the horizon, endowing it with quantized area", but to me it looks just like cheesecake, only slightly overcooked (hence the cracks). My wife managed to produce it last year, without any advanced math. And it was delicious.

D. Chakalov
November 30, 2011

 

 

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





Subject: Re: arXiv:1205.2019v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 03:28:35 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkCMHEmiSapciT6YdNQggjzMeHBZ5Vd2rDydtsPXHr3aA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Alejandro Perez <perez@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>
Cc: Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Carlo <rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>,
José Antonio Zapata <zapata@matmor.unam.mx>,
Johannes Tambornino <johannes.tambornino@ens-lyon.fr>,
Lee Smolin <lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca>,
Erik Curiel <erik@strangebeautiful.com>,
Martin Bojowald <bojowald@gravity.psu.edu>,
Abhay Ashtekar <ashtekar@gravity.psu.edu>,
Hermann Nicolai <Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Hi Alejandro,

> Yes, I would like to know.

I provided link to p. 4 from your article at my web site, and wish to thank you for your discussion of the pitfalls from "treating the gravitational field according to the splitting given in Equation (1)." I'm afraid you haven't escaped from these problems, and never will,
because you can't.

Since your theory is "based on the Hamiltonian (or canonical) quantization of general relativity", it inherits all the problems from the initial splitting of spacetime, "thereby doing grave injustice to space-time covariance that underlies general relativity" (A. Ashtekar,
arXiv:gr-qc/0410054v2, p. 32). These generic problems, and the limitations they impose on your theory, haven't been made clear in your article. Do you read Karel Kuchar ?

You wrote: "The background independence of general relativity implies (Sic! - D.) that the canonical formulation of the field theory is that of a gauge theory with diffeomorphism as part of the gauge group. LQG is constructed by quantizing a phase space formulation of general relativity in terms of SU(2) connection variables."

But the background independence in the Hamiltonian formulation of GR is a *big* can of worms: check out Baron Münchhausen at

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

Unless you resolve the dynamics of GR, I don't think you could claim that you understand the seemingly innocent word "implies".

First things first, right?

I believe the spin foam approach to the quantization of gravity is dead wrong from the outset, firstly because it cannot -- not even in principle -- recover the smooth continuum at the length scale of tables and chairs, such that we could "look around, and see as far as
we can" (L. Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, p. 205).

One part of the continuum problem stems from the current formulation of GR: "If the theory does not allow us, even in principle, to extend solutions arbitrarily far in one direction, it may be difficult to view this direction as a dimension of the world", says M. Bojowald in
'Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World' (ed. by Vesselin Petkov, Springer, 2007, Ch. 8, p. 149).

So, with the current formulation of GR, you cannot recover what we call 'dimension of space'. Surely "the Hamiltonian analysis of general relativity is the basic starting point for canonical quantization", but why "formulating Hamiltonian general relativity in terms of
Yang–Mills-like connection variables", given the severe shortcomings of the initial Hamiltonian GR?

You also admit that "the very notion of space-time geometry is most likely not defined in the deep quantum regime", yet insist on "quantum theory that reproduces gravity in the semi-classical limit", and also deeply believe that a "spacetime picture would only arise in the semi-classical regime with the identification of some subsystems that approximate the notion of test observers."

I'm afraid that "semi-classical regime" is totally confusing statement, because the crux of the task is to find the phenomenon which can erect Lorentzian metric from the so-called spacetime foam "in the deep quantum regime".

That's the first off task of any quantum gravity program. Yours is set on a dead-end from the outset, with "the kinematical Hilbert space of LQG", because you haven't solved the initial problems from Quantum Theory,

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

... in such a way that we could "look around, and see as far as we can" (L. Smolin).

First things first, right?

I fully agree that if we want to get a quantum theory that reproduces gravity in the continuum classical limit "we should have a background independent formalism", but why you didn't quote Karel Kuchar regarding what 'background independent formalism' actually means ?

Would you like some references for your updated arXiv:1205.2019 v2 [gr-qc] ? Just wait for his forthcoming talk 'Canonical quantum gravity: Einstein's posthumous anathema'. You gonna love it :-)

Meanwhile, if you or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate. I will be happy to help, in my capacity of "just another crank" (Chris Isham).

Dimi


> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alejandro,
>>
>> Do you wish to learn why the spin foam approach to the quantization of
>> gravity is dead wrong ?
>>
>> Carlo doesn't care, but I guess you might be curious.
>>
>> Dimi
>

 


 

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


Adán Cabello, arXiv:1112.5149v1 [quant-ph]


In the example above, there are 4 sayings pertinent to 2 Platonic ideas. Notice that no set of such "measurements" can reveal the full spectrum of all potential explications of these 2 Platonic ideas. Likewise, the UNdecidable pre-quantum Kochen-Specker (KS) state does not correspond to any 'physical reality' about which we can expect 'yes-no' answers to our questions/measurements. It will offer only one answer: YAIN.

In Quantum Theory, the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state is 'one entity'. It pertains simultaneously to all possible measurements on a quantum particle, therefore if we try to "decompose" it in the case of one specific non-commuting observable, it will leave 'blank spots' and will be shifted into the "uncolored KS sphere" (Helena Granström, p. 2). This is a fundamental phenomenon, which has nothing to do with Bell's theorem.

To quote from Erwin Schrödinger (November 1950): “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 can observe the 'is or is not' "jacket" only at the length scale of tables and chairs; the UNdecidable pre-quantum Kochen-Specker state cannot fit in any Hilbert space. It keeps the genidentity (Genidentität, Kurt Lewin) of the physical (or "colored", after KS Theorem) quantum reality: check out the 1929 paper by Sir Nevill Mott here.

In the case of the "god particle", the solution proposed is here.


D. Chakalov
February 18, 2012
Last updated: April 11, 2012
------------------

 


Subject: Re: UNdecidable pre-quantum Kochen-Specker (KS) state ?
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:53:04 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxnySyHhKRNw0jyOCqSRdasgCSzOWVDwASS5N3PXjCChPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joel Ouaknine <Joel.Ouaknine@cs.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Felix Arends <felix.arends@gmx.de>,
Charles W Wampler <charles.w.wampler@gm.com>,
P K Aravind <paravind@wpi.edu>,
Mladen Pavicic <mpavicic@irb.hr>,
Norman D Megill <nm@alum.mit.edu>,
Jean-Pierre Merlet <Jean-Pierre.Merlet@sophia.inria.fr>,
Brendan McKay <bdm@cs.anu.edu.au>,
Matthew F Pusey <m@physics.org>,
Jonathan Barrett <jon.barrett@rhul.ac.uk>,
Terry Rudolph <tez@imperial.ac.uk>,
John Benavides <navarro@math.unifi.it>,
Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Dear Joel,

Thank you for your kind reply.

> We simply quoted the assertion from [11]. The crux of our paper focuses on
> computational methods for searching for Kochen-Specker vector systems, and
> we are merely taking the formulation of the problem as given.

I cannot write down 'the quantum state' (QS) for Hilbert dimensions 3 and above.

In the simple -- and highly misleading -- case examined in Feynman Lectures on Physics III, Quantum mechanics, 12-1, the context-dependent QS, after 'preparation', includes a zero term in the set of so-called "basic states":

QS => |1> = |++>, |2> = |+−>, |3> = |−+>, |4> = |−−>, KS = 0 .

In the case of Alice & Bob, the KS state is also zero; in the usual Hilbert space presentation, it will correspond to H dim = 0.

Briefly, the KS state can't "collapse", because the "probability" for its observation is *always* zero, like the invisible cat Macavity, which *always* shows up as KS state, but *only and exclusively only* when no-one is looking at it,

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

As Chris Isham put it in arXiv:quant-ph/0508225v1, Sec. 3.4, 'The question of normalisation', p. 16, "one never gets reduction to an eigenstate for which there is zero probability of finding the associated eigenvalue. Or, more precisely: such zero probability events are swept under the carpet as never happening."

The crucial difference in Hilbert dimensions 3 and above, and the crux of KS Theorem, is that we push the KS state to be explicated as 'observable', by writing down 'the full catalog of expectations values' after the 101 rule, and of course the KS state says -- no way José, you can never catch me in the uncolored KS sphere :-)

Best wishes,

Dimi


On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:57:41 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> In your latest arXiv:1111.3301v1 [quant-ph], p. 2, Footnote 4, you
>> wrote: "As pointed out in [11], such measurements 'commute', so the
>> order in which they are performed does not matter."
>> ---
>> [11] J. H. Conway and S. Kochen. The free will theorem. Found. Phys.,
>> 36(10):1441-1473, 2006.
>>
>>
>> Please check out
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Cecilia
>>
>> Your critical comments and suggestions will be highly appreciated.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Dimi Chakalov
>> http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague
>>
--------------

Note: The UNdecidable KS state, inferred from KS Theorem (Asher Peres, p. 196), does not suffer from any "non-commutativity" (cf. above), so if we choose two or more "incompatible frameworks", say, Sz = +1/2 AND Sx = +1/2 for a spin-half particle (Robert Griffiths), then the ontic state of 'the spin-half particle out there' cannot be presented with Hermitian operator: it will keep quiet, like in the incident with the dog below.

Notice also that the KS Theorem spells out the specific notion of 'quantum contextuality': it is not about some fictional case in which one could distill 'the quantum state' (QS) into a full set of context-dependent physical observables, all of which jointly possess well-defined values at particular instant, as read by your wristwatch, and then claim that these 'observables' didn't actually have well-defined values prior to fixing the experimental context, so they should have been 'contextual'. No. Such fictional case would correspond to some 'quantum kaleidoscope' that is being shaken by the 'context', after which all colored pieces acquire new, and again well-defined, values at particular instant. That would be a variation on the theme 'hidden non-local contextual variables'.

In our case, the UNdecidable pre-quantum KS state cannot be decomposed into 'observables' at the length scale of tables and chairs in principle: no way José !

For more than 80 years, people have been trying to bridge Quantum Theory and General Relativity solely from the "colored" explications of reality -- the unique message from Kochen-Specker Theorem has been swept under the carpet (just some "complement" to Bell's theorem, according to Wiki), while in GR textbooks the differentiable structure of spacetime is introduced by 'bartenders', obscuring the corresponding 'zero term': the
empty set R.

Consequently, GR bartenders [Ref. 1] face the fake problem of singularities: they "do not belong to the space-time which is only constituted by regular points", yet can "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" (José Senovilla). Even more: they keep talking about some black holes [Ref. 1], although nobody can rigorously define the notion of event horizon (not "apparent"), and called one of their artifacts "Schwarzschild black hole" -- it doesn't rotate and, most importantly, Karl Schwarzschild himself has proven in 1916 that black holes do not exist as 'physical reality' [Ref. 2].

We need a new, and much broader, form of reality (dubbed GPIs), which includes 'physical reality' as a limiting case: just shadows on Plato's cave, called here 'local (colored) mode of spacetime'.

As to the "black holes", it may be an effect of geometry: check out the so-called 'invariant finite templates', defined only in the global mode of spacetime. Now, these 'templates' have dual presentation: they define a finite chunk of space which looks 'the same' to an observer in the immediate vicinity of the template, but a distant observer will see it "distorted", as 'space being contracted' (CDM) or 'space being expanded' (DDE), as I tried to explain above. Suppose that such purely geometrical template, for some (unknown to me) reason, "shrinks" at particular location at the Milky Way galaxy -- people will imagine some anomalous "black hole", simply because they are 'distant observers', while a space traveler going into this area of "distorted" (relative to the distant observer on Earth) space template won't notice any change of his 'one meter' template: there are plenty of "points" -- uncountable infinity [Ref. 3] -- in such invariant finite templates to accommodate any "distortion" that can be seen by distant observes as contraction viz. expansion of space. Again, the CDM/DDE effect of gravity is of purely geometrical origin; it is wrong to search for some "non-baryonic cold dark matter", or "quintessence field" and the like for the opposite (DDE) effect. You just can fit so much anomalous matter in the universe. No way José !

To sum up, the breakdown of manifold differentiability [Ref. 3] was anticipated by Lucretius some 2060 years ago; the task to unravel the proper structure of the continuum is strictly mathematical.


D. Chakalov
November 21, 2011
Last updated: December 3, 2011

"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of Silver Blazes, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
--------


[Ref. 1] The Role of Mathematics in the Description of Gravitation
By Gerhard Huisken et al.,
http://www.aei.mpg.de/english/aS/more_GeomAnalysis/index.html

"When using a Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity, where space-time is considered in a suitable (3+1)-splitting of space and time, the Einstein equations give a prescription for the evolution of a three-dimensional curved space in time, driven by its own geometry and the matter fields present in the system."

Comment: A three-dimensional space cannot "evolve" without the Unmoved Mover (Karel Kuchar). What people call "time" is just a different view taken at one and the same entity, called 'spacetime'. It is one thing, as Hermann Minkowski explained back in 1908. Any "splitting" of spacetime is "contrary to the whole spirit of relativity" (Stephen Hawking). In GR, you have only a dead frozen "block" -- there isn't any outside-sitting observer equipped with some Akasha-like global memory and a special torch 'NOW' that can highlight some canonical data at some Cauchy surface, so that she could verify that the canonical data at this instant NOW (provided the spacetime is globally hyperbolic) are different than those "before" and "after", so something should have indeed been "driven by its own geometry and the matter fields present in the system," as stated above.


 


As Abby Ashtekar acknowledged in
arXiv:gr-qc/0410054v2, p. 32, "A common criticism of the canonical quantization program pioneered by Dirac and Bergmann is that in the very first step it requires a splitting of space-time into space and time, thereby doing grave injustice to space-time covariance that underlies general relativity. (...) Loop quantum gravity program accepts this price... "

... and for that reason it will never solve the Hamiltonian constraint problem nor the Hilbert space problem. In the context of canonical quantum gravity, these two problems are specific presentation (sort of 'translation' into the language of LQG) of the Unmoved Mover (Karel Kuchar) that has been deleted from the outset. People are actually trying to recover the Unmoved Mover from its distorted LQG presentations, but it simply ain't there. It is hidden in the purely geometrical structure of spacetime. Surely the Unmoved Mover works only if there are Type I physical fields dropped on this 'spacetime', yet it is a different entity altogether.

Compared this to the cases of 'time-orientability' and 'positive mass conjecture': people introduce them by hand because they are "obvious", but there is no way to derive them from the physical stuff alone, which inhabits such "space-time". If you postulate some Killing vector field out of thin air, you will be able to perform calculations and obtain results that match observational data perfectly well, simply because you employ a case-specific presentation of the Unmoved Mover. Or recall the Newtonian gravity: NASA has been using it without hesitation, with perfect practical results, although everybody knows that gravity doesn't travel "instantaneously". Why no errors? Because gravity does have an instantaneous component (global mode of spacetime), which makes matter coupled to, or rather bootstrapped by, gravity 'quasi-local'.

Going back to Gerhard Huisken et al.: "It has proven to be very fruitful to carefully study the change of geometric data on the 3-dimensional slices as time evolves in order to understand the overall behaviour of the system. Similarly, when tracking the horizon of a black hole through space-time one is naturally led to the study of 2-dimensional surfaces evolving in a 4-dimensional ambient space."

Comment: Once you sort out the intricacies of those 4-dimensional ambient spaces, you may be naturally led to consider the interiors of the supermassive black holes, as they may be inhabited by advanced Russian civilizations! No joke, Slava Dokuchaev has just published his theory in 2011 Class. Quantum Grav. 28 235015, with impeccable math and beautiful drawings. In principle, one can get information from the interiors of black holes by observing their white hole counterparts. Some additional highlighting during the night time would come from those eternally circulating photons (arXiv:1103.6140v4 [gr-qc], p. 10), as you might have already guessed. Read the paper and pass it to Slava Mukhanov.



[Ref. 2] Angelo Loinger, The black holes do not exist - "Also Sprach Karl Schwarzschild",
arXiv:physics/0402088v1
 


[Ref. 3] Anastasios Mallios and Ioannis Raptis, Smooth Singularities Exposed: Chimeras of the Differential Spacetime Manifold, arXiv:gr-qc/0411121v14

"One of the main reasons for singularities and the infinities that they are associated with is that the manifold picture of spacetime allows one, even if just in theory, to pack an uncountable infinity of events into a finite spacetime volume.
......

"Having learned that the world need not be Euclidean in the large, the next tenable position is that it must at least be Euclidean in the small, a manifold. The idea of infinitesimal locality presupposes that the world is a manifold. But the infinities of the manifold (the number of events per unit volume, for example) give rise to the terrible infinities of classical field theory and to the weaker but still pestilential ones of quantum field theory."



 

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

Subject: Re: Road Map to Success
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:02:59 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkLbDJ1i8boEnHCjBzk447sH1OHunkO0R29mtZZO7oPBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Suresh Srinivasamurthy <bs_suresh1963@yahoo.com>
Cc: Alex Ramm <ramm@math.ksu.edu>,
erast@hotmail.com,
Lev Okun <okun@itep.ru>,
Iegor Reznikoff <xxxx@yahoo.xx>,
Serge Krasnikov <gennady.krasnikov@pobox.spbu.ru>,
Dmitry Slavnov <slavnov@goa.bog.msu.ru>,
Andrei NB <novikov.borodin@gmail.com>,
Leonid.Grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk,
Stanislav.Babak@aei.mpg.de,
mukhanov@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de,
Daniil Yerokhin <denyerokhin@gmail.com>,
yrylov2006@yandex.ru,
Igor Novikov <novikov@tac.dk>,
Dmitri Novikov <d.novikov@imperial.ac.uk>,
Simon Kochen <kochen@math.princeton.edu>


Dear Mr. Srinivasamurthy,

> I thought of reach out and connect with you.

A road map to success may require solving tough mathematical puzzles, such as the one known since Plato. In case you've lost my preceding email, here's the link:

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

Alex Ramm would probably say, 'nel'zia obniat' neobniatnogo' (K. Prutkoff) -- “a spoken thought is a lie” (F. Tyutchev). Yet I think one can solve the task with math. Good luck.

Please reply to me only. Thank you.

Regards,

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


Note
: If we take into account the two modes of spacetime and GPIs, we can solve the puzzle (?) of cosmological time origin (Slava Mukhanov): in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, The Beginning cannot be reached for any finite duration of 'time as read by your wristwatch'. Just like the instant
" √0 " from Special Relativity, The Beginning does not belong to the local mode of spacetime, and neither is The End: these "two" -- in fact, ONE -- event(s) are hidden "inside" the fleeting instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space.



The "colored" (physicalized) presentation of the universe refers to the so-called local mode of spacetime, in which the age of the universe, as well as its origin and fate, are 'UNdecidable propositions' (K. Gödel) -- there is no direct link between the physical or "colored" state of the universe and The Beginning. The latter shows up only in the postulated (to accommodate GPIs) global mode of spacetime, as a finite time interval of 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years elapsed so far since [John 1:1]. Thus, once created by [John 1:1], the universe has been eternal in its local mode of spacetime, and there is no way, even by math, to actually hit The Beginning from the "colored" (physicalized) state of the universe. Hence the question mark (?) above. Yet in the global mode of spacetime the size and the age of the universe are always finite, and grow from 'time zero'.

People don't like the dual age model, and of course make blatant errors.

Notice also that there is no "curvature of space" in the global instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space: it's all about properties of the connection (R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira). The so-called tangent space from GR textbooks ("there is no natural way of identifying the tangent space at a point p with the tangent space at a different point q", Robert Wald, p. 8) and the notion of 'parallel transport along a curve' (ibid.) point to the global mode of spacetime.

To explain the latter,
suppose you're in a pitch dark room. You hold a torch in your hand, but want to "see" the darkness itself, before you observe the room with your torch. (The 'darkness itself' stands for the 'UNdecidable pre-quantum reality' above, which cannot fit into any Hilbert space whatsoever.) Obviously, your task is not feasible. With your torch, you can only observe the "colored" (after KS Theorem) presentations of 'the dark room', which are just 'shadows on Plato's cave'. To paraphrase Fyodor Tyutchev, a spoken thought is a "colored" thought.

If you take snapshots from the 'dark room' with your flash camera, and arrange these "colored" snapshots along a trajectory, the quantum-gravitational effects from the connection in the global mode of spacetime can indeed be FAPP zero, but only in classical physics and only if we imagine some 'flat spacetime'. We can never observe the global mode directly -- in present-day GR we can only infer the notion of 'geodesic' (Alan Rendall), "as a curve whose tangent is parallel transported along the curve, i.e., the covariant derivative of the tangent in the direction of the tangent vanishes" (Robert Wald, p. 8). The difference to these textbook hypotheses is in the treatment of 'quasi-local points' from the underlying manifold: each and every "point" is a nexus of already-completed atemporal negotiations (global mode) between 'the point' and 'the rest of the universe', hence one can develop a Machian Quantum Gravity from the outset, and explain the so-called "dark energy" from the GPIs in the global mode of spacetime.

Of course, people don't like the proposal, and prefer to talk about "dark energy" like parapsychologists, without being able to specify what stuff is "dark", and with respect to what. They also introduce time-orientability by hand, and stumble at those 96% "dark" stuff in the universe, which cannot fit in their GR textbooks.

More in Sec. Summary, pp. 35-36, in ExplanatoryNote.pdf; update due next June.


D. Chakalov
November 17, 2011
Last updated: February 26, 2012

 


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


Subject: Is general relativity 'essentially understood' ? arXiv:gr-qc/0508016v1
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 00:33:18 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxm1kpWFE46KnDBgX8XNV8E5M+WOtAJeVX_edbvW7ioa0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
helmut.friedrich@aei.mpg.de
Cc: Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>,
Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>,
Jiri Bicak <Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz>


Dear Dr. Friedrich,

I noticed your name in the list of confirmed speakers at
http://ae100prg.mff.cuni.cz/ae100prg_2nd_announcement.pdf

If possible, please send me your manuscript, on which your talk will be based, prior to the opening of the Conference in Prague. My intended talk (still waiting for opening the abstract submission next month) will heavily overlap with your paper in the subject line, particularly on three issues:

1. You wrote: "Doubts have been raised subsequently whether the notion of gravitational radiation referred to a real physical phenomenon (cf. [104]), but again the prediction has been confirmed convincingly."

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, and will also argue on a separate issue, that LIGO and the like cannot, not even in principle, detect GWs. Will refer to Hermann Bondi (energy transport by GW is "a fundamentally nonlinear phenomenon"), Hermann Weyl ,

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2371768

and Jürgen Ehlers, Sec. 5 in
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Ehlers.pdf

As you acknowledged in arXiv:gr-qc/0508016v1, the linearized field equations can "hardly be expected to provide reliable answers in situations involving strong and highly dynamical fields, it is useless for calculating radiation generated by the coalescence of black holes."

In my opinion, LIGO scientific collaboration doesn't have any theory whatsoever, because they cannot derive the 'weak limit' of GWs from strong GWs. Instead, they postulate that GWs can be modeled as 'propagating in flat spacetime' (Kip Thorne, Weak GW's in Flat Spacetime, Caltech's Physics 237-2002), and run against Hermann Weyl's 1944 article cited above.

2. You wrote: "It may be noted that ‘singularity’ is defined in the singularity theorems as the existence of a causal geodesic which is non-extendible and non-complete."

I will argue that the singularity theorems were derived under assumptions (cf. Alan D. Rendall, The nature of spacetime singularities, arXiv:gr-qc/0503112v1, p. 4) which are nowadays challenged by some 2700+ papers dealing with various issues of dynamical "dark energy". I also believe that the very idea of 'singularity' is an artifact from unjustified mathematical presumptions, usually placed in footnotes; for example:

Lars Andersson (June 27, 2004), The global existence problem in general relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/9911032v4, Footnote 1, p. 3: "All manifolds are assumed to be Hausdorff, second countable and C, and all fields are assumed to be C unless otherwise stated."

3. And finally, you wrote: "There is, however, still a large and potentially most important part of the theory we do not have access to, neither mathematically, nor theoretically, nor observationally."

I will offer some ideas to improve the 'physical objectivity in GR', referring to Einstein's statement that the requirement for general covariance "takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity",

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

Needless to say, I will be happy to send you my manuscript, at least one month prior to the opening of the Conference in Prague. Details at the link above.

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov


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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1201.3660v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:54:04 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=vPAr3cXTYhD-743pgeP_NDaEjJjbLv1ok-iaJ_162tw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: psj <psj@tifr.res.in>
Cc: Ted <newman@pitt.edu>,
Roger Penrose <rouse@maths.ox.ac.uk>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>,
George <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>


Dear Pankaj,

> Sorry if i was not clear enough, but it is
> very difficult to write long emails on such points
> which do involve lots of background information
> and technicality.

As a rule, the devil is in the details. Here, it is a tacit presumption which people consider "obvious". For example, in 1962 Penrose tacitly assumed that the spacetime would remain Archimedean

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v10/i2/p66_1

even at "future null infinity" (cf. Jonathan Thornburg below).

Just one example:

"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.)

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2009-6/articlese1.html#x4-10001

> The basic point remains the same,
> namely event horizon is a global object, which is
> not determined by purely local measurements.

Penrose wrote the article above in 1962. 60 years later, I think we should get serious about 'global objects in GR',

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

All the best,


Dimi


>>>>
>>>>> On 01/19/2012 07:59 AM, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Pankaj,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I provided link to your latest article at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Bengtsson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please send me a reference to a *rigorous* formulation of 'event
>>>>>> horizon' (not 'apparent horizon') -- "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," according to Jonathan
>>>>>> Thornburg (Event and Apparent Horizon Finders for 3 + 1 Numerical
>>>>>> Relativity,  lrr-2007-3).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dimi
>


Note: In a previous email, Pankaj Joshi suggested to look at 'Global aspects in gravitation and cosmology'. I quoted from p. 194, after which he responded as follows:

>>
>> Fig. 44 and p. 194 ("an achronal surface generated by null geodesics
>> which could have past end points in M but have no future end points")
>> are very unclear to me, just as any 'global property of an entire
>> spacetime' (Jonathan Thornburg).
>>
>
> An achronal surface is one no two points of which are
> timelike connected. This is always foliated by null geodesics.
> These can go up to infinity in future.

Nothing, achronal surfaces included, can be extended to "infinity in future". If you start from the local mode of spacetime, you cannot enter the global mode. No way.

I hope the status of Finite Infinity will be resolved by 2022, sixty years after Roger Penrose wrote the manuscript of the article cited above. As of today, nobody cares.

Nobody.

D.C.
January 21, 2012
 



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




Subject: Re: arXiv:1201.3765v2 [gr-qc]
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:53:37 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Diego Marin <dmarin.math@gmail.com>
Cc: Michal Chodorowski <michal@camk.edu.pl>


> With "expansion" I mean the growth of the 3D-metric, that is the 4D-metric projected
> over a Cauchy surface. It's this for every physicist :-)

It's self-referential parapsychology, because in current GR 'the 4D-metric projected over a Cauchy surface' can only be defined *with respect to itself*. Capiche?

Regards,

Dimi

>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Dimi Chakalov [mailto:dchakalov@gmail.com]
> Inviato: sabato 21 gennaio 2012 14.13
> A: Diego Marin
> Oggetto: Re: arXiv:1201.3765v2 [gr-qc]
>
> Hi Diego,
>
>> It's almost obvious that for G < 0 exists a cosmological solution whose
>> scale factor has a positive second derivative.
>
> First and foremost: Isn't it obvious that you cannot define 'expansion
> of space' w.r.t. itself?
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Heraclitus
>
> E sarà mia colpa se così è?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dimi
>
 



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


Subject: The identification of points, arXiv:1112.5318v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:30:47 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ingemar Bengtsson <ibeng@fysik.su.se>
Cc: josemm.senovilla@ehu.es, eli.waxman@weizmann.ac.il,
jthorn@astro.indiana.edu, demetri@math.ethz.ch,
mcohen@caltech.edu, tonyc@caltech.edu, scheel@tapir.caltech.edu,
Saul Teukolsky <saul@astro.cornell.edu>

Dear Dr. Bengtsson,

It seems that you've taken the 'identification of points' as something obvious and trivial in GR, and have put aside the complications that can arise from quantum theory, in the case of quantum spacetime,

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

Anyway, could you please send me a reference to a rigorous formulation of 'event horizon' (not 'apparent horizon') in FRW Cosmology? I extend this request to all your colleagues who are smart enough to understand (I can't) 'The Very End of Space and Time',

http://www.black-holes.org/gwa2-3.html

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov
------

Note: The Cosmic Censorship Conjecture stipulates that "black holes" may be lurking behind some "event horizons" that are "causally connected to future null infinity," and if we add Hawking radiation, "the hole could evaporate into nothingness." Read my mind.

As I mentioned previously, I was able to "understand" the Jabberwocky of "black holes" only once, in my freshman year in June 1972, and it didn't last long (MTW, p. 467).

In fact, the very hypothesis for 'geodesics' involves a perplexing paradox: if you imagine that gravity can indeed be eliminated 'at any point', and also believe that GR is a bona fide classical theory, then by summation of 'zero effects of gravity' at all points from the geodesic, it will disappear into Minkowski spacetime: "Locally all physics is as it is in Minkowski space. Gravity is in the way these local Minkowski spaces are connected. (...) Through this connection the metric gab becomes the glue that connects the local Minkowski spaces" (Olaf Dreyer, arXiv:1203.2641v1 [gr-qc], p. 3).

Which means that the proper GR should be some quasi-classical theory in the first place. As an analogy, nobody would claim that the "trajectory" of a quantum particle in Wilson cloud chambers is comprised from its "collapsed" states. Obviously (to me), the puzzle of quasi-classical GR is in its affine structure [Ref. 1] introduced by hand, to help us imagine parallel-transported vectors from one spacetime "point" to another. It is independent of the metric structure. It is a whole different entity.

Which brought me to FI 2nd Ed, some forty years after I had the impression that can "understand" GR. Sorry, nobody understands GR, especially the purely affine connection [Ref. 1, p. 112] and the "open sets" of the underlying manifold [Ref. 2].
 

D.C.
December 23, 2011
Last updated: March 14, 2012


[Ref. 1] Erwin Schrödinger, Space-Time Structure, Cambridge University Press, 1950.

p. 2:

p. 9:

 


[Ref. 2] James Dungundji, Topology, McGraw-Hill, 1988, p. 63.

 

 

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


G. W. Gibbons deeply believes in the picture below. I don't, for reasons explained by Pankaj Joshi and Daniele Malafarina, arXiv:1201.3660v1 [gr-qc].
 


Just read a recent announcement from the Institute of Physics: "Inside the box, gas and dark matter, a form of matter that interacts through gravity alone, were represented by 65.5 billion particles. (...) As a result, each gas "particle" had the mass of 57 million Suns, while dark matter weighed in at 280 million solar masses per particle."

All you need is people like G. W. Gibbons and "a humongous computer simulation". To help then pinpoint the "dark matter" which "interacts through gravity alone", look in Slava Mukhanov's 'Physical Foundations of Cosmology,' 2005, p. 203:

In the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model, "for every gauge particle we have a fermionic superpartner with spin 1/2, called a gaugino. Among these, gluinos are superpartners of gluons, and winos and the bino are the superpartners of the gauge bosons of the electroweak group. The gauginos mediate the interaction of the scalar particles and their fermionic partners, with a strength determined by the gauge coupling constant. The Higgs particle is accompanied by a higgsino. The lightest neutral combination of -inos (mass eigenstate), called the neutralino, must be stable; if supersymmetry were broken at the electroweak scale, it would interact weakly with
ordinary matter.

"Therefore, the neutralino (280 million solar masses? D.C.) is an ideal candidate for cold dark matter. To conclude our brief excursion to the “s- and -ino zoo,” we should mention the gravitino -- the spin 3/2 superpartner of the graviton which could also serve as a dark matter particle (280 million solar masses? D.C.). Thus we see that supersymmetric theories provide us with the weakly interacting massive particles necessary to explain dark matter in the universe."

If Jon Stewart had said all this, it would have been hilarious. But he isn't good in math.

D.C.
January 20, 2012
-------------------


Subject: Re: What is *event* horizon ?
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:33:15 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=mFC6VXz2tK+qJooEF1kUWHZTqyg4LGj3np8P7KefQ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: G.W.Gibbons@damtp.cam.ac.uk
Cc: Steven Giddings <giddings@physics.ucsb.edu>,
Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu>


Dear Dr. Gibbons,

Thank you for your reply from 12 Jan 2012 07:04:36 +0000.

> Standard definitions are provided in the well known textbooks of Hawking and
> Ellis, Wald etc etc and are extensivley discssued in the contemporary
> literature. Misner Thorne and Wheller is still an excellent introduction to
> General Relativty and the books by Hartle and by Carroll are als excelent.

The standard definitions of *event* horizon postulate it as "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," according to Jonathan Thornburg (Event and Apparent Horizon Finders for 3 + 1 Numerical Relativity, lrr-2007-3).

Which textbook cited above resolves this problem?

Notice that calculations using the 3+1 ADM formalism, as in lrr-2007-3, cannot be relevant to the brand new (to ADM) case of "expanding" space driven by some "dark" energy.

I will appreciate the opinions of Drs Giddings and Thornburg as well.

> Glancing at your Web site I would strongly recomend that you
> carefully study at least a few of these, since you appear not to be aware of
> the enormous amount of work on the subject in recent years.

I hope to understand what you meant by "few of these" in your professional opinion on the issues raised above.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:06:08 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Dr. Gibbons,
>>
>> I glanced at your latest arXiv:1201.2340v1 [gr-qc], and was struck by
>> your statement: "By "horizon" I shall mean "apparent horizon" ...".
>>
>> If possible, please let me know if you are aware of any sensible
>> definition of 'event horizon' in GR, given the problems with locality.
>>
>> I extend this request to Dr. Giddings as well, since I couldn't find
>> any hint to a proper 'event horizon' in his latest arXiv:1201.1037v1
>> [hep-th].
>>
>> The reason for my request is my tentative (awaiting approval) talk at
>> the Einstein Conference in Prague,
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Dimi Chakalov
>>
>
 

---------

Note
: G. W. Gibbons didn't even sign his email (original here).
Perhaps he will choose to keep quiet, like Carsten Gundlach. Or maybe he will reply, but in a manner similar to Prof. Gerard 't Hooft, that is, "transparently even to babies":  "R_abcd (x) = 0 FOR ALL VALUES OF ITS 4 INDICES, AT ALL POINTS x in this region of space-time." How is "this region of space-time" made separable from the rest of "regions" from the same spacetime is a bit of a mystery to the "babies".

Look at Introduction to General Relativity, by Gerard 't Hooft, 15 November 2010, pp. 25-26 (emphasis added):
 



Do you agree with Prof. G. 't Hooft ? What will happen to the Ricci tensor at the instant at which the Riemann curvature tensor has totally vanished ?
What could resurrect the Riemann tensor from the dead flat space in those "glued" domains in which "all coefficients [XX] can be made to vanish by choosing suitable coordinates" ? Angels ?

"Since the microwave background radiation (as well as the "dark" energy - D.C.) is everywhere and always, there can be nowhere where the Ricci tensor vanishes and therefore nowhere where the Riemann curvature tensor vanishes in a realistic physical model" (Maurice J. Dupre, private communication).

In my theory, I can be plus catholique que le Pape, by eliminating all traces from what is believed to be "curvature at a point" -- I don't use "curvature" as manifestation of gravity, but an entirely different object (cf. John's jackets). Once it casts its (quasi-local) "jacket", it must vanish completely at a point, because it is the gravitational, Macavity-like, version of the non-colorizable pre-quantum Kochen-Specker state. And I have no problems with 'the right answer to a wrong question' (MTW, p. 467) either. But this is Machian quantum gravity, and Prof. G. 't Hooft doesn't like it.

Anyway. Let's go back to the "event horizon".

The whole idea about "event horizon" is incredibly murky: "a global property of an entire spacetime" which is "defined nonlocally in time" (Jonathan Thornburg). We don't have such luxury in GR textbooks. As Matt Visser explained (arXiv:gr-qc/0204022v2, p. 3, emphasis added):

"Unfortunately, in general relativity one cannot simply assert that chronology is preserved, and causality respected, without doing considerable additional work. The essence of the problem lies in the fact that the Einstein equations of general relativity are local equations, relating some aspects of the spacetime curvature at a point to the presence of stress-energy at that point. 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."

I think the phrase "at a point" is a big can of worms, because any observable of the gravitational field is "necessarily quasi-local" (Laszlo Szabados). Moreover, you can't have 'stationary spacetime' (needed to match an "apparent horizon" to an "event horizon") in a universe dominated by "dark" energy.

I think we could have quasi-local and non-linear, due to gravity, interactions, with plenty of "dark" energy, only and exclusively only in the case explained here. The crucial object, otherwise known as 'particles of the reference fluid' [Ref. 1], is Einstein's "total field of as yet unknown structure". We just can't paint a picture without a colorless canvas that defines all "colored" stuff "everywhere and for all time" (Ciufolini and Wheeler, p. 270) dynamically -- one-at-a-time, along the Arrow of Space.

Of course, most people disagree with the dynamical 'quantum spacetime' (sometimes in a pretty colorful fashion), so I ask them to show some 'global constraint' (Matt Visser) or anything -- you name it -- responsible for the ubiquitous free fall, and to suggest some object with respect to which we can define the ubiquitous 'expansion of space', or at least the preferred reference frame in which people make "trivial" statements like ...

... but, strangely enough, they just don't reply.

Der Geist bewegt die Materie...  oder was ?


D.C.
January 13, 2012
Last updated: January 15, 2012, 22:48:48 GMT
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Der_Geist_bewegt_die_Materie.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78376220/Der-Geist-Bewegt-Die-Materie



[Ref. 1]
"The particles of the reference fluid identify the points of space, and clocks carried by these particles identify the instants of time." J.D. Brown and K.V. Kuchar, arXiv:gr-qc/9409001


 

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


Subject: Re: Is there 3-D space in classical GR?
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:49:03 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkJn-N5nGhUCP7-R_Q_V9=PMQ7FXYOn=4-A+9uDZpRApw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Ulrich H Gerlach <gerlach@math.ohio-state.edu>
Cc: cpsoo@mail.ncku.edu.tw,
hlyu@phys.sinica.edu.tw


Dear Dr. Gerlach,

It is difficult to me to overestimate the importance of your research on the quantum mechanical carrier of the imprints of gravitation, arXiv:gr-qc/9911019v1.

I agree that "a quantum mechanical comprehension of gravitation must start with a purely quantum mechanical carrier of its imprints", but my proposal about 'purely quantum' is quite different,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#thesis
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Gibbons
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Der_Geist_bewegt_die_Materie.pdf

Regarding my email sent almost nine years ago (cf. below): I think GR cannot explain 3-D space and its ubiquitous Eotvos property,

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

As to the two Rindler frames, which "(i) are accelerating eternally and (ii) are causally disjoint", I don't suggest some "half-silvered mirrors"

but a modification of Ellis' Finite Infinity, and place the four Rindler sectors I, II, P and F, along a hypothetical "direction" denoted with 'w' (from 'wunderbar', after Theodor Kaluza),

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

Should you or your colleagues are interested, please write me back. Anything you are not able to understand will be entirely my fault.

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov

-------------
Subject: Is there 3-D space in classical GR?
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:38:33 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: Ulrich Gerlach <gerlach@math.ohio-state.edu>

Dear Dr. Gerlach,

It is a great pleasure to read your papers.
[snip]


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

Note: Regarding my email to Ulrich Gerlach from Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:38:33 +0300, notice that GR does not explain the feature of space which we describe as "to look around, and see as far as we like" (L. Smolin; details from M. Bojowald). Ditto to 'time-orientability'. Properly speaking, "GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable" (Carlo Rovelli, gr-qc/0604045v2, p. 4).

Regarding the last link above, I used the German translation of the famous dictum by Virgil (Mens agitat molem, The Aeneid VI 727) to stress that Eq. 2 from FI (2nd Ed) resembles what John von Neumann denoted with 'Process II', while Eq. 1 refers to a perpetual, along the Arrow of Space, 'Process I' which can only be performed by God.

Yes, I know people hate [John 1:1] and will keep quiet. How about dual age cosmology ?

Things to remember: The "most irrational number" is the one with the most slowly converging continued fraction expansion. This is the number corresponding to the continued fraction 1+1/(1+1/(1+..., which is none other than the golden ratio.

The greatest common divisor of any two Fibonacci numbers is also a Fibonacci number; applications and explanation here and here.

The global mode of spacetime is an infinitely-connected space which facilitates the local (physical) mode with an "instantaneous", already-completed web of correlations. It cannot be modeled with non-linear differential equations; hence a new retarded (due to the Arrow of Space) form of causality (dubbed 'biocausality'),
defined in the reference fluid of GR.

To sum up, the global mode of spacetime, populated by GPIs, is postulated as a dual object, in the sense that its physical presentation is both a dimensionless geometrical "point" (S) and 'the infinite space' (L). It wraps the physical, 3-D space in all directions.

Any effort to catch the "god particle" from the local (physical) mode is doomed to fail. Also, any GW detector which does not have access to the global mode of spacetime is worthless.


D.C.
January 18, 2012
Last updated: January 29, 2012

Many people would rather die than think. In fact, they do.
Bertrand Russell

 

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


Subject: The Computing Spacetime, arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc], ref. [6]
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:45:55 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Fotini <fotinimk@gmail.com>, Fotini <fotini@perimeterinstitute.ca>
Cc: Seth Lloyd <slloyd@mit.edu>

Kalimera Fotini,

I think Seth Lloyd is right about the non-linear and self-acting dynamics of such "computing spacetime": the universe computes "its own dynamical evolution; as the computation proceeds, reality unfolds," ref. [6] in arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc].

Trouble is, only Baron Munchausen can perform such self-referential and self-acting self-computations, in 'present continuous', as they unfold. Any Turing machine will halt. Just imagine you singing with a mike, and a loudspeaker beaming your song right on your mike, to help you improve your singing performance *before* you sing any note from your song. Can you put this setup into a system of non-linear diff equations?

If you can't, look at

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

All the best,

Dimi
 

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


Subject: Johan Hansson, Anna Ponga, Pulsars: Cosmic Permanent 'Neutromagnets'? arXiv:1111.3434v1 [astro-ph.HE]
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:23:06 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Johan Hansson <c.johan.hansson@ltu.se>
Cc: Brian P Dolan <bdolan@thphys.nuim.ie>,
Hamish Johnston <hamish.johnston@iop.org>,
Alex Potekhin <palex@astro.ioffe.ru>,
Sachiko Tsuruta <uphst@gemini.msu.montana.edu>,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>

Dear Dr. Hansson,

Congratulations to you and Ms Anna Ponga for your outstanding article,

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48096

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27355/

May I ask a question. If neutromagnets have fields as high as 10^12 Tesla, can you suggest some trivial mechanism for losing kinetic energy, with the same dynamics as the binary system PSR1913+16, but not involving "GW emission" ?

As you may have known, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor were very lucky to discover the binary system PSR1913+16, in which one of the stars was a pulsar with period of orbit just eight hours -- extremely small by astrophysical standards -- hence they regarded it as a clock, and speculated further that the change in the period corresponded to the
rate by which the binary system were losing energy. Then Hulse and Taylor decided to explain the inferred loss of energy with "GW emission".

Namely, they applied the old Tanzanian saying: "How do we know that Father Christmas has a beard? We know it, because snow falls when he shakes his beard." But again, the rate of the "snowfall" was the only evidence in support of their wild guess.

PSR1913+16 was the first binary pulsar, discovered in 1974. As Brian Dolan explains, "a pulsar is a rotating dipole and rotating dipoles emit electromagnetic radiation, thus losing energy. This is not actually the source of the (EM) radiation that is directly observed. The electromagnetic pulses seen from a pulsar are due to radiation from beams of charged particles emitted along the axis of the dipole and sweeping past the Earth like a lighthouse beam." (Brian P. Dolan, Lecture Notes MP476: Cosmology, Sec. 2.14.3 Pulsars, September 21, 2010, p. 41).

By analyzing the changing Doppler shifts of PSR1913+16 (redshifted and blueshifted pulse periods), R. Hulse and J. Taylor inferred that PSR1913+16 should consist of two neutron stars, separated by distance roughly the radius of the Sun. Also, "the period first grew longer and then grew shorter in a cycle that took 7.75 hours" (Michael Seeds and Dana Backman, Horizons: Exploring the Universe, 11th Ed., Brooks Cole, 2009, p. 217).

I think LIGO "scientific" collaboration should explain how could "the period first grew longer and then grew shorter", and then eliminate all trivial explanations of the inferred loss of kinetic energy (e.g., Sachiko Tsuruta et al., Cooling of pulsars, Astrophysical Journal, 176 (1972) 739-744; Alex Y. Potekhin et al., The magnetic structure of neutron stars and their surface-to-core temperature relation, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 443 (2005) 1025-1028).

Perhaps you can suggest some mundane explanation of the loss of kinetic energy of PSR1913+16.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

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


"By 2020 at least 3-4 billion dollars will have been invested by a dozen national and international scientific organizations in building gravitational wave detectors on the ground and in space. Most of this money has already been committed, at least in a planning sense, and this has all happened even before the first direct detection of a gravitational wave! Where has today’s immense faith in general relativity come from?"

Bernard Schutz, arXiv:1203.3090v1 [physics.hist-ph], p. 4


Comment: There are two alternative interpretations of this fabulous quote.

1. Prof. Dr. Bernard F. Schutz, the Director of the Astrophysical Relativity Department of the AEI Potsdam and the Principal Investigator responsible for data analysis for the GEO600 collaboration (part of the LIGO "scientific" collaboration), has no clue whatsoever about the inherent problems of GW "astronomy". He's a total dilettante, and is not aware of the fact that he and his LIGO colleagues do not have any theory whatsoever about detecting GWs with LIGO, GEO600, VIRGO, etc. Subsequently, he has UNintentionally misled NSF and NASA, and therefore should not be kept responsible for wasting hundreds of million USD and Euro -- all taxpayers' money -- after the ultimate failure of the "advanced" LIGO and Virgo in 2014. Can't blame him, the guy knew nothing about GR.

2. Prof. Dr. Bernard F. Schutz is fully aware of the fact that he and his LIGO colleagues have neglected the only available theory of GWs developed in the 1960s. In fact, he was agonizingly clear about the unsolved problems with the "linearized approximation" of GR for detecting GWs ten year ago, on August 2, 2002. Yet he prefers to keep quiet and has prepared a 'Plan B' for the ultimate failure of the "advanced" LIGO and Virgo in 2014:

"It is worth reminding ourselves why and where GR might fail. (...) Any such failure of GR should point the way to new physics." (B. F. Schutz et al., arXiv:0903.0100v1 [gr-qc])

In other words, it's all about the cash flow for GW "astronomy". Bernie Schutz doesn't want to acknowledge that he and his LIGO colleagues do not have any theory whatsoever about detecting GWs (cf. the two if-s below), because the funding will stop, and they will have to start from scratch, that is, from the only available theory of GWs developed in the 1960s.

It's all about money. Not Bernie Schutz' money, but the money earned with hard labor by millions of people. He acts like a little girl who points to some doll and says, 'I want this Barbie!' But he is smart, and has prepared the 'Plan B': put all the blame on GR.

Only Bernie Schutz and his LIGO colleagues do not have any theory whatsoever -- check out the two if-s below. Their wishful thinking is based on a non-existing theory, which has nothing to do with GR. In fact, it is impossible to derive some "weak limit" from strong GWs with the existing GR. Bernie Schutz is fully aware of this problem, but prefers to keep quiet. He is indeed an expert in GR, but is addicted to the money from NSF (Beverly K. Berger <bberger@nsf.gov> , Program Director for LIGO Project, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 292-7373; Pedro Marronetti <pmarrone@nsf.gov> , LIGO Research Support Program, (703) 292-7372).

As Johann Makowsky put it (The Jerusalem Post, 19 April 1985):

"Overfunded research is like heroin: It makes one addicted, weakens the mind and furthers prostitution."

Let me repeat it again: If I am banned from talking at the Einstein Conference in Prague this year, I will have no choice but to take the appropriate actions against the cover up of the enormous waste of taxpayers' money by LIGO "scientific" collaboration.

I will not tolerate any communist censorship on behalf of the Scientific Organizing Committee of the Einstein Conference in Prague: Bernard Schutz has been invited (Sic!) to talk about "observing the Universe with gravitational waves", while I still have no confirmation that my talk (abstract submitted in December last year) will be approved.

Those who support and contribute to the cover up of the enormous waste of taxpayers' money by LIGO "scientific" collaboration, by rejecting my talk at the Einstein Conference in Prague, will be duly exposed. The scandal with NASA and NSF will be just enormous: the only available theory of GWs has been deliberately ignored !

Yes, I will expose the dirty little secrets of LIGO "scientific" collaboration -- if only I am allowed to talk at the Einstein Conference in Prague.
 

D. Chakalov
April 5, 2012
Last updated: April 6, 2012, 11:53 GMT


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





Note
: "Kip Thorne had no difficulty in 1981 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." (Daniel Kennefick, Traveling at the Speed of Thought, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2007, p. 1.)

What do you do, then? Raise the requirement for "LIGO sensitivity" and ask for more cash.

I stated above that those 800+ physicists from LIGO "scientific" collaboration (LSC) do not have any theory whatsoever. Despite five (or more) consecutive failures, their persistent dream that the "enhanced sensitivity" of the so-called advanced LIGO and advanced Virgo might produce "GW astronomy" in 2014 is still grounded on a wild guess which has nothing to do with General Relativity.

This wild guess involves two "if"-s. First, the prerequisites.

Suppose you have a weather thermometer: you know that it cannot measure the temperature at the surface of the Sun, but you know how to calculate it, because you have a proper theory about the Sun -- not just a weather thermometer.
 


For comparison, suppose some people have designed a weird thermometer, based on a bunch of speculations which run against everything we know about the Sun: they have no right to claim that they might eventually measure anything related to the Sun. In the case of LIGO "scientific" collaboration, they need some totally new
"quadrupole formula", or whatever they choose to call it, applicable to very strong GWs, from which they can derive a brand new "weak quadrupole formula", or whatever they wish to call it, similar to the "weather thermometer" of very weak GWs.

It is impossible in GR to derive any weak limit of GWs from very strong GWs. What they actually need is an arbitrary weak limit, such that their dimensionless ghost, called GW amplitude, would fade out asymptotically toward zero. Then they need to compare such (nonexistent) theory of arbitrary weak limit of GWs with the spacetime of Special Relativity, and find the exact area of veeeeery weak GWs at which one could safely swap the spacetime of their (nonexistent) theory with Minkowski spacetime -- some area of fading GWs, in which they would still be 'strong enough' to produce some observable (in the future) effect, yet 'weak enough' to leave the background spacetime FAPP undisturbed. Once the LSC experts attach numerical values, with acceptable error margins, to the parameters specifying the conditions 'strong enough' and 'weak enough', they will have to convince us that their second task is not an oxymoron.

So, their wild guess is as follows: if (#1) it were possible (but it isn't) to develop such theory of arbitrary weak limit from strong GWs, and if (#2) one could indeed swap the spacetime from such (non-existent) theory with Minkowski, then one could legitimately teach Weak GW's in Flat Spacetime (Kip Thorne, Caltech's Physics 237-2002) and spend hundreds of million USD and Euro -- all taxpayers' money -- for GW astronomy.

Once LSC resolve the two if-s, they should be able to estimate the quantum effects in the physical object, expected to 'stretch 'n squash' by "something that is dimensionless" (exact quote from Kip Thorne) over "2.3×10-26", and finally solve the SBG problem of LIGO, Virgo, LISA, eLISA, and the like.
 





Of course LIGO and Virgo, no matter how "advanced", will again fail miserably. What is particularly alarming is their 'Plan B' prepared for their next failure in 2014:

"It is worth reminding ourselves why and where GR might fail. (...) Any such failure of GR should point the way to new physics." (B. F. Schutz et al., arXiv:0903.0100v1 [gr-qc])

Nope. GR will not "fail", because their wild guess has nothing to do with GR. They do not test GR with such wild uneducated guess. These 800+ physicists have only wasted money earned with hard labor by millions of people, and have scheduled to waste much more -- in the range of billions -- with LISA.

Yes, GWs exist, but the current "detectors" are blind and deaf to the non-linear transport of energy by GWs (if #2): it cannot "filter" through Minkowski spacetime. As Hermann Weyl demonstrated in 1944 (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".

You kill the very effect you wish to measure with "GWs in flat spacetime". The assumption that by reaching the "advanced" LIGO these waves will be "very weak" is irrelevant. It makes no sense to "enhance the sensitivity" of what has been a dead turkey from the outset.

The popular statement like 'the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar has been losing energy exactly according to the quadrupole formula for gravitational radiation' (Eduardo Guendelman, private communication) can be accepted  iff  LIGO "scientific" collaboration can suggest some non-linear theory of energy transfer by very strong GWs, then derive some brand new "strong quadrupole formula", or whatever they call it, for such very strong GWs, and finally suggest some "weak quadrupole formula", or whatever they wish to call it.

Understanding the nature of GWs is of utmost importance for elucidating the tug-of-war (DDE vs. CDM) effect of gravity, namely, the possibility for "stretching" and "squashing" the very distance between points in spacetime: with respect to what ?

NB:
The proper GW detectors must be endowed with the faculty of 'self-acting': the unique phenomenon resulting from
the non-linear transport of energy by GWs. To be precise: in the presence of gravity, matter can act on itself. A bit more precise: "the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is (at that same instant - D.C.) affected by, the other fields" (John Baez). Each and every instant from this fundamentally non-linear global time is the nexus of an already-completed negotiation between the two "hands" in the Einstein filed equations.

 


This is the non-linear and self-acting phenomenon we need to study and explore. Forget about the "splitting of spacetime", after ADM -- it can offer only one linearized instant from the non-linear global time, in which the self-acting faculty of matter is frozen:
 




George F. R. Ellis, arXiv:gr-qc/0605049v5, footnote 3: "We do not consider here the possible variants when quantum gravity is taken into account."

 

In my opinion, the gravitational "field" and its "ripples" are not directly coupled to matter and quantum fields. The latter interact with themselves via their GPI field generated by the Arrow of Space. From physical point of view, gravity is essentially "dark" (much like biochemistry does not involve any "biofield" or "bioparticles" corresponding to "gravitons").

Any "displacement" of the spacetime itself can be defined only in the reference fluid of GR, which in turn requires upgrading General Relativity with what Albert Einstein envisioned as "a total field of as yet unknown structure".

Things like "graviton", "gravitomagnetism", "stress-energy tensor for gravitational waves", or "mass-energy m of gravitational waves" (MTW) do not exist. You have the same phenomenon of purely geometrical nature right above your neck: you think about your brain, by your brain, hence your brain is 'self-acting'. Physically, you cannot observe your "mind" in your brain -- just a self-acting brain. Any linearized GR will eliminate from the outset the non-linear and self-acting phenomenon you wish to measure and explore.

LIGO is for the birds.

To sum up, LIGO "scientific" collaboration have misused the linearized approximation of GR, by eliminating from the outset the non-linear effect they wish to measure and explore. Their wild guess has nothing to do with GR, firstly, and secondly -- if we consider their linearized approximation as 'physical theory', we reach totally ridiculous statements, such as the SBG problem -- reductio ad absurdum. Check out my gentle suggestion here.

When is enough, enough? Will find out in Prague next June, provided I am allowed to talk and to expose the dirty little secrets of LIGO "scientific" collaboration.

Ceterum autem censeo, LIGO esse delendam.


D. Chakalov


P.S.
If I am banned from talking at the Einstein Conference in June, I will have no choice but to take the appropriate actions against the cover up of the enormous waste of taxpayers' money by LIGO "scientific" collaboration -- à la guerre comme à la guerre.


D.C.
December 18, 2011
Last updated: February 7, 2012, 11:31 GMT

 


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


Subject: Re: Request for opinion
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:49:30 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkjEJ5AgZcY0Q3NiRB_KtibH94R=cnz-n+2GkUSRyxHRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Evangelos Melas <evangelosmelas@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: Josh Goldberg <goldberg@phy.syr.edu>,
Ted <newman@pitt.edu>

Dear Professor Melas,

Thank you very much for your reply.

> I am not familiar with the working particulars of Ligo.

Please see Ruben Aldrovandi and Jose Geraldo Pereira at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Ruben_Jose

General considerations at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#LIGO_Prague

> On the theoretical side the following elementary
> considerations are in order. The standard approach to gravitational waves
> produced by a distant source assumes that the Minkowski metric

Please see Hermann Weyl at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2371768

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

> The general expression of the BMS-invariant metric βμν has been shown to be not
> invariant under the Poincar´e group, except in the particular case when
> the source collapses into a spherically symmetric system. It follows that the
> correct wave equation will also be invariant under the BMS group,
> written with the BMS-invariant metric. I think that this is not the wave
> equation used in LIGO considerations.

Thank you. LIGO "scientific" collaboration (800+ people) do not use wave equation invariant under the BMS group, written with the BMS-invariant metric. They just ask for more money.

Regrettably, Josh Goldberg and Ted Newman don't want to raise their voice and expose the essential errors of LIGO "scientific" collaboration. I hope you will do it.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


> ________________________________
> From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
> To: Evangelos Melas <evangelosmelas@yahoo.co.uk>
> Cc: Josh Goldberg <goldberg@phy.syr.edu>; Ted <newman@pitt.edu>
> Sent: Friday, 30 March 2012, 15:23
> Subject: Request for opinion
>
> Dear Professor Melas,
>
> May I ask for your opinion on the efforts of LIGO "scientific"
> collaboration to detect GWs, given the fact that they have ignored the
> correct approach from the Bondi-Metzner-Sachs group -- "an unavoidable
> consequence of the presence of gravitational waves in General
> Relativity", as you put it (2011 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 283 012023).
>
> The opinion of your colleagues will be greatly appreciated, too.
>
> My opinion is posted at
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#LIGO_Prague
>
> General considerations at
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#affine_connection
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dimi Chakalov
>
 

 

===========================
 

Subject: Re: Johan Hansson, Anna Ponga, Pulsars: Cosmic Permanent 'Neutromagnets'? arXiv:1111.3434v1 [astro-ph.HE]
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:24:00 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Johan Hansson <c.johan.hansson@ltu.se>
Cc: Brian P Dolan <bdolan@thphys.nuim.ie>,
Hamish Johnston <hamish.johnston@iop.org>,
Alex Potekhin <palex@astro.ioffe.ru>,
Sachiko Tsuruta <uphst@gemini.msu.montana.edu>,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Gabriela González <gonzalez@lsu.edu>,
Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>,
Luca Bombelli <bombelli@olemiss.edu>


Update today at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#LIGO_Prague

Wishing you a nice white Christmas,

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

----------

Note: Quote from Clifford M. Will (27 March 2006): "The wave propagates in the +z direction. There is no displacement out of the plane of the picture."



The picture above (click to enlarge) isn't about Flatland, but "Polarization of gravitational waves". The 3-D space of GR has been custom-made non-isotropic, in the sense that the (longitudinal) direction of GW propagation, the " +z direction", is excluded from the "displacements" of the test body. According to LIGO "scientific" collaboration, physical bodies can respond to GWs only in the x/y plane. The " +z direction" is not connected, by any means whatsoever, to the x/y plane, which is why a physical body can enjoy GWs only within the x/y plane. It shouldn't dare to 'stretch and squash' along the direction of GW propagation, or else "the result would be disastrous" for C. M. Will and his colleagues.

 



Markus Pössel, "The wave nature of simple gravitational waves",
Einstein Online, Vol. 2 (2006), 1008
(Click the image to see the animated "gravitational waves")


To show the "propagation" of GWs in 3-D space, I modified Fig. 22.1 from B. Schutz' book cited above, and inserted one red dot to accommodate the three directions in space (not shown) orthogonal to the h/t plane below.
 




"Each polarization has its own gravitational-wave field," says Kip Thorne. To decipher this tantalizing statement, notice that the "displacement" produced from the '+' GW field and the 45-degree-shifted "displacement" from the 'x' GW field must not overlap in 3-D space (not shown above), to ensure that the test body will receive clear and distinguishable "displacements", with (i) perfect timing along the horizontal line  t  (as read by the clock of LIGO's operator), and (ii) exact shifting of 45 degrees in the "orientation" of the two "polarizations",  '+'  and  'x' , in 3-D space (not shown above); details in the so-called
SBG problem of "GW astronomy". Also, the black vertical line depicting the alleged GW amplitude  h  ("something that is dimensionless," exact quote from Kip Thorne's Physics 237-2002) must not be projected on any of the three spatial axes (not shown above) passing through the red dot, or else  h  will acquire dimensionality, in [meters]. The dimensionless  h  has been coupled only to the horizontal line  t  depicting 'time read with a clock'. Details in Bernard Schutz et al., arXiv:0906.4151v1 [astro-ph.CO]:
 


Well, I call this 'GW parapsychology'.

Again, C. M. Will, Kip Thorne, and their LIGO colleagues claim that the GW can propagate only in the +z direction, along which "there is no displacement": all of the "displacement" is confined in the x/y plane. As B. Schutz explained in his book (cf. above), "The fact (there are no "facts" here - D.C.) that gravitational waves are transverse and do not act like the Moon does on Earth implies that they are not part of the curvature of time, since that is where the Newtonian forces originate. They are purely a part of the curvature of space (emphasis mine – D.C.)." I am unable to understand such GW parapsychology.

As to the L-shape of LIGO tunnels (the "invariance angle"), it was derived from an article which Kip Thorne has read as a student "around 1960".

C. M. Will and his 800+ LIGO colleagues should study arXiv:0709.1603v1 [gr-qc] by Ruben Aldrovandi et al. and arXiv:0809.2911v2 [gr-qc] by Jose Geraldo Pereira et al. [Ref. 1], in order to understand the "nonlinear oscillations along the direction of propagation. This is the signature a gravitational wave will leave in a detector, the effect to be looked for."

But they will never study anything that could jeopardize their GW parapsychology. They only ask for more money for the "advanced" LIGO and Virgo. Forget it.


In general, Ruben Aldrovandi et al. reminded us that a "fundamental characteristic of the Yang-Mills field is that it carries its own charge, as for example the color charge carried by gluons in chromodynamics. The Yang–Mills field, therefore, is essentially nonlinear — otherwise it is not a Yang-Mills field" [Ref. 1]. More succinctly (ibid.): "the gauge field of Chromodynamics must be nonlinear to transport color charge."

In the framework of the theory suggested in Sec. Summary of ExplanatoryNote.pdf (pp. 35-36), the "total field of as yet unknown structure" (A. Einstein) is also carrying its own 'source', in the form of GPIs of positive & negative "charges", by an Arrow of Space, such that every instant 'now' corresponds to a re-created physical universe (local mode of spacetime), in which the negative "charge" has already been totally canceled (notice that the dynamical, positive-charge remnant from this cancellation is not exactly zero).

It is just like the mysterious cat Macavity [Ref. 2], which is always present when there are no physical observers to test it -- any time we look at it, it has already disappeared. Whether one can catch Macavity "along" null intervals [Ref. 3] is very much an open question.
 

D.C.
December 26, 2011
Last updated: December 28, 2011
 


[Ref. 1] Ruben Aldrovandi et al., The Nonlinear Essence of Gravitational Waves, Found. Phys. 37, 1503-1517 (2007), arXiv:0709.1603v1 [gr-qc]; Jose Geraldo Pereira et al., Nonlinear Gravitational Waves: Their Form and Effects, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 49, 549-563 (2010), arXiv:0809.2911v2 [gr-qc].


[Ref. 2] Adam Helfer,
Are Negative Energy Densities Detectable? arXiv:gr-qc/9709047v1

"T. S. Eliot described a ‘mystery cat,’ Macavity, responsible for all sorts of mischief, but when the crime’s discovered, Macavity’s not there! I investigate the negative energy densities predicted by relativistic quantum field theories, and find they have a similar character. The energy in a region, plus the energy of a device which detects it, must be non-negative. Indeed, as far as has been checked, the total four-momentum density, of the field plus the observing device, must be future-pointing.

"In consequence the semi-classical Einstein equation can at best describe negative energy-density effects only as long as no observers are present to test it: Macavity, Macavity... he breaks the law of gravity."


[Ref. 3] Kevin Brown, Locality and Temporal Asymmetry
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-09/9-09.htm

This leads to the view that the concept of a "free photon" is meaningless, and a photon is nothing but the communication of an emitter event's phase to some null-separated absorber event, and vice versa.
.....

Taking another approach, it might seem that we could "look at" a single photon at different distances from the emitter (trying to show that its phase evolves in flight) by receding fast enough from the emitter so that the relevant emission event remains constant, but of course the only way to do this would be to recede at the speed of light (i.e., along a null interval), which isn't possible. This is just a variation of the young Einstein's thought experiment about how a "standing wave" of light would appear to someone riding along side it. The answer, of course, is that it’s not possible for a material object to move along-side a pulse of light (in vacuum), because light exists only as completed interactions on null intervals.
.......

This image of a photon as a single unified event with a coordinated emission and absorption seems unsatisfactory to many people, partly because it doesn't allow for the concept of a "free photon", i.e., a photon that was never emitted and is never absorbed. However, it's worth remembering that we have no direct experience of "free photons", nor of any "free particles", because ultimately all our experience is comprised of completed interactions. (Whether this extends to gravitational interactions is an open question.)

 

 

 

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



Subject: Multiverse ?
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:43:43 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Courtney Seligman <courtney@cseligman.com>
Cc: Baron Rees of Ludlow <mjr@ast.cam.ac.uk>,
alinde@stanford.edu, vanchurin@stanford.edu

Dear Professor Seligman,

I was struck by your statement at
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/2011/10/whole-shabang.htm

"For the Multiverse, the chance of its existing is a 9 or 10. The chance of observing any other part of it is a 0."

I am not aware of any meaningful way of defining probabilities about anything in some "multiverse". To begin with, Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin tried to estimate the number of universes with different geometrical properties in the "multiverse", and came out with a typical Russian number (arXiv:0910.1589v2, p. 3, Eq. 3).
 


 

I wonder if you can help.

Kind regards,

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


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



Subject: arXiv:1203.0952v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:34:47 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Brandon Carter <brandon.carter@obspm.fr>
Cc: Steven Weinberg <weinberg@physics.utexas.edu>,
Don Page <profdonpage@gmail.com>,
Roger Penrose <rouse@maths.ox.ac.uk>


Hi Brandon,

You quoted Steven Weinberg: "Of course everything is ultimately quantum mechanical: the question is whether quantum mechanics will appear directly in the theory of the mind, and not just in the deeper level theories like chemistry on which the theories of the mind will be based."

The Marxist-Leninist views of Steven Weinberg are not surprising, but why would you endorse such crap ?

Look first in your field of expertise:

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

Take care,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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


Subject: The classical limit
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:02:42 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Basil <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk>
Cc: Maurice de Gosson <maurice.degosson@gmail.com>,
maurice.de.gosson@univie.ac.at

Dear Basil,

You mentioned, in your latest arXiv:1111.6536v1 [quant-ph], that a "merit of our approach is that the classical limit emerges naturally without any need to appeal to decoherence." May I suggest to test your ideas with the case examined by Mott,

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

I think it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for your theory to reproduce and explain Mott's 1929 paper.

It's not about probabilities for selecting the direction of particle's propagation in Wilson cloud chamber, as "explained" by Heisenberg in 1930. It's all about energy exchange between a single quantum particle and its classical environment, so you have all QM at a glance -- the proof of the pudding for your earlier statement in arXiv:1001.4632v2 [quant-ph] that "the answer ultimately lies in information theory".

All the best,

Dimi
 

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

Subject: Re: The classical limit
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:27:50 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk>
Cc: Maurice de Gosson <maurice.de.gosson@univie.ac.at>,
Maurice de Gosson <maurice.degosson@gmail.com>

Dear Basil,

> Thank you for the reference to the discussion of Mott's work. I am very
> familiar with the paper just having written a paper explaining just how we
> see the Bohm theory explains Mott's result:- de Gosson, M., and Hiley, B.
> J., Zeno Paradox for Bohmian Trajectories: The Unfolding of the
> Metatron. quant-ph/1001.2622.

I am very familiar with your arXiv:1010.2622v3 [quant-ph], the notion of ‘quantum potential energy’, and your efforts to explain how continuous observation “dequantizes” quantum trajectories with the quantum Zeno effect.

With the new terminology proposed on p. 4 you posed the question, "What will the trajectory be if we continuously monitor the metatron?"

You quoted Heisenberg’s statement: “By path we understand a series of points in space which the electron takes as ‘positions’ one after another” (p. 13, footnote 2), so if you and Maurice insist on "Hamiltonian character of these trajectories", please explain these sequential ‘positions’ at which you have simultaneously TWO LAYERS, quantum and classical, of *energy exchange*: the first keeps the imaginary phases of the single quantum particle vs. the second one which corresponds to the observed water molecules (the track in Wilson cloud chamber).

With your approximation technique briefly mentioned on p. 14, you and Maurice claim "... which goes to zero when N --> ∞", and "short enough time" (p. 15).

Sorry, this "short enough" is not going to work. You have continuous energy exchange between the TWO LAYERS, which leads to the observed classical trajectory on the second layer, like the trails left in the sky from a jet plane. Then you have to explain both trajectories, on both layers.

Mapping the two layers over a finite time interval, as recorder with your wristwatch, is a formidable challenge, which you and Maurice haven't solved, simply because you can't. If you could, you will "derive" some time operators in your version of QM: reductio ad absurdum.

If you wish to respond professionally, please read carefully my initial email at

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

Recall also my email from Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:16:16 +0300, subject "The actualization of beables". As you stated in your interview in 1997, the notion of implicate order "is not presented as final form, so it needs a lot of exploration and debate." I will be happy to help.

Again, can you "derive" some time operators in your version of QM ?

All the best,

Dimi

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:02:42 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>  wrote:
[snip]
------------

Note: The good thing about math is that you can't disguise your errors with expressions like "... which goes to zero when N --> ∞", and "short enough time." Once you calculate the exact value of this "short enough time", the problems with reproducing the energy dialogue between the single quantum particle and its monitoring/observing macroscopic counterpart become agonizingly clear.

D.C.
November 30, 2011

 


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



Subject: Nevill Mott
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:42:40 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
vishnu@neo.phys.wits.ac.za, michael.kavic@liu.edu,
dminic@vt.edu, kahong@vt.edu, ulf.klein@jku.at,
schubneb@phys.ethz.ch, juerg@phys.ethz.ch


Dear colleagues,

I've been reading your papers recently, and would like to ask for your opinion on the puzzle from the seminal 1929 paper by Mott: how would you explain the emergence of a trajectory due to the *continuous energy exchange* between a single quantum particle and its "measuring" environment ?

If you choose to reject (I don't, but I suppose you will) the option of some sort of "proto-trajectory" of the single quantum particle, how would you explain its macroscopic "copies" in the Wilson chamber produced by the *continuous energy exchange* ?

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1202.4886v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:56:01 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Rajat Kumar Pradhan <rajat@iopb.res.in>
Cc: Richard Mould <richard.mould@stonybrook.edu>,
T. P. Singh <tpsingh@tifr.res.in>,
Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk>


Hi Rajat,

> While Mott represented one kind of worldview which is very common and
> popular

Mott represents facts, which run against your paper.

> In reply to your question, let me clarify that the following series is
> necessary for the detection of a particle: conscious observer ->

Wrong. You can record tracks without any "conscious observer".

Did you read my email? The trajectory in the cloud chamber is continuous, that is, we have a continuous energy exchange between one single quantum particle and its cloud chamber.

How do you explain this fact known since 1929 ?

> Regarding what the state was during the traversal also cannot be said with
> certainty unless the above-mentioned practical steps of decoding the
> information content of the track are gone through.

It's not "decoding the information," Rajat.

It is energy exchange.

> Without having knowledge of existence of an object how can we say whether
> it exists or not?

How does this question relate to Mott paper ?

> Again, you see it depends on our observation.

No it doesn't. Read the paper and the relevant sources; the references are at my web site.

> Hope your question is amply clarified.

See above.

I will appreciate the professional opinion of your colleagues.

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov


On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:16:29 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
> >Dear Dr. Pradhan,
>>
>> You wrote that "the state of the system is primarily a subjective
>> assignment reflecting the observer's state of knowledge about it", and
>> I am surprised that you missed the 1929 paper by Nevill Mott, which
>> refutes such speculations: you have one single quantum particle which
>> induces (how?) perpetual condensed state in the Wilson cloud chamber,
>> without any need for "observer's state of knowledge about it".
>>
>> Notice that the issue is not about the direction of the particles'
>> path, but in the fact that the trajectory in the cloud chamber is
>> continuous.
>>
>> How can you explain it with your ref [21] (P. A. M. Dirac, Principles
>> of Quantum mechanics, Clarendon press, Oxford, 3rd ed., 1947, p. 48) ?
>>
>> I hope Richard can shed some light on the puzzle as well, since he is
>> also speculating along similar lines.
>>
>> The opinion of your colleagues will be greatly appreciated, too.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dimi Chakalov
>>
>

 

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


Subject: Re: Twelve years ago, ...
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:41:05 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxn9aOaQ1F7mRSpXyDMBkW0C1FWnriHsFi+7CQyKOH0X1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Henry Stapp <hpstapp@lbl.gov>
Cc: Daryl Bem <d.bem@cornell.edu>,
Abner Shimony <abner.shimony@gmail.com>,
Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca>

Henry:

I still haven't received your reply to my email from Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:50:42 +0200.

Fifteen years ago, you invited me to your Lab, and even offered me "shelter" during my stay in Berkeley, remember? I was quite tempted to do the trip and show you some simple effects of the human brain, which run against your understanding of QM. Then you raised the issue of my credibility, and asked whether I have some experience with "magic". For if I were some "amateur magician" (exact quote), you warned me that will catch me. Then I somehow lost the desire to see you and discuss the subtleties of Quantum Theory and brain neurophysiology.

Now, regarding your latest arXiv:1105.2053v3 [quant-ph] and the essay by Daril Bem, ref. [1] therein, check out

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

No, Henry, no. This isn't some "magic trick". You have *energy exchange* between the quantum world and a human brain -- not "mind" -- much like the case studied by Nevill Mott,

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

Details at
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

I have a lot to say about your latest manuscript mentioned above, but will skip it, because you obviously aren't interested in any discussion that can prove you wrong. The same tallies to Abner and Bill, regrettably.

Wishing you a nice white Hanukkah,

Dimi

 

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



In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance for what follows. Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or on the physical state of the body. For instance, a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall in exactly the same manner in a gravitational field (in vacuo), when they start off from rest or with the same initial velocity.

A. Einstein, The Gravitational Field
http://www.bartleby.com/173/19.html

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


Unlike W. Rindler and R. M. Wald, I managed to "understand" GR only once, as a freshman in June 1972, and it didn't last long. Here are some excerpts, with added emphasis, links and comments, from:

Wolfgang Rindler, Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2006

You sit in a box from which you cannot look out. You feel a ‘gravitational force’ towards the floor, just as in your living room. But you have no way to exclude the possibility that the box is part of an accelerating rocket in free space, and that the force you feel is what in Newtonian theory is called an ‘inertial force’. To Einstein, inertial and gravitational forces are identical.
.......

The piano and the ping-pong ball will follow the same worldline! Thus does GR ‘explain’ Galileo’s principle. To Einstein, the law of geodesics is primary, and a natural extension of free motion in inertial frames. ‘Gravitational force’ is gone.

Since the geometry of spacetime determines its geodesics and thus the motions of free particles, it must be the gravitating masses that determine the geometry. Newtonian active gravitational mass (the creator of the field) goes over into GR as the creator of curvature. Newtonian passive gravitational mass (that which is pulled by the field) goes into banishment along with the ether, etc.
.......

One can further distinguish between active and passive gravitational mass, namely between that which causes and that which yields to a gravitational field, respectively. Because of the symmetry of eqn (1.8) (due to Newton’s third law), no essential difference between active and passive gravitational mass exists in Newton’s theory. In GR, on the other hand, the concept of passive mass does not arise, only that of active mass—the source of the field.

It so happens in nature that for all particles the inertial and gravitational masses are in the same proportion, and in fact they are usually made equal by a suitable choice of unit.
......

The equality of inertial and active gravitational mass then remains as puzzling as ever. It would be nice (no, it won't be "nice" at all - D.C.) if the inertial mass of an accelerating particle were simply a back-reaction to its own gravitational field, but that is not the case.
........

In sum, general-relativistic spacetime is curved. Its curvature is caused by active gravitational mass. The relation between curvature and mass is governed by Einstein’s famous field equations. Finally, free particles (and photons) have geodesic worldlines in this curved spacetime, which accounts for Galileo’s principle.
........

1.5. Give some examples of the absurdities that would result if the inertial mass of some particles were negative. [For example, consider a negative-mass object sliding on (or under?) a rough table.] It is for reasons such as these that mI ≥ 0 is taken as an axiom.

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


R. M. Wald, The Arrow of Time and the Initial Conditions of the Universe, gr-qc/0507094: "There is no question that our present universe displays a thermodynamic arrow of time. (...) It seems to me to be far more plausible that the answer to the above question as to why the very early universe was in a very low entropy state is that it came into existence in a very special state. Of course, this answer begs the question, since one would then want to know why it came into existence in a very special state, i.e., what principle or law governed its creation. I definitely do not have an answer to this question."



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


Subject: Re: The freely falling bodies display the same acceleration, independent on their compositions: WHY ?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:16:41 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=B7JHfKdQiftA_jy4K=C+xvG8tQqZ3_51DbZB=imp-2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Orfeu Bertolami <orfeu.bertolami@fc.up.pt>
Cc: Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>,
David M A Stuart <d.m.a.stuart@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
John Friedman <friedman@uwm.edu>,
John Stewart <j.m.stewart@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
John Stachel <john.stachel@gmail.com>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Lluís Bel <wtpbedil@lg.ehu.es>,
"O'Murchadha, Niall" <n.omurchadha@ucc.ie>,
Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>


Dear Orfeu,

> Well, the conventional answer is well known: it is a feature of the
> space-time, not of the bodies.

My "unconventional" answer is that it is a feature of an Arrow of Space which drives the whole universe en bloc with *constant acceleration* (cf. the Java applet in the link below) along some "direction" we just call 'time'. The latter has two components: change-in-space (local mode) and change-of-space (global mode),

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

Regarding the geodesic hypothesis, Alan Rendall acknowledged: "In elementary textbooks on general relativity we read that the Einstein equations imply that small bodies move on geodesics of the spacetime metric. It is very hard to make this into a mathematically precise statement which refers to actual solutions of the Einstein equations (and not just to some formal approximations)."

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-6&page=articlesu38.html

Notice that Alan Rendall didn't even mention that 96% of the stuff in the universe, which is "dark" and moves on some weirdly modified geodesics.

With an Arrow of Space, however, there is no need for any dark *physical* stuff, simply because it is replaced with GPIs; see the first link above. As a bonus, you have Quantum Theory reconciled with GR from the outset.

I do hope to see you in Prague next June. We'll have a jolly good time...

All the best,

Dimi


On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:05:29 +0200, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Because of the Arrow of Space,
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague
>>
>> I trust you have different answers to the question in the subject
>> line... any chance to see you in Prague next June?
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Dimi
>>
>

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

Note: The first apothegm of GR is that there is no spacetime without matter. To explain this axiomatic statement to my teenage daughter, I asked her to imagine that she cannot "see" her nails unless they are covered with some nail varnish of particular 'color': bare finger nails (the reference fluid) are unobservable in GR. They are simply GPIs.

Hence the Arrow of Space, which endows all matter with universal "acceleration" that "does not in the least depend either on the material or on the physical state of the body" (A. Einstein), represents the continuous conversion of GPIs into (colored, after the KS Theorem) physical stuff: it is the global "time direction" conjugate to the energy (Anthony Lasenby et al., arXiv:1008.4061v2), in which the energy of the 'colored finger nails' is not conserved (Sean Carroll). The energy of the Arrow of Space is conserved only in the so-called global mode of spacetime, by an almost exact nullification of two GPI "charges"; cf. Eq. 1, pp. 35-36, in ExplanatoryNote.pdf.

The notions of 'energy' and 'spacetime' should be understood as adjectives: for example, we don't say 'energy' unless we explain 'energy of what?', and we don't say "dark" unless we explain what is "dark", and with respect to what. So, once we have spacetime identified by its material content, the obvious question is, are all features of spacetime identified exclusively by the (colored) matter?

Nope. There is something 'more' to spacetime, which cannot be derived entirely from its material content (for example, try to reproduce 'one second' with physical stuff conforming to the Archimedean geometry, as in the Gedankenexperiment described by Orfeu Bertolami above).

Namely, 'there is no matter without its non-Archimedean GPIs' (the proposed second apothegm of GR, after Plato). The conversion of GPIs into physical ("colored finger nails") stuff is complemented by additional holistic effects that cannot in principle be derived from matter. One good example is 'time-orientability'. Another is the tug-of-war manifestation of gravity. All these are purely geometrical effects created by GPIs -- not by Type I matter fields satisfying (supposedly) the energy conditions.

There is no need for any physical stuff to create the observable CDM effect of gravity, just as there is no physical axis of electron's spin. At large length scales, galaxies rotate (as well as the whole observable universe) due to the fundamental phenomenon
of 'spin' produced by GPIs. By altering the 'invariant finite templates' (cf. Finite Infinity above), the physical content of the rotating galaxy has no choice but to 'get attracted' toward the "dark" (non-baryonic) center of that galaxy. By the same token, there is no need for any "singularities".

As Alan Rendall acknowledged in arXiv:gr-qc/0503112v1, p. 14, "The study of these matters is still in a state of flux." Fine, but we just can fit so much anomalous matter with positive energy density in the universe.

Now, imagine the elementary building block of geometry as dimensionless infinitesimal -- just think of it as something with "size" tending asymptotically toward zero, just like 'the empty set R'. This 'something' isn't matter but geometry -- 'the grin of the cat without the cat', as observed by Alice.



 

The first apothegm of GR is that there is no 'smile' without the 'cat'; the second one is that the physical 'cat' and its purely geometrical 'smile' are dynamical due to their negotiations facilitated by GPIs. The whole issue is about the genuine dynamics of GR.

What is the fundamental 'tick' of time -- the "intrinsic time interval associated to any timelike displacement" (Ted Jacobson, pp. 18-19)? We never say that 'the rate of time' can be expressed with 'time', say, 1000 ms per second. Neither can we reconstruct a finite volume of space (say, a sphere with radius one meter) with some finite element that has spatial nature and conforms to the Archimedean Axiom.

The fundamental "displacement" of spacetime can only be produced by an Arrow of Space, as 'change-of-space' along some "direction" which we simply call 'time'. The fundamental "displacement" itself is not present in the local mode of spacetime: it is hidden, by what we call
'speed of light', ]between[ any two adjacent points from the manifold of the local mode, rendering the latter a perfect continuum. The fundamental Aristotelian Connection, which transfers physical influences in such perfect continuum with speed not exceeding the "speed" of light in vacuum, is executed by 'the whole universe as ONE' placed ]between[ any two adjacent points from the manifold of the local mode of spacetime. Hence the Aristotelian Connection is physically non-existent -- an Unmoved Mover, as stressed by Karel Kuchar.

NB: Notice the new form of retarded causality (called biocausality), resulting from such re-created, at each and every instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, Phoenix Universe -- the concept of Final Cause ("the end (telos), that for which a thing is done", Aristotle, Physics 194b33) complements the relativistic causality, in line with Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem: "It also makes it clear that this failure to predict is a merit rather than a defect, since these results involve free decisions that the universe has not yet made." Stated differently, the fate of the universe is UNdecidable, being opened to brand new events emerging from 'the unknown unknown'. Every instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space contains more information unfolding from 'the Noumenon at absolute rest', and such 'information gain' is irreversible.

Briefly, the fundamental dimensionless "displacement" -- the empty set R -- does not have generic temporal or spatial nature. It builds up -- dynamically, with the Arrow of Space -- the spacetime continuum equipped with 'speed of light'. It is nothing but a dimensionless and purely geometrical entity, called here Aristotelian Connection.


So, the ADM picture below is highly misleading, to say the least, because it suggests some finite size of the dimensionless infinitesimal, and then literally installs some "lapse" and "shift" inferred from the postulated 'time-orientability' that has been introduced by hand from thermodynamics (Sic!) from the outset. It's a bit like saying that 'heat' is due to some tiny little and very hot particles, instead of searching for the emergent phenomenon at work, by reducing 'heat' to something that is anything but 'hot'. Such efforts are in the same vein of those post hoc "anthropic principles" in cosmology.
 




Nevertheless, consider the drawing above as two snapshots taken from the "dark room" with our "torch", as you do in GR textbooks.
Suppose you can produce infinitely many (uncountably infinite) snapshots like those above, then stack them along the "skewer" of the Arrow of Space like Photoshop layers, and flatten them onto one (.JPG) image -- you will end up with a timeless "trajectory" immersed in a dead frozen block universe, in which "time" can evolve just as much as "space" can: "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes" (Robert Geroch). You can never trace down the "dark energy" that has been smuggled into this flattened (.JPG) image from the "dark room", and can never solve the Cauchy problem for the Einstein field equations either.

NB: It is wrong to suggest "splitting" of spacetime by imagining one dimensionless infinitesimal geometrical point on which four distinguishable vectors are "erected" -- three "tangential" and one "orthogonal", as in the drawing below, just as it is wrong to even think of some "center of the balloon" (or "big bang") residing some 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years down the road along the "orthogonal" vector.

 


 

The drawing above shows only the kinematics of GR -- 3-D space at one dead frozen instant. The genuine dynamics GR needs infinitely many instants at which the negotiations between the two sides of the Einstein filled equations are already settled. You can't take this 'one dead frozen instant' from the kinematics of GR and use it to model the dynamics of GR, because you don't have some fixed background spacetime on which to "unfold" the dynamics by unitary transformations of 'states' resembling different states of a kaleidoscope, say.

To sum up, recall the 'laws of an instant' (Karel Kuchar) and the rigorous proof of Charles Torre that GR is not a parameterized field theory.

I can also offer a selection of excerpts (emphasis added) from the Lecture Notes of Harvey S. Reall [Ref. 1], which can (hopefully) explain the issues of geodesic hypothesis in a "curved spacetime" and the 'time-orientability', introduced in GR just 'by hand', that is, with magic. The Arrow of Space is supposed to eliminate that "magic", and replace the alleged "curvature" of spacetime (John Baez) with 'properties of the Aristotelian Connection'. The metric is dynamical and global-time-dependent: 'constant gravitational field' [Ref. 2] pertains only to one snapshot 'now' from the Arrow of Space, about which we can indeed say that “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).

Briefly, if you picture 'the whole universe' defined with Finite Infinity as a school of fish, its bootstrapping gravitational energy will pertain (and could only be defined) to 'the whole universe/school', yet the gravitational energy at each point from the quasi-local geodesic of each and every (colored) fish will be perfectly well localized -- dynamically, one-at-a-time, along the Arrow of Space -- with strictly positive mass. The latter will exhibit "runaway motion", being chased by its "negative" GPI counterpart from the global mode of spacetime, and will be endowed with free fall, as discovered by Galileo in 1638.

Following the rule 'think globally, act locally', the influence from 'the school of fish' on every quasi-local fish will be camouflaged as 'self-force', and the poor fish will be bewildered by its own "dark energy" forever. We should be smarter.

Yes, we'll have a jolly good time in Prague...  provided I am allowed to talk. The task is strictly mathematical, and cannot be explained with any poster.


D. Chakalov
December 14, 2011
Last updated: December 27, 2011, 15:16:47 GMT
 


[Ref. 1] General Relativity 2011, by Harvey S. Reall, December 2, 2011.

Sec. 3.3, Geodesics, p. 37:


Sec. 5.2, Energy-momentum tensor, pp. 55-56: "Gravitational energy certainly exists but not in a local sense."


-------

Sec. 8.4, The energy in gravitational waves, pp. 93-95: "Gravitational waves carry energy away from the source. Calculating this is subtle: as discussed previously, there is no local energy density for the gravitational field."


 

Sec. 11.5, Global hyperbolicity, p. 126:




[Ref. 2] R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, An Introduction to General Relativity, March-April/2004
http://www.ift.unesp.br/gcg/igr.pdf

 



 

 

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



In rebus mathematicis errores quam minimi non sunt contemnendi.
Bishop George Berkeley
-----------

Subject: The Big Question, by Paul Tod
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:13:28 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmoeWBtDQ2Wv1cuwJmWw1aoR5pE3-qXOo-ReqfOaUeueg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Paul Tod <tod@maths.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: George <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>,
Sergiu Klainerman <seri@math.princeton.edu>,
Malcolm MacCallum <m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk>,
Steven Weinberg <weinberg@physics.utexas.edu>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@uchicago.edu>,
Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Richard Schoen <schoen@math.stanford.edu>,
Piotr T Chrusciel <piotr.chrusciel@univie.ac.at>


Dear Dr. Tod,

Regarding your 'Big Question' posed at '50 years of the Cauchy problem in General Relativity' (cf. attached), I believe the Cauchy data themselves do not "evolve" at all, and have tried to suggest alternative ideas about Geroch-Kronheimer-Penrose ideal points and Finite Infinity (GFR Ellis) as a causal boundary,

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague-details
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

I will be happy to see you and your colleagues in Prague next June. The task boils down to suggesting a new (to the best of my knowledge) differentiable structure of the manifold used to model 'spacetime'.

Wishing you and your colleagues a nice white Christmas,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov



--------

Note: Suppose you chase somebody on the street (let's call him John), and any time you catch him, he leaves his jacket in your hands. You can't catch John. Just his jackets -- one-at-a-time. You also believe that he has a set (or is it strictly a set?) of jackets with different probability-for-catching, and you also deeply believe and hope that this set can be normalized, i.e., the sum of probability-for-catching his jackets is unity. This elusive John does not ware any jacket by default (cf. the Kochen-Specker Theorem above) -- neither before nor after you catch his "current" jacket1. John is simply an GPI, and lives in the so-called global mode of spacetime. So, if you manage in GR2 to catch his jacket like a bartender, don't even think you've caught John: he is a special causal boundary, placed at Finite Infinity, which pertains to the whole universe as ONE.3 Depending on the "direction" we look at John from the physical (local) mode of spacetime, his "size" would seem to be either 'tending asymptotically toward zero' or 'tending asymptotically toward infinity', while he is, and will always remain, ONE entity. Which is why we need a new differentiable structure of the manifold used to model 'spacetime', which will be "quantised" from the outset, as argued above (prompted by Tod's adjective 'smooth' and 'the smoothest manifold' usually mentioned in footnotes; cf. Lars Andersson above).

Stated differently, [John 1:1] is always at 'absolute rest', residing within the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space. What we celebrate at Christmas is an entirely different thread.


D.C.
December 20, 2011
Latest update: December 21, 2011
--------

1 In general, a variable has no definite value before I measure it; then measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value that it has. But then what does it mean?
Erwin Schrödinger, 1935

2 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, 1920

3 Notice the inability of mathematical physicists to explain this quantum spacetime phenomenon: for example, José M.M. Senovilla acknowledged (emphasis added) that "singularities (...) 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." The meaning of "somehow" refers to Thompson's lamp paradox; the meaning of "accessible from within it" is the recipe of bartenders, and the meaning of "not part of the space-time" is explained with John's jackets story above: the "jackets" are indeed "accessible from within" spacetime. John isn't. The mathematical solution is 'out there', waiting to be uncovered, after the astonishing effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Eugene Wigner).


 

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


Subject: Relativity and Gravitation, Prague, June 25 - 29, 2012
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:15:11 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxmkc5YGHXUtNqN9WsVF9GprcJgPY9Vs6=er2D_g05Y7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Hermann Nicolai <Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: Thomas Thiemann <thiemann@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de>

Dear Dr. Nicolai,

I submitted the abstract of my intended oral presentation at the Conference in Prague next June. I would like to suggest an Arrow of Space, which requires a new quantisation of the gravitational field, preserving the continual nature of spacetime at all length scales; please see some of the prerequisites at

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

I wonder if you would endorse my oral submission to the Conference. Will be happy to provide specific details on my intended talk.

A shorter version of my proposal for quantisation of spacetime was submitted at GR 17 (July 2004), but Dr. Thiemann downgraded my talk to poster presentation, which I had to decline -- I cannot compete with the proponents of the "splitting of spacetime" with a poster.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

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

 

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


Subject: Remark on causality and particle localization, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3320-3321 (1974)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:00:20 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Gerhard C Hegerfeldt <gerhard.hegerfeldt@physik.uni-goettingen.de>
Cc: Hermann Nicolai <Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de>,
Thomas Thiemann <thiemann@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de>,
Alfredo <amac@xanum.uam.mx>,
Jeremy <jb56@cam.ac.uk>

Dear Dr. Hegerfeldt,

Thank you very much for the copies from your articles, which were received today. I particularly liked your 1974 'Remark on causality and particle localization' -- it is a joy to read (and to hold paper in my hands, instead of reading .pdf files on my PC screen).

May I share with you my unsolicited thoughts. Your first assumption, (i), and 'Definition' (p. 3320) is 'strict localizability in V with unit probability'. You elaborated a bit on the causality conundrum (ii) on p. 3321, by suggesting modification of assumption (i), "although this would mean a departure from the customary rules of quantum mechanics."

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head: strict localizability at a point  x  in V with unit probability can be possible only if the particle is 'quasi-local' -- please see the story about John's jackets and the interpretation of Kochen-Specker Theorem at

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

The departure from the "customary rules of quantum mechanics" has been anticipated by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 and in 1950; the references are at my web site.

If you disagree with my interpretation at the links above, please try to explain the continuous energy exchange between one single quantum particle and its macroscopic environment, after Nevill Mott,

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

BTW Hermann Nicolai suggested on SAT 1 TV (June 7, 2004) that the classical world emerges from Feynman paths. Can you explain smooth bi-directional transitions between the quantum realm and the world of tables and chairs?

Thank you, once more, for your beautiful articles.

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--------

Note: Look at T. G. Downes, G. J. Milburn, Optimal Quantum Estimation for Gravitation, arXiv:1108.5220v1 [gr-qc], Sec. 6:
 


What kind of 'time' is implied in the function a(t) ? With respect to what ? More below.

D.C.
February 28, 2012

 

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


Subject: The continuum limit toward classical gravity vs. arXiv:1105.3385v2 [gr-qc]
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 05:18:05 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxmt_+7YZW_3AStcduZGTHOrCuQGqVsbnBMQBXSZOKyRGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Tambornino <johannes.tambornino@ens-lyon.fr>
Cc: lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca,
etera.livine@ens-lyon.fr,
maite.dupuis@ens-lyon.fr,
rituparno.goswami@uct.ac.za,
aykutalp@astro.rug.nl,
spaans@astro.rug.nl,
bojowald@gravity.psu.edu,
giulini@zarm.uni-bremen.de,
Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de,
thiemann@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de,
rovelli.carlo@gmail.com,
George <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>


Dear Johannes,

I'm afraid you cannot suggest any quantum gravity hypothesis with which you could hope to reach the *continuum limit toward classical gravity*, such that we could "look around, and see as far as we can" (L. Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, p. 205). That's 'the proof of the pudding' for any viable approach toward quantum gravity, isn't it ?

But you don't have this 'proof of the pudding' even in GR: "If the theory does not allow us, even in principle, to extend solutions arbitrarily far in one direction, it may be difficult to view this direction as a dimension of the world", says M. Bojowald in 'Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World' (ed. by Vesselin Petkov, Springer, 2007, Ch. 8, p. 149).

If you agree, we should fix GR in the first place; for example, check out my efforts to amend George's Fi at

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

I will appreciate your professional comments, as well as the opinion of your colleagues.

All the best,

Dimi




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



We haven't the money, so we've got to think!
Lord Rutherford, 1962 Brunel Lecture, 14 February 1962


In the winter of 1986, I had a huge discussion at BG Academy of Sciences with a theoretical physicist with PhD from Dubna (USSR), who claimed that there is no problem of reconciling QM with Special Relativity: 'look at the tracks from particles, and measure their duration with your wristwatch -- a single quantum particle, with perfectly defined energy states along a continual trajectory -- where's da problem' ?

It isn't a problem but an ultimate paradox: you can think of elementary particles as invisible Frisbees that leave tracks in modern detectors, as well as think about their instantaneous energy states and coordinate time à la Lev Landau, but to apply your "thinking" to Quantum Theory you need two very different things: the "jackets" from John, and John himself. The latter is a GPI, while the former are its 'shadows on Plato's cave' that trigger the appearance of tracks at the length scale of tables and chairs.

The issue was identified by Nevill Mott in 1929, and continues below. The sole difference is that now it involves billions and billions of Euro, taxpayers' money.

D. Chakalov
January 8, 2012
---------------------

 

 


Subject: "I bet $100 that the Higgs will not be discovered". Thursday, January 9, 2003, 15:56:04 GMT
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 16:37:26 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkQL_i596TAdv33o81GY1iwaPyq1ZXGceQMVnzWMtaX4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Roman Jackiw <jackiw@lns.mit.edu>
Cc: Giuseppe Vitiello <vitiello@sa.infn.it>,
Robert Jaffe <jaffe@mit.edu>,
georgi@physics.harvard.edu,
philip.mannheim@uconn.edu,
maccone@unipv.it,
bryan.sanctuary@mcgill.ca,
djm@hep.ucl.ac.uk,
James.Gillies@cern.ch,
owgreen@umd.edu,
witten@theory.caltech.edu,
wilczek@mit.edu


Dear Roman,

Nine years ago, you were very skeptical about my $100 bet against the discovery of the Higgs boson(s). The latter are GPIs,

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

I reinstate my bet, and extend it to all your colleagues.

Regards,

Dimi
-----------

I bet $100 that the Higgs will not be discovered. Instead, the number of quarks will jump to 8 and more, in a Fibonacci sequence.
D. Chakalov
Thursday, January 9, 2003, 15:56:04 GMT
----------------------------------------
 

Note: Back in January 2003, I offered this bet to at least 135 theoretical physicists (could be many more, because at some point I lost track of my huge mailing lists). The only reply came from Roman Jackiw, in a very informal email, which I keep private.

Nobody from CERN acknowledged my email. As Johann Makowsky noted (The Jerusalem Post 19.4.1985), "Overfunded research is like heroin: It makes one addicted, weakens the mind and furthers prostitution." These people at CERN have billions and billions of Euro at the tip of their fingers, so why should they care about the unresolved task known since 1929, from Sir Nevill Mott? Although they don't use the ancient cloud cambers, the fundamental puzzle of the tracks remains unsolved. In fact, all unresolved tasks in QM are captured with the puzzle from Sir Nevill Mott.

Going back to the bet: think of the quantum world as possessing different "layers" of GPIs, with different "volumes" of potential observables explicated by GPIs.

At the first layer of non-relativistic QM, the GPIs absorb the 'latent observables', after Henry Margenau; at the second layer the GPIs absorb what Henry Margenau called 'possessed observables': in QCD the mass of elementary particles is "decomposed" with the so-called quarks, which are totally "confined" by default. At the time Murray Gell-Mann coined the term 'quarks', only three quarks were discovered; the situation now is far more complicated, mainly because there is no theory to predict the exact mass of the mythical Higgs boson(s). Yet there should exist a third layer at which the electron can be "decomposed" with quarks (C. Kodejska and J. Markovitch), and I bet people will notice that quarks too follow a Fibonacci sequence: pentaquark, octaquark, tridecaquark, etc.

Would you believe that Mother Nature has missed the quarks, only because people don't have a proper theory?

I don't know how quarks are related to Georgi's unparticles, so I can't be more specific. But the idea that the very entity which endows particles with 'mass' would in turn possess 'mass' seems very primitive to me. Do we explain heat with some tiny little, very hot particles? This is a typical Marxist-Leninist philosophy, which just can't be correct.

Think of the school of fish above as the standard model: all fish interact via "bosons" (explanation from Giuseppe Vitiello here). Think of the "background field" and the "clustering in the Higgs field" from David J. Miller as influences from 'the school' on its bosons: the mechanism for "giving other particles mass" (idem) is real (in the sense that the W and Z bosons were detected), but the "god particle" itself  isn't. It cannot be derived from the framework of the standard model: it is an 'undecidable proposition' (Kurt Gödel), which can be clarified only in some meta-theory that includes the electron. And then the quarks will display its Fibonacci sequence; details from T. E. Phipps Jr.

The same 'school of fish'-phenomenon from the Arrow of Space, implemented at macroscopic scale, endows matter with self-acting, without any real "graviton" -- in both cases we have a field that
carries its own charge [Ref. 1].

To avoid any misunderstandings, let me formulate the thesis as clear as possible:

NB: There exists a fundamental feature of the spacetime itself, which cannot be reduced to the properties of classical and quantum fields, and which endows all matter and fields with the faculty of 'self-acting'. In the quantum realm, this non-linear phenomenon is implemented with "clustering in the Higgs field" (David J. Miller), but "without there being a Higgs boson" (idem), while at the length scale of classical physics the same non-linear phenomenon is implemented with what we call 'gravitation', without any real "graviton" either. In both cases, matter and quantum fields interact with themselves via their GPI states placed in the potential future of the Arrow of Space. No real particle is embodied as 'carrier' of this fundamental interaction -- it is a feature of the spacetime itself, and cannot be reduced to, nor derived from, the physical properties of classical and quantum fields. The latter emerge as the result from a spontaneous broken symmetry of the GPI states of two mass "charges" [Ref. 1], one of which is being completely eliminated as 'physical reality', in the sense that it cannot be physically observed, leaving only the unique pattern of self-acting cast on the physical (positive) mass, and a remnant from the spontaneous broken symmetry in the quantum vacuum. The remnant has finite non-zero positive mass, and is being interpreted as "dynamical dark energy" (DDE), without any possibility to trace back its source. Any efforts at interpreting the source of DDE as 'physical stuff with positive energy density and negative pressure' ("the stress-energy tensor of the vacuum must be Lorentz invariant", Ned Wright) must be wrong.

I believe the 'thesis' above is falsifiable, albeit indirectly, by the claim of being 'unique and the only possible': any alternative approach toward the origin of (i) the free fall, (ii) the Higgs boson(s), and (iii) the "dynamical dark energy" (DDE) must necessarily be wrong.

Regarding (ii), the 'total field of as yet unknown structure' (Albert Einstein), called here 'GPI field', is not like "other quantum fields": it does not have "its own representative" [Ref. 1] in the quantum world, just as the gravitational field does not, and cannot have some dedicated material carrier of the non-linear gravitational interactions, in terms of some "graviton". The quest for detecting the "god particle" is about quantum gravity.

There's nothing more important than quantum gravity. Nothing else matters.

Anyway, if there is no reply to my bet above, I can make it more attractive by switching to Euro -- 100. By the time LHC proves the non-existence of Higgs boson(s) and people realize that the number of quarks will jump to 8 and more in a Fibonacci sequence, the U.S. dollar may collapse and I would have to raise the bet to $1000. Not a good idea.
 


Perhaps it is time to bet with Euro. Or maybe Yuan?

D.C.
January 6, 2012
Last updated: January 11, 2012, 15:12:46 GMT


[Ref. 1] The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008: Unravelling the hidden symmetries of nature.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, October 16, 2008, pp. 7-8

Higgs provides mass

The question of the mass of elementary particles has also been answered by spontaneous broken symmetry of the hypothetical Higgs field. It is thought that at the Big Bang the field was perfectly symmetrical and all the particles had zero mass. But the Higgs field, like the pencil standing on its point, was not stable, so when the universe cooled down, the field dropped to its lowest energy level, its own vacuum according to the quantum
definition. Its symmetry disappeared and the Higgs field became a sort of syrup for elementary particles; they absorbed different amounts of the field and got different masses. Some, like the photons, were not attracted and remained without mass; but why the electrons acquired mass at all is quite a different question that no one has answered yet.

Like other quantum fields, the Higgs field has its own representative, the Higgs particle. Physicists are eager to find this particle soon in the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, the brand new LHC at Cern in Geneva. It is possible that several different Higgs particles will be detected – or none at all.

Other theories exist, some more exotic, some less so. In any case, they are likely to be symmetrical, even though the symmetry may not be evident at first. But it is there, keeping itself hidden in the seemingly messy appearance.
-----

Comment: At the Beginning (forget about "big bang"), the GPI field was indeed "perfectly symmetrical": check out Eq. 1 on p. 35 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf and Fig. 1 from 'Finite Infinity (Second Edition)' above. The "spontaneous" broken symmetry is what eliminates all "negative mass", at each and every instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space -- not just at the Beginning, but right now as well, as you're reading these lines. To understand the mechanism of eliminating all "negative mass," we need first to understand the origin of the positive mass and its ubiquitous 'free fall' from the Arrow of Space.

Notice that the 'standard model' does not incorporate gravity and never will, because it can't. People at CERN should at least try to incorporate the electron, and check out how many quarks will show up in such leptoquark model (hint: forget about "supersymmetry" and "Higgs boson").

Hence my prediction above, from Thursday, January 9, 2003, 15:56:04 GMT. Good luck.

D. Chakalov
January 8, 2012, 19:22:10 GMT


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


Addendum


To explain the thesis above in the context of Higgs boson(s), I will reproduce a popular Feynman diagram from Wiki (source here). Seth Zenz, the person who submitted this diagram on 23 October 2005, believes that such experimental results would constitute a discovery of Higgs bosons, since it would be "very difficult to fake in other processes".
 

 

The list of people from the ATLAS Collaboration is immensely huge: 3200+  people (cf. pp. 16-23 in arXiv:1107.3311v2 [hep-ex]), which is 4 times more than the members of LIGO "scientific" collaborations, just 800+ people. I suppose all member of the ATLAS Collaboration, plus their colleagues from CERN's Theory Group, are interested in quantum gravity, because their 'standard model' cannot incorporate the gravitation "field". Even if they aren't keen on quantum gravity, the fact that nobody can explain electron's mass from the "Higgs field" [Ref. 1] should stimulate their interest in the thesis above.

Very briefly (details in June this year): The Feynman diagram above is just a linearized snapshot from the non-linear interactions of gluons. To explain what 'non-linear' means, check out the thesis above and recall the 'Escher hands' (cf. below), depicting the non-linear interactions of all particles ("fish") in the 'total field of as yet unknown structure' (Albert Einstein), called here 'GPI field'.


 

Stated differently, the Higgs boson and the pre-quantum UNdecidable noncolorizable Kochen-Specker state share the ontological status of GPIs. Only the math is unknown [Ref. 2].

If you disagree, just try to explain electron's mass from the "Higgs field" [Ref. 1].


D. Chakalov
January 10, 2012



[Ref. 2] Roman Jackiw, Topology in Physics, arXiv:math-ph/0503039v1, p. 9:

"In view of my previous observation, can we take this as indirect evidence that this Yang-Mills based theory also is a phenomenological, effective description and at a more fundamental level -- yet to be discovered -- we shall find a simpler description that does not have any elaborate mathematical structure."


 

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


 

 


Subject: Quasicrystal structure of quarks
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:58:11 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxmv7x0S9F-iXHzKqqwkm-ssLOjra0Rr01Q09VTfB1_bpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Dan Shechtman <dannys@tx.technion.ac.xx>
Cc: Roman Jackiw <jackiw@lns.mit.edu>,
David J Miller <djm@hep.ucl.ac.uk>,
Howard M Georgi <georgi@physics.harvard.edu>,
james.gillies@cern.ch,
roger.forty@cern.ch,
ignatios.antoniadis@cern.ch,
benedetto.gorini@cern.ch,
philippe.bloch@cern.ch,
marcello.bindi@cern.ch,
dieter.schlatter@cern.ch,
matthias.u.mozer@cern.ch,
sergio.bertolucci@cern.ch,
olivier.couet@cern.ch,
abdelhak.djouadi@cern.ch,
aaron.james.armbruster@cern.ch,
bryan.lynn@cern.ch


Dear Dr. Shechtman,

Congratulations upon your Nobel Prize.

My efforts to suggest a quasicrystal structure of quarks are posted at

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

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov
 


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


Subject: I bet $100 that the Higgs will not be discovered.
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:25:25 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkghfF-Gt4su5_aZ3_YanDLJU-cstQx4J6fEui+piFxYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: GERALDINE.SERVANT@cern.ch,
CEDRIC.DELAUNAY@cern.ch,
GIAN.GIUDICE@cern.ch,
CHRISTOPHE.GROJEAN@cern.ch,
GILAD.PEREZ@cern.ch,
JAMES.WELLS@cern.ch,
ALEXANDRA.CARVALHO.ANTUNES.DE.OLIVEIRA@cern.ch,
ANDREA.THAMM@cern.ch,
CHRISTIAN.THOMAS.BYRNES@cern.ch,
ANNE-MARIE.PERRIN@cern.ch,
SUSANNE.REFFERT@cern.ch,
IGNATIOS.ANTONIADIS@cern.ch,
JULIEN.LESGOURGUES@cern.ch,
GEORGI.DVALI@cern.ch,
HYUN.MIN.LEE@cern.ch,
GRAEME.WATT@cern.ch,
GEORGE.ZOUPANOS@cern.ch,
John.Ellis@cern.ch,
James.Gillies@cern.ch


Dear colleagues,

Please check out my prediction about your "Higgs boson" at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Roman
(January 8, 2012, 19:22:10 GMT)

Please let me know if you would be interested to learn more about it at your TH Summer Institute on BSM Physics, June 18-29, 2012.

Do you accept the bet ?

Yours sincerely,

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

Note: I have no intention to kibitz CERN's Theory Group, but only to offer an alternative to the so-called "god particle". After billions of Euro and persistent PR campaign, I think they should feel a moral responsibility to examine all possible paths toward quantum gravity. Currently, they have taken a ridiculous 'win-win' stance, both with and without the "god particle". I am definitely certain they can do better.

I have so far only one response from CERN's spokesperson, thanks to his absence (cf. below). At least he can't claim that he heard nothing, saw nothing, and knew nothing.
 

D. Chakalov
January 9, 2012
Last update: April 23, 2012

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

Subject: Automatic reply: I bet $100 that the Higgs will not be discovered.
Thread-Topic: I bet $100 that the Higgs will not be discovered.
From: James Gillies <James.Gillies@cern.ch>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:47:41 +0000
Message-ID: <b4eb90cb22934b6d9f8ef501f069ab7e@CERNFE20.cern.ch>


I will be away from my desk until 23 April 2012, reachable most of the time on + 41 76 487 4555.

James Gillies


 


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


Subject: Re: Higgs boson(s) vs quantum gravity
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:47:44 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: sieme@sou.edu

Dear colleagues,

I received an obscene email from James R. Bogan (cf. below), and wonder if he is associated with Southern Oregon University.

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov

----------
Subject: RE: Higgs boson(s) vs quantum gravity
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:57:58 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [97.125.61.126]
Message-ID: <SNT137-W13ED002DAA5FADF48A26F9B9F0@phx.gbl>
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jim_bogan@hotmail.com designates
65.55.90.76 as permitted sender) client-ip=65.55.90.76;
From: Jim Bogan <jim_bogan@hotmail.com>
To: <dchakalov@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
<CAM7EkxmcDHCWpvnQT0sez_wJk_-q2DyVd0v5DBnrhLHyL-VFCg@mail.gmail.com>



I knew I should've never replied to such BS.

Phuck U Very Much & Don't contact me again.
--------------



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


Subject: Re: BritGrav 12
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:57:53 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxn24tDygV1r3u=uFQa13T7T_1czDvWC_TWwWLBaqgKJGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Carsten Gundlach <c.j.gundlach@soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "Andersson N.A." <n.a.andersson@soton.ac.uk>,
Roy Maartens <roy.maartens@port.ac.uk>,
Jiří Bičák <Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz>

Dear Dr. Gundlach,

Thank you for your reply from Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:41:43 +0000.

> I have had a look at your website. Thank you for your interest in BritGrav,
> but I am afraid your interests are too far from those of professional
> researchers in general relatitivity to be of interest to this conference. So
> I am afraid you will not be able to give a talk.

Please let me know the names of those professional researchers in GR, who are trying to understand the origin of the phenomenon of 'free fall',

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague-details

I extend this request to your colleagues as well.

Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU


 

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

Subject: Re: "Robert P. Crease loves priority battles. Robert P. Kirshner does not."
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:41:57 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxkc=5iD01G8G6Oy_DvRf2MdSEP3V27ao9Avd9kkFcqyjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Robert P Kirshner <kirshner@cfa.harvard.edu>,
Robert P Crease <rcrease@notes.cc.sunysb.edu>,
Saul Perlmutter <saul@lbl.gov>,
Adam Riess <ariess@pha.jhu.edu>,
Mike Turner <mturner@uchicago.edu>,
Josh Frieman <frieman@fnal.gov>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Sean Carroll <seancarroll@gmail.com>,
Lawrence M Krauss <lmk9@cwru.edu>,
Paul Davies <deepthought@asu.edu>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>,
Malcolm A H MacCallum <m.a.h.maccallum@qmul.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>


Dear colleagues,

Regarding my email sent one year ago (Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:59:59 +0200), please check out my prediction about the "Higgs boson" at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Roman
(January 8, 2012, 19:22:10 GMT)

With all good wishes for 2012 and beyond,

"just another crank" (©C. Isham)



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




 


E. Mach
Vienna, January, 1901
 


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


Subject: What determines the inertial frame of reference? The immediate connection
(E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, p. 296).
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:31:19 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Julian <Julian.Barbour@physics.ox.ac.uk>, julian@platonia.com,
Bahram Mashhoon <mashhoonb@missouri.edu>,
Paul Wesson <psw.papers@yahoo.ca>
Cc: Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>


Julian,

Is it fun to keep quiet and pretend you've never learned anything from my web site since 1999 ?

I think vacuum general relativity, without cosmological constant and for a spatially closed universe, is a spherical cow approximation, so your reference to the Baierlein-Sharp-Wheeler from 1962 and your "best-matching" are unjustified.

Consider Mach's dictum:

"It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things." (E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, 1960, p. 273).

Time does not emerge from 'change in space' but from 'change OF space'. Hence the Arrow of Space driving 'the single closed system', that is, 'the universe as ONE',

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

You immediately obtain the core of GR as a dynamical theory (forget about ADM) of 'the universe as ONE', without any multidimensional superstitious à la Paul and Bahram (arXiv:1108.3059v2 [gr-qc]).

Mach's 'immediate connection' (p. 296) is introduced from the outset, and so is the answer to the question about 'DDE in closed system' raised at

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

Check out the first link above. No need to invent the wheel.

Dimi
--------
 

Note: By saying "no need to invent the wheel", I meant "the unknown and neglected medium of space" (p. 232), with respect to which we define the "expansion" of space. The modern expression of 'medium of space' is the reference fluid of GR, which is interpreted here as 'the global mode of spacetime' from the Arrow of Space.

Now, Julian Barbour believes that if "we assume a finite (spatially closed) universe, we then find that the geometrical evolution of such a universe in accordance with Mach’s principle leads to general relativity, and that Einstein’s field equations are a direct expression of the Machian nature of the theory" (arXiv:1007.3368v1 [gr-qc], p. 26).

Sounds interesting, but a finite universe is neither "spatially closed" (Ciufolini and Wheeler, p. 270) nor "spatially open".

In September 2010, I wrote to Julian Barbour and Niall Murchadha, because "the time at which wave-function collapse occurs" was considered 'the proof of the pudding' for Barbour's idea (The End of Time, Phoenix, London, 2000):

"I think that if the collapse of the wave function could be demonstrated to be a real physical phenomenon, that would be a true demonstration of something one might call transience" (p. 359). "That would kill my idea" (p. 358).

Of course, the phenomenon of transience is not related to artifacts, such as "collapse of the wave function", but to the Arrow of Space. It does kill the idea of Julian Barbour, and introduces the Machian relational ontology and Machian quantum gravity.


D. Chakalov
February 8, 2012

 

 

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


Subject: Causal time asymmetry: Arrow of Space
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:16:31 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmAYrn6gsQ8ouiStL0=Qhg+V4H2TTnpEWphhcfGkf_ipA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: William Eckhardt <we@eckhardttrading.com>
Cc: Joshua S Schiffrin <schiffrin@uchicago.edu>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Mike Turner <mturner@uchicago.edu>,
Fotini <fotinimk@gmail.com>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@uchicago.edu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>,
Jeremiah P Ostriker <ostriker@princeton.edu>,
Lawrence M Krauss <krauss@asu.edu>,
Sean Carroll <seancarroll@gmail.com>


Dear Dr. Eckhardt,

It is a real pleasure to read your 2006 article 'Causal time asymmetry', which I found thanks to a recent manuscript by Joshua S. Schiffrin and Robert M. Wald, Measure and Probability in Cosmology, arXiv:1202.1818v1 [gr-qc], ref. [28].

Six years ago, you wrote:

"Consider the question of the interconnections of the quantitative “arrows” of time, a quiver containing time asymmetries of thermodynamics, advanced and retarded radiation, quantum measurement, entropy increase, and cosmological expansion, to which I would add causal asymmetry. Which are fundamental and which are derivative?"

I think 'time' cannot emerge from 'change in space' (coordinate "time"), but only from 'change of space', and have suggested an Arrow of Space,

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

Specific applications at

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

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

I also think retrodiction is impossible -- not only because entropy decreases towards the past (arXiv:1202.1818v1 [gr-qc], Sec. VI), but also because the universe is endowed with 'free will': "No theory can predict exactly what these particles will do in the future for the very good reason that they may not yet have decided what this will be!" (John Conway and Simon Kochen, The Free Will Theorem, arXiv:quant-ph/0604079v1, p. 26). Don't trust your GR textbooks.

To be precise, the "wave function of the universe" (the late Asher Peres didn't like this oxymoron, and neither do I) must be non-normalizable to include 'the unknown unknown' and the free will of the universe. For example, shortly "after" The Beginning nothing could have provided even a hint that the W boson and the Z boson (I learned this from Mike Turner) would have mass -- they were still in the realm of 'the unknown unknown'.

So, the future is unpredictable, and retrodiction is futile, as you put it. Which should perhaps make you optimistic about the *potential future* of the U.S. economy and the USS Enterprise (CVN-65),

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

A penny for your thoughts!

The critical comments from your colleagues will be greatly appreciated, too.

All the best,

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


Note:
Many physicists, William Eckhardt included, are puzzled by "time’s arrow" from thermodynamics; some sort of "one-way property of time which has no analogue in space" (Arthur Eddington). But if we seek the global Heraclitean time [tau], expressed with the phenomenon of transience observed in 'the changes of things' (Ernst Mach), the 'thing' that changes  -- with respect to what ? -- is the very space along an Arrow of Space: an one-way property of 3-D space which has no analogue in spacetime. Why? Because this 'one-way property' must be hidden, or else the "ether" will show up.

Notice that the local, “change in space” time (e.g., the coordinate "time") and the global Heraclitean “change of space” coincide in the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space (see Fig. 1 above). The former is composed from block universes stacked like Photoshop layers on the imaginary axis  w  (see Fig. 5) -- each of these block universes is 'completed', in the sense that all quasi-local correlations and negotiations between the two sides of the Einstein field equations are already completed at the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space; the duration of the null-surface negotiation is zero, as read with our physical clocks. (I would agree with D.C. Robinson that "the true degrees of freedom can be exposed more explicitly when null hypersurfaces, rather than space-like hypersurfaces, are used," provided we forget about the notorious "splitting" of spacetime, after ADM.)

But what is the "duration" of the global Heraclitean “change of space” time [tau] ? Well, it depends on your brain; from the cognitive cycle of Ulric Neisser (Fig. 2 and Chs 2 and 4), the "duration" of the global time [tau] can be estimated as the duration of the introspective state 'now'. Once you remove from Neisse'r cognitive cycle everything related to mind and consciousness, you will end up with just the physics of the human brain; then all you need is to model the whole universe as a brain, and replace the so-called psychological time arrow with the Arrow of Space, and all pieces from the jigsaw puzzle of quantum gravity will snap to their places, effortlessly.

For example, regarding OPERA, Alvaro de Rújula from CERN commented passionately (NY Times, 22 September 2011): “If this study is confirmed, then we have not understood anything about anything.” Relax, neutrinos are quasi-local particles; they don't travel exclusively in the local mode of spacetime governed by STR.

A possible way to understand the global Heraclitean time is from quantum optics, by setting [tau] = it (Z. Chao Wu, arXiv:0804.0210v1 [quant-ph]), provided we have an answer to the puzzle identified by Nevill Mott, which in turn leads to the intrinsic time of the 'quantum world out there', after the Kochen-Specker Theorem, and subsequently to the Arrow of Space of 'the universe as a brain'. Notice that we have a purely geometrical effect in the manifestation of gravity and life: no "gravitons" nor "bioparticles". Details and applications here.

If you disagree with such purely geometrical manifestation of gravity, which stems from the proposal that the gravitational "field" and its "ripples" are not directly coupled to matter and quantum fields, try to explain how would some "gravitational stress-energy tensor" enter into the righthand side of the Einstein field-equation: can "the “gravitational field” interact with ponderable matter fields in such a way that stress-energy is exchanged?" Namely, can we explain "the way that a gravitational stress-energy tensor (if there were such a thing) might enter into the righthand side of the Einstein field-equation"? Can the gravitational stress-energy "on its own, when not interacting with ponderable matter", be conserved ? Details from Erik Curiel, arXiv:0908.3322v3 [gr-qc].

Perhaps the best way to understand these purely geometrical effects is to explain the solution proposed for the localization of the gravitational energy density with the story about 'John's jackets': John is potential reality, hence it must be wegtransformierbar (Afriat and Caccese, p. 27) 'at a point' (absolute structures, such as the reference fluid of GR, do not conform to the 'generalized principle of action and reaction' (James L. Anderson, p. 339), and are camouflaged in GR as Diff(M)-related configurations).

Namely, the physical reality 'at a point' is just one fleeting presentation of John's jackets: at each and every point from such quasi-local geodesic, the gravitational energy density will be perfectly well localized along the Arrow of Space -- dynamically, one-at-a-time, and post factum  -- with strictly positive mass. The latter will exhibit an accelerated "runaway motion", being chased by its "negative" GPI counterpart from the global mode of spacetime, and will be endowed with free fall, as discovered by Galileo in 1638.

You have from the outset the solution to the measurement problem and the macro-objectification problem in QM, plus the solution to the (old) cosmological "constant" problem (the misleading 'empty space' in GR is "in acute contrast to the concept of vacuum in quantum field theory", and so is the "flat spacetime" in GR textbooks, cf. Hyun Seok Yang).


Hyun Seok Yang, arXiv:1111.0015v3 [hep-th]: "When the massive body moves to another place, the original point where the body was placed will recover a (nearly) flat geometry like a rubber band. That is, the (flat) spacetime behaves like a metrical elasticity which opposes the curving of space. But this picture rather exhibits a puzzling nature of flat spacetime because the flat spacetime should be a completely empty space without any kind of energy as we remarked above. How is it possible for an empty space of nothing to behave like an elastic body with tension ?"



One could hardly find in GR textbooks concepts more misleading than "empty space", flat spacetime limit, intrinsic curvature, as well as the "balloon metaphor" of some "expanding" elastic stuff: with respect to what ? Here people usually refer to the
Gauss-Bonnet theorem, but notice that the current "dynamics" of GR tacitly presupposes some special "meta" observer equipped with Akasha-like global memory and a special torch highlighting the canonical data (depicted with black vertical arrows, cf. below), who can verify that the canonical data at her instant 'now' are different from those "before" and "after" (provided the spacetime is globally hyperbolic).
 


 

Tullio Levi-Civita demonstrated in 1919 that 'parallelism' and 'curvature' are affine-type features -- it is all about the connection under the conditions for wegtransformierbar faculty of gravity 'at a point' [Ref. 1]. The issue is by no means purely academic: see the search for some "ripples" of the metric with LIGO.
 




 

If you disagree with the Arrow of Space, please try to suggest the origin of the 'free fall'. As Hermann Bondi noticed, “If a bird watching physicist falls off a cliff, he doesn’t worry about his binoculars, they fall with him.” Such global feature of spacetime is interpreted as some kind of 'reversed image' of the Arrow of Space. Notice that we cannot possibly tell apart the gravitational mass from the inertial mass in an infinitesimal instant 'now', so they would inevitably look 'the same'. This may sound like sheer metaphysics [Ref. 1], but it bears some very specific predictions, such as Brain Assisted Vacuum Energy Release (BAVER) and Reversible Elimination of Inertial Mass (REIM). The former presupposes a topological "bridge" between the human brain and the quantum vacuum; depending on the macroscopic boundary conditions, BAVER could vary from an almost vanishing flux up to 1054 ergs/pulse, which is much larger than the mundane nuclear energy release of ~1022 ergs/pulse. REIM assumes that the initial "free fall" can be temporary canceled, by tweaking the phase of the two atemporal quantum-gravitational waves, after which it would require zero force to fly in 3-D space. In both cases, a 'polarization of space' is implied. (NASA completed their 'propellantness propulsion' project with negative results.)

One of the obvious advantages of 'the universe as a brain' is its developmental cosmology (or biocosmology) -- we have three entities to consider, not just one (matter and fields). Namely, we have 'physical reality' (local mode of spacetime) and its GPI field (global mode), both of which are increasing their 'information content' along the Arrow of Space by what may look like creatio ex nihilo (hence 'the unknown unknown') unfolding from their common source. The latter is residing within each and every geometrical point of the underlying topological manifold, being in the state of 'absolute rest' (usually called 'the true monad without windows' or simply [John 1:1]).

Thus, if we "run" the Arrow of Space toward The Beginning, the universe would undergo non-unitary "losses" resulting in a very simple cosmological state: ensuing from the current GR textbooks, retrodiction is indeed futile, just as we cannot possibly trace back the current state of our brains from the one in our prenatal age.
 


 

As is well known, one cannot derive a human individual from her/his 'first three minutes' after the conception. No way. Ditto to 'the universe as a brain'. Simple, no?

Let's compare this developmental quantum cosmology to the "inflationary" scenario. Claus Kiefer quoted in gr-qc/0502016 M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle who have claimed that "quantum mechanics is best and most fundamentally understood in the framework of quantum cosmology". I fully agree, in the sense that nobody understands quantum mechanics nor quantum cosmology.

As Mario Rabinowitz noted in arXiv:astro-ph/0412101, "Inflation theorists simply shrug their shoulders and say that their theory does not violate relativity, since it is not the proto-stars and proto-galaxies that were moving that fast, but rather the very fabric of space itself moving the material objects apart. It’s too bad that Einstein was not alive to comment on it himself when inflation was proclaimed and almost universally accepted. One can only wonder how accepting of it he would have been."

 



The line of reasoning in current inflationary cosmology is like this: you see a big gorgeous hen, and you say -- okay, this hen has surely evolved from a nice big chicken, which in turns has evolved from a tiny little cute chicken, which has obviously came from an egg, but the egg has evolved from a totally unphysical "inflationary" oven, and no egg can possibly be traced back to that terribly hot oven. On the top of everything, the "oven" has had an incredibly low entropy, that is, an extremely low gravitational entropy: how do you know that the very metric of spacetime could survive? Recall that you implant 'time-orientability' by hand, so how can you prove that the "inflation" started with pre-configured spacetime metric within 10-30 seconds ?

It seems unlikely that Joshua Schiffrin and Robert Wald will try to calculate the chance for such pre-configured metric within 10-30 seconds, in their updated arXiv:1202.1818 v2. There is absolutely nothing resembling 'law and order' in the "spacetime foam" to help you raise a crystal clear Lorentzian metric within 10-30 seconds.

As Sergio Doplicher explained (The Principle of Locality, arXiv:0911.5136v1 [math-ph]), "points become fuzzy and locality looses any precise meaning. We believe it should be replaced at the Planck scale by an equally sharp and compelling principle, yet unknown, which reduces to locality at larger distances. (...) On this point in our opinion a deeper understanding is needed." I would suggest to study the "closed system, which does not exchange energy with the external world" [Ref. 2] at the Planck scale.

Moreover, you need to fix an incredibly fine adjustments of the initial and boundary conditions for the evolution of the hen and its fundamental evolving "constants", suitable for life: “Large objects such as ourselves are the product of principles of organization and of collective behaviour that cannot in any meaningful sense be reduced to the behaviour of our elementary constituents” (Philip Anderson). Obviously, elementary particles alone cannot conduct research on themselves.
 



To avoid the "multiverse" and its "anthropic" parapsychology,
the one-and-only 'universe as a brain' should have anticipated from The Beginning the possibilities for asymptotically flat spacetime and emergence of life (the dotted horizontal line in Wheeler's drawing must be raised a bit higher). Thus, the "duration" of the global time [tau] pertinent to 'the universe as a brain' is unlimited; in the case of the human brain, it can be estimated from Neisser's cognitive cycle mentioned above.

 

On top of that, the "expanding" hen is up to 96% "dark". Then you just shrug your shoulders and admit that perhaps something very essential is missing, and seek rescue in some "multiverse".

I will try to explain the Arrow of Space in June this year, if only I am allowed to talk. Such potential event is still in the potential future of the Arrow of Space, so let me try to be optimistic: you never know with the future, do you ?

Whether you believe you can do a thing or believe you can't, you are right, said Henry Ford. Analyze that with math, please !


D. Chakalov
February 9, 2012
Last updated: February 25, 2012




[Ref. 1] According to E. Schücking and E.J. Surowitz, arXiv:gr-qc/0703149, "the apparent enigmatic equality of inertial and passive gravitational mass was also still a prize question at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Germany, had offered the Beneke Prize in 1906 for proving this equality by experiment and theory. The Baron Roland Eötvös won three-fourths of this prize (3,400 of 4,500 Marks); only three-fourths, because he had only done the experiments and had not attempted a theoretical explanation (C. Runge, Göttinger Nachrichten No .1, p. 37–41 (1909)."

I think we need quantum gravity to explain the puzzle. In the framework of John's jackets, one cannot observe any numerical difference between the inertial and gravitational mass 'at a point': John will be indistinguishable from its 'gravitational mass' jacket. Simple, no?

See also: W.G. Unruh, Time Gravity and Quantum Mechanics, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2

pp. 4-5: "Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place. (...) Time flows unequably from place to place, without calling into play any ‘force of gravity’ at all."

Comment: Was Bill Unruh talking moonshine? Not at all. The ubiquitous Arrow of Space is not a vector, because it points to all directions in 3-D space; its physical manifestations are (i) 'time as change of space' (nondynamical, "explicit (but unmeasureable) time", Bill Unruh) and (ii) alteration of the so-called templates for space. For example, if the template for space is being "shrunk", don't expect to find some non-baryonic CDM or "supermassive black hole" there. Another "dark" effect is the fundamental topological property of spacetime, called 'spin'. Can you find some "dark axis" of rotation of an electron? Ditto to the galaxy rotation and 'the axis of evil'. It's all geometry.
 


[Ref. 2] Ruy H. A. Farias and Erasmo Recami, Introduction of a Quantum of Time ("chronon"), and its Consequences for the Electron in Quantum and Classical Physics, Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, 163, 33-115 (2010); RRuyAIEP2010Ch2.pdf

p. 51: "As for the electron case, there are three different ways to perform the discretization, and three "Schrödinger equations" can be obtained, (...) which are, respectively, the retarded, symmetric, and advanced Schrödinger equations, all of them transforming into the (same) continuous equation when the fundamental interval of time (which can now be called just [tau]) goes to zero.
........

pp. 94-95: "The introduction of a fundamental interval of time in the description of the measurement problem makes possible a simple but effective formalization of the state-reduction process. Such behavior is observed only for the retarded case. (...) This means that the symmetric equation is not suitable to describe a measurement process, and this is an important distinction between the two formulations: actually, only the retarded one describes dissipative systems.
.........

"Regarding the nature of such an energy, it can be related to the very evolution of the system. It can be argued that a macroscopic time evolution is possible only if there is some energy flux between the system and the environment. The states described by the symmetric equation are basically equilibrium states, without net dissipation or absorption of energy by the system as a whole. We can also conceive of the symmetric equation as describing a closed system, which does not exchange energy with the external world."
-------------


Regarding OPERA, see Erasmo Recami, Extended Relativity, and

Alan Chodos, Avi Hauser, Alan Kostelecky, The Neutrino as a Tachyon, Phys. Lett. B 150, 431 (1985); 84chodoshauserkostelecky.pdf

Erasmo Recami et al., Are muon neutrinos faster-than-light particles? Physics Letters B, 178, 115-120 (1986); AreNeutrinosFasterThanLight.pdf

Alan Chodos, Alan Kostelecky, Nuclear Null Tests for Spacelike Neutrinos, arXiv:hep-ph/9409404v1, p. 2, Footnote 1:

"We disregard here the possibility of negative-energy neutrinos, which leads to a variety of disagreements with observation."

Comment: The negative-energy neutrinos are Macavity-like objects, and are essential component of the "total field of as yet unknown structure" (Albert Einstein). I mentioned above that the neutrinos are quasi-local particles, they don't travel exclusively in the local mode of spacetime.

The issue is indeed very important: recall the monograph by Yakov Terletskii above and Murphy's Law No. 15: Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers.


D. Chakalov
February 18, 2012

 

 

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


Subject: Re: Operetta
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:33:32 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Erasmo Recami <Erasmo.Recami@mi.infn.it>
Cc: Sergio Doplicher <dopliche@mat.uniroma1.it>,
Alan Kostelecky <kostelec@indiana.edu>,
Alan Chodos <chodos@aps.org>,
Jennifer <jenluc@gmail.com>,
Richard J Hughes <hughes@lanl.gov>,
antonio.ereditato@cern.ch,
alvaro.derujula@cern.ch,
henri.pessard@lapp.in2p3.fr,
salesi@unibg.it


Dear Erasmo,

Thank you, once more, for sending me your articles. I keep a signed preprint from your 'Extended Relativity' in Rivista Nuovo Cim., which you were very kind to send me in 1987 by snail mail. Time runs so fast, doesn't it. It's just not fair! :-)

Anyway, I provided links to your articles relevant to OPERA, as well as two articles by Alan Kostelecky and Alan Chodos, at

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

As I mentioned earlier, neutrinos are quasi-local particles; they don't travel exclusively in the local mode of spacetime,

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

Should you and/or your colleagues have questions, please don't hesitate to write me back.

With all good wishes,

As ever yours,

Dimi

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Erasmo Recami <Erasmo.Recami@mi.infn.it> wrote:
[snip]

 

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


Subject: Re: How and where does such a thinking happen?
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:57:34 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Elemér Rosinger <eerosinger@hotmail.com>
Cc: George <george.ellis@uct.ac.za>


Dear Elemér,

Regarding my email from Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:17:54 +0200, please check out

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

A penny for your thoughts!

All the best,

Dimi
--------
It is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink warm water.
Albert John Coleman (1918 – 2010)

 

 

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


Subject: The Universe as a brain
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:00:41 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmQYTjKTJ9Pvr15ApS2KpR=2sQONBOUUF9bqSkNj=dvUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Daniela Pérez <danielaperez@iar-conicet.gov.ar>,
romero@iar-conicet.gov.ar
Cc: pas@pas.va,
hq@ccsem.infn.it,
horst.wenninger@cern.ch,
jhs@theory.caltech.edu,
stoecker@uni-frankfurt.de,
r.d.lepoidevin@leeds.ac.uk


Dear Daniela,

You and Gustavo wrote (arXiv:1202.3635v1 [physics.hist-ph]): "Whether a cause can be defined outside space-time seems highly dubious [17] [18] [19] [20]. (...) It is very difficult, if not impossible, to make sense of the concept of causation outside space-time."

Your colleague knows my web site for 9 (nine) years, since Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:49:31 +0200 (I emailed him regarding his arXiv:gr-qc/0301070v1 posted on Mon, 20 Jan 2003).

In a nutshell, the Universe contains the First Cause of its own existence; the spacetime has non-trivial topology (no "timelike closed curves" though), and is an *emergent* phenomenon produced by an Arrow of Space:

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

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

Please feel free to ask questions.

Thank you for reading these lines. Now you know my web site, and it is your free will choice to ignore it (like Gustavo).

All the best,

Dimi




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


Subject: What means "√0" ?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:03:33 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkDTviASHS4PNwWufjdpDduEFbn0K58MeJPHDQgSVL9zw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: perelmanc@hotmail.com,
helfera@missouri.edu,
jiri.bicak@mff.cuni.cz,
unruh@physics.ubc.ca,
isenberg@uoregon.edu,
lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu,
laan@aei.mpg.de,
tod@maths.ox.ac.uk,
eric.schechter@vanderbilt.edu,
kirkmcd@princeton.edu,
rouse@maths.ox.ac.uk,
witten@ias.edu


Dear colleagues,

Sorry for this unsolicited email.

May I ask for any information you may have about a proper interpretation of the dubious expression "√0" in Special Relativity,

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

Physically, we know that no particle with rest mass (tardyon) can achieve that "zero", so I am tempted to interpret the latter as an "infinitesimal", yet this isn't of any help (cf. the text at the link above).

I wonder if you know of any theory in which the square root of "zero" can be presented with some meaningful mathematical expression.

Say, something like (+/- X)^2 = 0 ? It's too naïve, I'm afraid.

Please excuse my violent curiosity. As Erwin Schrödinger wrote (Space-Time Structure, Cambridge University Press, 1950, p. 9): "The most important number in mathematics is the zero."

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov
-------

Note: As the reader might have guessed, the expression (+/- X)2 resembles the squaring the module of the probability amplitude in QM; here, it must be "zero", because the w-axis of the global mode of spacetime must be totally eliminated in the local mode. Simple, no?

D.C.
February 21, 2012, 16:30 GMT

 



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



Subject: Re: arXiv:0908.3322v3 [gr-qc], “in the limit of the infinitesimal”
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:57:57 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: David B Malament <dmalamen@uci.edu>

Dear David,

I noticed that you've helped Erik "get straight" on the nature of gravity, as he acknowledged in footnote 23 on p. 17 from his arXiv:0908.3322v3 [gr-qc].

Would you be interested in my opinion on how gravity (not gravitational stress-energy tensor) might end up as 'energy of matter' ?

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

I hope you can help me, too. I acknowledged at my web site that I managed to "understand" GR only once, in my freshman year in June 1972, and it didn't last long.

All the best,

Dimi


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Curiel,
>
> I feel the need to thank you for your beautiful paper. Will study it
> over the weekend.
>
> I have some thoughts on the 'deep murky waters' (p. 17) of how gravity
> (not gravitational stress-energy tensor) might end up as 'energy of
> matter', and have two immodest requests. If possible, please send me
> copies from your forthcoming “On the Existence of Spacetime Structure”
> and “General Relativity Needs No Interpretation”, Philosophy of
> Science 76:44-72 (2009).
>
> You mentioned an issue I was never able to understand: "... the affine
> connection at least in so far as it depends on the curvature." Please
> help me understand (i) exactly how the affine connection would depend
> on the curvature “in the limit of the infinitesimal”, and (ii) the
> difference between 'affine connection' and 'pure affine connection'
> (Erwin Schrödinger, Space-Time Structure, Cambridge University Press,
> 1950, p. 211).
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dimi Chakalov

=====================
 


Subject: Re: arXiv:0908.3322v3 [gr-qc], “in the limit of the infinitesimal”
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:45:56 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmEryT=av5mXTLfdi8TDLOKBYuFOz81D251CsaHqoB5Ag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Erik Curiel <erik@strangebeautiful.com>
Cc: Graham Nerlich <Graham.Nerlich@adelaide.edu.au>

Dear Dr. Curiel,

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply. I will be very happy to study your forthcoming paper “On the Existence of Spacetime Structure”.

My understanding of the 'tangent plane over a point' and the 'free fall' embedded in the spacetime structure is posted at

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

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov


On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:08:46 -0500, Erik Curiel <erik@strangebeautiful.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Chakalov,
>
> Thank you for your kind note. To address your questions:
>
> 1. For our purposes, "in the limit of the infinitesimal" can simply mean "in
> the tangent plane over a point". At every point, the affine structure is
> intimately related to the curvature by the relation
> [D, D] x = Riem(x)
> where '[D, D] x' is the anti-symmetrized product of two derivative operators
> acting on the tangent vector x and 'Riem (x)' is the contraction of the
> tensor with x. (Since you like Schrodinger's book---which is beautiful---I
> suggest you look there for the derivation of this relation.)
>
> 2. If I recall correctly, Schrodinger uses "pure affine connection" to refer
> to an affine connection with no relation to a fixed metric. Not all affine
> connections arise from metrics.
[snip]


On 12-02-24 6:40 AM, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
[snip]

You mentioned an issue I was never able to understand: "... the affine
connection at least in so far as it depends on the curvature." Please
help me understand (i) exactly how the affine connection would depend
on the curvature “in the limit of the infinitesimal”, and (ii) the
difference between 'affine connection' and 'pure affine connection'
(Erwin Schrödinger, Space-Time Structure, Cambridge University Press,
1950, p. 211).

Thank you very much in advance.
[snip]





 

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



It is extremely difficult to induce penguins to drink warm water.
Albert John Coleman (1918 – 2010)




The asymmetry of time can come only from some asymmetry related to 3-D space, such as the Arrow of Space. Hence the "reversed" image from the Arrow of Space, known as 'free fall', should be introduced with 'time orientability' from the outset. The two phenomena are 'global features of spacetime' equipped with non-trivial topology.

The "closed room" is 'the whole universe' defined with Finite Infinity, which is being "accelerated" in the global mode of spacetime by the Arrow of Space. Simple, no?

Surely 'there is no spacetime without matter', but can we derive all features of spacetime (e.g., time orientability) from matter alone? Is the phenomenon called 'spin' a fundamental property of spacetime that cannot be derived from matter alone? With the global mode of spacetime, the antisymmetric part of the affine connection (the torsion) need not "vanish".
 

 

Most importantly, how would you embed the 'free fall' in the spacetime manifold and recover Einstein's "total field of as yet unknown structure" ?


D. Chakalov
February 29, 2012
-------------------


Subject: Re: arXiv:1202.5708v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:01:08 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Brendan McMonigal <monigal@physics.usyd.edu.au>
Cc: gfl@physics.usyd.edu.au, poby3060@uni.sydney.edu.au,
Miguel Alcubierre <malcubi@nucleares.unam.mx>


Dear Brendan,

Thank you very much for your reply.

I think Miguel should have tried to explain the initial 'free fall' in the first place, because such global ubiquitous feature of spacetime is just as mysterious as is the so-called "dark" energy,

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

Not surprisingly, his efforts to suggest a modified "free fall" by some exotic form of matter rendered the whole idea unfeasible.

My efforts are toward 'reversible elimination of inertial mass' (REIM),

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

The crux of the matter is a hypothetical Arrow of Space, which casts its reversed image in terms of 'free fall', so if we can eliminate (reversibly) this initial free fall locally, around the ship, then its inertial mass will be nullified (reversibly) and it should fly just like an UFO, or rather like we "move" our thoughts, without any inertial effects.

Have you seen real "levitation" ? Daniel Dunglas Home has demonstrated it on 16 December 1868; now you can watch other people on YouTube.

All the best,

Dimi


On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:44:19 +1100, Brendan McMonigal <monigal@physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Dimi,
>
> Thank you for your interest, I will do my best to clarify these points.
>
> 1) What the warp drive does, is alters the geometry of the spacetime
> immediately around the ship such that the direction of freefall is the
> direction the ship wants to 'fly'. A simple analogy would be to think of it
> like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey you are riding; in this analogy,
> the ship is the man on the donkey, the altered geometry is the carrot, and
> the donkey wanting to move to the carrot is the 'freefall'. The alteration
> to the geometry is only ever local, but that is all that is required to
> create the 'motion'.
>
> 2) Strictly speaking, the ship is stationary in space, rather it is the
> space that is distorted around the ship. This is why it is different to,
> say, a plane flying through space. Due to the way that light is affected by
> warp drive, it is not easy to say quite what it would look like, but it is
> clear that the space in front of the ship would bunch up as it approached
> the ship, as there is a region leading the ship where spacetime is
> contracted.
>
> I hope my comments have helped.
>
> Cheers
> Brendan
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dr. McMonigal,
>>
>> May I ask you to help with the Alcubierre Warp Drive.
>>
>> I've read some very confusing (to me) statements in general-audience
>> articles, such as:
>>
>> 1. The Alcubierre Warp Drive is following 'free fall' in the direction
>> of its "flight", and
>>
>> 2. The space in front of the Alcubierre Warp Drive will be seen by an
>> observer inside the ship as "running" toward her/him, instead of the
>> usual perception from flying with commercial plane, such as 'space is
>> at rest; the plane is moving *in* space'.
>>
>> Thank you for your time, patience, and consideration.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Dimi Chakalov
>

 

 

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


Subject: A note on the post-Newtonian limit of quasi-local energy expressions, arXiv:1102.1867v3 [gr-qc]
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:52:50 +0200
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=24MouUJ9oKnJ1PGeWZvKugkgsJ=OY28Qm-ZT=yPE9kA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>,
William G Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca>,
Luca Bombelli <bombelli@olemiss.edu>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Kirill Krasnov <kirill.krasnov@nottingham.ac.uk>,
Stefano Finazzi <finazzi@science.unitn.it>,
Willie Wai-Yeung Wong <wongwwy@member.ams.org>,
Thibault Damour <damour@ihes.fr>,
Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>,
Jiří Bičák <Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz>,
Richard M Schoen <schoen@math.stanford.edu>


Dear László and Jörg,

You argued that, "in static space-times", "any physically acceptable quasi-local energy expression should behave qualitatively like this ‘effective’ energy expression in this limit."

I'm afraid any quasi-local energy expression "in static space-times" is a spherical cow approximation. Will be happy to elaborate.

Besides, the "universal coupling between matter and gravity" (Thibault Damour, arXiv:1202.6311v1 [gr-qc]) cannot be postulated until you resolve "the way that a gravitational stress-energy tensor (if there were such a thing) might enter into the righthand side of the Einstein field-equation", as stressed by Erik Curiel in arXiv:0908.3322v3 [gr-qc],

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

To begin with, the standard prerequisites that "all manifolds are assumed to be Hausdorff, second countable and C∞" (Lars Andersson, arXiv:gr-qc/9911032v4, Footnote 1, p. 3), on which you install differentialbe structure, tangent vectors, smooth Lorentz metric (and
eventually some "future pointing timelike unit vector field"), lack an essential component: the "free fall" feature of spacetime,

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

It must be embedded in the spacetime manifold ab initio. We cannot derive the 'free fall' from any physical thing, just as we cannot derive "time-orientability",

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

One way to solve this task is with an Arrow of Space, which I am sure you know very well, but persistently ignore.

Do you have any other solution? Please let me know about it, and I will immediately close my web site and study your professional paper(s), if any.

I extend this request to all your colleagues: please let me know how you would embed the 'free fall' in the spacetime manifold.

Hope to see you in Prague,

http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

All the best,

Dimi
-------------

Note: There is also another purely geometrical puzzle: the torsion. "If one desires to set up a gravitational theory in the elementary particle domain" (Friedrich W. Hehl, On the Kinematics of the Torsion of Space-Time, Found. Phys. 15(4), 451-471 (1985), p. 453), the torsion dynamics becomes non-trivial, given (i) the "dark" energy of "expanding" space and (ii) the nonlocalizability of both "particles" and the gravitational energy density. Which requires a new "quantisation" of the spacetime manifold from the outset.

D.C.
March 2, 2012

 

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




Subject: Re: What is "torsion" ?
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 01:58:32 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Friedrich_Wilhelm Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>

> But I have to tell you that I don't and will not follow your blog.

I love your German humor !

> Is there any reason for me the believe that you have the
> necessary education to discuss seriously any question of physics?

Easy: please send me your professional solution to the two tasks (cf. my email printed below), and I will send you my evaluation of your efforts.

Then you'll find out whether I have "the necessary education to discuss seriously any question of physics."

NB: Please don't hesitate to use as much math as you possibly can -- you can't scare a dog with a sausage.

If, for some strange unanticipated reason, you are unable to resolve the two tasks (cf. below), all I can offer you is the quantum gravity theory at my web site: Besser eine Laus im Kraut als gar kein Fleisch.

All the best,

Dimi


-----------

Subject: Re: What is "torsion" ?
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 22:14:29 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Friedrich_Wilhelm Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>

Dear Fred,

> This is my answer of 1985.

Thank you; I know your seminal paper very well. "If one desires to set up a gravitational theory in the elementary particle domain" (p. 453), the torsion issue becomes non-trivial, given (i) the "dark" energy of "expanding" space and (ii) the nonlocalizability of both "particles" and the gravitational energy density. Which is the scope of my approach toward quantum gravity.

> Don't you read the existing literature?

Of course I do. Didn't you follow the link in my email?

If you can suggest a joint solution to tasks (i) and (ii), please let me know where I can read it.

All the best,

Dimi

===========

Note: I can safely predict that Friedrich W. Hehl will never reply professionally by offering his solution to the two tasks above, simply because he can't. For example, look at his proposal for "nonlocal gravity", co-authored by Bahram Mashhoon, at the DPG Conference in Bonn, 15 March 2010, Slide 3:

"Postulate of locality: An accelerated observer (measuring device) along its worldline is at each instant physically equivalent to a hypothetical inertial observer (measuring device) that is otherwise identical and instantaneously comoving with the accelerated observer (measuring device)."

Then Slide 6: "How can we then generalize general relativity which is a strictly local theory? Idea: We know electrodynamics is a gauge theory; we can make it nonlocal, as shown on the last slide."

But the idea is wrong, and
Friedrich W. Hehl will have to admit it, after failing to solve the two tasks above, by focusing on what actually happens "at each instant". He will never try this very difficult exercise, and will instead prefer to keep quiet, pretending that he doesn't read my "blog" about the 'total field of as yet unknown structure' (A. Einstein).

Here's the crux of GR (Paolo Pani et al., arXiv:1201.2814v2 [gr-qc]):
 



Which is why people use PDEs and tell their students that GR were a "classical theory". Surely the current GR textbooks present GR as a 'classical theory', but it is "
merely a makeshift in order to give the general principle of relativity a preliminary closed-form expression" (A. Einstein). It can be safely used to correct the GPS system, but cannot be used for any task which requires non-linear bi-directional interactions "at each instant", facilitated by the 'total field of as yet unknown structure' (A. Einstein).

Notice that the "preliminary closed-form expression" (A. Einstein) of present-day GR is based on only one single instant at which the non-linear bi-directional negotiations -- "space acts on matter, telling it how to move; in turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve", John Wheeler -- are settled as solutions to the Einstein filed equation, pertaining to this one single instant, after which you obtain a dead frozen "spacetime" (and use PDEs, if you insist). But if you wish to study and detect the genuine gravitational waves (GWs), you need to take into account the non-linear bi-directional negotiations at each and every instant of the propagation of these "waves" -- one single instant will freeze these fundamentally non-linear "waves" and they will not carry energy to their counterpart in the r.h.s. of the filed equations: energy transport by GWs is a fundamentally non-linear phenomenon (Hermann Bondi).

Yes, LIGO is for the birds. We need the genuine dynamics of GR. Forget about PDEs.

That's what this "blog" is all about. As I acknowledged previously, I had the feeling that have finally managed to "understand" GR only once, in June 1972, and it didn't last long.

But perhaps Friedrich W. Hehl believes that he "understands" the non-linear dynamics of GR. After all, he has published many peer-reviewed scientific papers, which implies that he does indeed have "the necessary education to discuss seriously any question of physics".

Then why is he keeping quiet?
 

D. Chakalov
March 4, 2012
Last update: March 29, 2012

 

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



 


Subject: arXiv:1203.2154v1 [gr-qc], The initial-boundary value problem (IBVP),
Sec. XIV, Q1
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 05:52:05 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Winicour <winicour@pitt.edu>
Cc: Alan Rendall <rendall@aei.mpg.de>

Dear Dr. Winicour,

I think we can introduce natural boundaries for the gravitational field, provided we can embed the 'free fall' in the spacetime manifold,

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

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

The second link elaborates on the statement by Alan Turing, quoted in your paper: "Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition."

My answer to your Q1 in Sec. XIV is in the negative. Will be happy to elaborate.

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov

---------

Note: In Sec. XIV, Jeffrey Winicour posed Question 1: "Is there a strongly well-posed IBVP based upon a 3 + 1 formulation?" No, there can't be anything "well-posed" with the "3+1 formulation", except errors.

There is no "evolution" whatsoever with the misfortunate "3+1 formulation" or with some "edgeless spacelike hypersurface that serves as a Cauchy surface" (Matt Choptuik). The latter can offer just one linearized instant from some "future directed, time-like unit vector field T tangential to the boundary" [Ref. 1] used to "evolve" the Cauchy data with PDEs (cf. above). The genuine dynamics of GR is fundamentally non-linear, in the sense explained above. PDEs aren't even a spherical cow approximation.

All this mess comes from the notorious "splitting" of spacetime, after Dirac and ADM. Forget it.

Moreover, Jeffrey Winicour (p. 7) and Helmut Friedrich assume smooth fields [Ref. 1], ignoring the fundamental problem stressed by Paul Tod. Piotr Chrusciel, for example, used "smooth" and "smoothness" 66 times in his report above, for well-known reasons.

I will be happy to elaborate in details, iff I am allowed to talk in Prague. As Alan Rendall acknowledged (arXiv:gr-qc/0503112v1, p. 4), "It follows from the above discussion that spacetime singularities should be associated with reaching the limits of the physical validity of general relativity. Quantum effects can be expected to come in. If this is so then to go further the theory should be replaced by some kind of theory of quantum gravity. Up to now we have no definitive theory of this kind and so it is not clear how to proceed."

My proposal for a new kind of quantum gravity is sketched above. One can contemplate about 'local points' only in classical physics, say, about the "point" of the mass center of a Frisbee, and subsequently about the trajectory of that "point" in some fictitious rigid background spacetime. But in present-day GR such "points" aren't justified, because there is no "background" in the local mode of spacetime, and the physical stuff which defines 'spacetime' cannot be localized at any such 'local point' -- the spacetime itself becomes quasi-local, as demonstrated with the nonlocalizability of the gravitational energy density. It is manifestly wrong in GR to suggest some classical, 'local points' at which one could attach "a tangent vector" (Erik Curiel) or draw some "spacetime version of the Pythagorean theorem" (Matt Choptuik). The only possible way to define "points" in GR is to make them quasi-local with Machian quantum gravity: perfect yet quasi-local points can be defined only with Machian relational ontology, 'with respect to everything else in the universe', like a school of fish: "non-localizable energy" is inadmissible in the theory of relativity (Hermann Bondi).

This is the correct physical meaning of 'quasi-local': no physical stuff in the r.h.s. of Einstein filed equation could become "non-local". Instead, the spacetime points themselves become quasi-local (compare it with Laszlo Szabados, arXiv:0902.3199v2 [gr-qc], Sec. 2). Otherwise it won't be possible to explain the non-linear coupling of the gravitational field to matter: just look at the dreadful linearized approximations above. If you disagree, try "energy conservation" (example from Hans Ohanian here) and "gravitomagnetism".

It is 'the whole universe as ONE' which defines -- dynamically, with the Arrow of Space -- a perfect quasi-local point 'here-and-now', to replace the "edgeless Cauchy slice". Hence we need Finite Infinity to fix the "boundaries" of spacetime dynamically, along the Arrow of Space which is defined with respect to the (totally hidden) reference fluid of GR: see the background time code of the animation from John Walker above.

Notice that we shouldn't be able to solve the Hamiltonian constraint problem in canonical quantum gravity, because if we could, the Hamiltonian "dynamics" would expose some preferred global "time" which is "nondynamical and explicit" (Bill Unruh) yet totally hidden: it must stay totally hidden (or "dark", as some otherwise smart people called it).

All this has been said many times here at this web site. I only wanted to commemorate Einstein's 133th birthday by elaborating on his 'total field of as yet unknown structure'.
 


 

D. Chakalov
March 12, 2012
Last update: March 14, 2012



[Ref. 1] Helmut Friedrich, Initial boundary value problems for Einstein’s field equations and geometric uniqueness, IML-0809f-37.pdf, Gen. Rel. Grav. 41, 1947 (2009).

p. 2: "To simplify the discussion we assume all fields to be smooth.
......

pp. 16-17: "...require the choice of a future directed, time-like unit vector field T tangential to the boundary. The vector field T, for which no natural choice exists in general, is characterized indirectly and becomes explicitly available only after solving the equations. Problems arise if one wants to compare solutions pertaining to boundary conditions based on different choices of T and on different boundary data.

"This situation leads to awkward practical problems if gauge transformations need to be considered in the course of an evolution. It is an open question whether this is an intrinsic problem of the initial boundary value problem for Einstein’s field equations or whether there can be formulated, under general assumptions, initial boundary value problems for Einstein’s field equations which avoid these difficulties."

 

 

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



Subject: arXiv:1203.2641v1 [gr-qc], p. 3
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:31:04 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Olaf Dreyer <olaf.dreyer@gmail.com>

Hi Olaf,

May I ask two questions.

You wrote: "Locally all physics is as it is in Minkowski space. Gravity is in the way these local Minkowski spaces are connected. (...) Through this connection the metric g_ab becomes the glue that connects the local Minkowski spaces."

1. If gravity were indeed eliminated by Mother Nature "locally", at each and every point from a geodesic, the latter will be converted to a trajectory in "local Minkowski spaces", correct ?

2. Who taught you GR ?

Dimi
------------

It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!

Richard Feynman, What Do You Care What Other People Think? W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1988, p. 92
 

Why is that "the good men are occupied elsewhere"? Consider this. People agree with Hermann Minkowski that "space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

Yet the 'GR bartenders' treat 'time' and 'space' as totally different entities, "thereby doing grave injustice to space-time covariance that underlies general relativity" (A. Ashtekar).

They endow 'space' with some Akasha-like "memory" to distinguish between 'before' and 'after', despite the fact that 'time' can "evolve" just as much as 'space'. Of course there is no "evolution" whatsoever in present-day GR, as I argued above. On top of that, the same people claim that GR were some "classical theory". But if gravity were indeed eliminated by Mother Nature "locally", at each and every point from a geodesic, the latter will be flattened to a trajectory in Minkowski spacetime.

Obviously, Hermann Minkowski wouldn't come to any "gravity conferences" either. And if Einstein were here alive, he would ask, how do you make such "evolution" non-linear? With PDEs?

I very much hope to be allowed to talk in Prague. We shouldn't abuse GR anymore.


D. Chakalov
March 16, 2012

 

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



Subject: arXiv:1203.5709v2 [gr-qc], Sec. 2.2, "... corresponds loosely to the *rate* of change of the contact vector."
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:52:33 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: hwestman@physics.usyd.edu.au, tzlosnik@perimeterinstitute.ca
Cc: Graham.Nerlich@adelaide.edu.au


Dear colleagues,

Seems to me that in the capture of Fig. 2 you used "other" twice.

Your paper is truly fundamental -- "the ideal waywiser at a given point is ‘invisible’ to all other other points" -- but I can't agree with your efforts to seek some "encoding" of the Affine Connection in the field of "contact vectors":

"In particular, we see that the metric directly corresponds to the change of contact point when the waywiser is rolled. However, the metric tensor cannot tell us how to parallel transport tangent vectors, u^a say, along the surface, something which is encoded in the affine connection [xxx]. Nevertheless, also this mathematical object can easily be constructed from the waywiser variables and corresponds loosely to the *rate* of change of the contact vector."

I think the Affine Connection is the fundamental binding phenomenon of "points", and its nature cannot be uncovered by any ideal waywiser that can test only the end result ("a succession of infinitesimal SO(3) transformations") from such binding phenomenon: any time you probe the "succession of infinitesimal transformations", the Affine Connection is gone. It isn't there. You can't see it, simply because you cannot "see" anything that stands ]between[ these infinitesimal points.

Besides, you tacitly imply some long-term memory of the ideal waywiser, such that it can say 'look, I'm now rolling on a curve, as compared to my previous infinitesimal state!' Do you agree?

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov


==================================
 

Subject: Re: arXiv:1203.5709v2 [gr-qc], Sec. 2.2, "... corresponds loosely to the *rate* of change of the contact vector."
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:07:11 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Hans Westman <hwestmanxx@gmail.com>
Cc: tzlosnik@perimeterinstitute.ca,
Graham.Nerlich@adelaide.edu.au,
hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de,
Andrzej Mariusz Trautman <amt@fuw.edu.pl>


Dear Hans,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

> Presumably one can have different interpretations. But on the mathematical
> level it is true that the affine connection can be extract from the waywiser
> pair {V^A(x),A^{AB}(x)}.

I believe one can have different interpretations on the Affine Connection in the first place. Yours is concerned with its end result only, while I am interested in its inherent dynamics and treat it as 'the binding process' of 'the whole universe as ONE',

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

Tullio Levi-Civita demonstrated in 1919 that 'parallelism' and 'curvature' are affine-type features,

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

and I am interested in the phenomenon which creates the underlying topological manifold "equipped" with differentiable structure, such that, at the end of the day, you can imagine "a succession of infinitesimal SO(3) transformations".

Basically, the difference in the interpretations of the Affine Connection boils down to the interpretation of 'dynamics' and 'time': yours is based on a dead frozen manifold, while mine deals with an emergent manifold: time doesn't emerge from 'change within space' (e.g., co-ordinate time), but from 'change *of* space' along an Arrow of Space.

> Of course, we are not doing without a connection altogether; we still make use
> of the rolling connection A^{AB}.

What is pushing the ideal waywiser in such a way that "at a given point" it is invisible to all "other" points, as you put it ?

> I'm not sure what you mean by long term memory.

An Akasha-like global memory,

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

Best regards,

Dimi
-----------


Note
: Time doesn't emerge from 'change within space', and gravitational observables do not evolve "dynamically" -- read Karel Kuchar. It was noted by Charles Torre that GR observables have to include "an infinite number of derivatives and are therefore very nonlocal" (Johannes Tambornino, arXiv:1109.0740v2 [gr-qc]). What we observe is a genuine dynamical evolution of GR observables (not "Dirac observables") with respect to the matter content of 'the whole universe as ONE' defined with Finite Infinity: a genuine 'change of space' along the Arrow of Space. You don't have any other choice. That's it. Ignore it at your peril.

Just two examples: Sabine Hossenfelder failed to mention the direct evidence against some "discrete nature" of spacetime (see above), and Johannes Tambornino is still keeping his faith in LQG. Two young physicists ready to retire. They just don't want to acknowledge that it is impossible to derive Lorentzian metric from "spacetime foam". Do you believe in miracles? If you do, you too are ready to retire. Sorry for being frank.



The current paradoxical situation is similar to the ultraviolet catastrophe of late 19th century. You need a new Quantum Theory compatible with Einstein's "total field of as yet unknown structure". You don't have any other choice. That's it. Ignore it at your peril.

I very much hope to deliver my talk on the Arrow of Space at the Einstein Conference in Prague (pending approval by the Scientific Organizing Committee). We'll have a jolly good time, notwithstanding the PR crusade for GW "astronomy".

For example, what if the phenomenon of "spin" is a topological property of space endowed with torsion ? Surely we see some axis of rotation (unlike the axis of electron's spin), but with the Arrow of Space the origin of the "spin" may be purely geometrical, hence if you try to explain it as caused by matter, the latter will have to be "dark".

 



According to NASA, the stuff you cannot see between the jets could only be some invisible 55-million-solar-mass defect of the spacetime continuum (yes, the Brooklyn Bridge is on sale).

 

No real (positive energy density) physical stuff could be embodied as 'the carrier' of this fundamental and purely geometrical feature of the spacetime itself. The same tallies to the 'free fall'. I will slice and dice this succinctly in my talk, entitled 'Arrow of Space'.

For a start, look at the discussion of the Bondi-Metzner-Sachs group in Robert Wald's textbook (pp. 283-287): "In a general, curved spacetime one would not expect any exact isometries to be present." What can replace "the unphysical spacetime" (ibid.), other than the so-called global mode of spacetime in Finite Infinity ? In the two animations below, from John Walker and the Cassiopeia Project, the genuine dynamics of both gravitational (cf. the reference fluid) and quantum observables requires the 'global mode of spacetime': one can physically observe only their "colored" (after the KS Theorem) "jackets" in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, one-at-a-time, along the Arrow of Space.

 



 

 

Der Geist bewegt die Materie...  oder was ?


D.C.
March 31, 2012, 20:50:48 GMT



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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1203.5709v2 [gr-qc], Sec. 2.2, "... corresponds loosely to the *rate* of change of the contact vector."
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:49:25 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Hans Westman <hwestmanxx@gmail.com>

Dear Hans,

I looked at your latest arXiv:1203.5709v3 [gr-qc], but couldn't find an answer to my question from Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:07:11 +0300:

What is pushing the ideal waywiser in such a way that "at a given point" it is invisible to all "other" points, as you put it ?

All the best,

Dimi

 


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


Subject: Re: The existence of Dirac observables for gravity
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:57:38 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Bianca Dittrich <dittrich@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: doriti@aei.mpg.de, hermann.nicolai@aei.mpg.de,
frank.eckert@aei.mpg.de, thomas.thiemann@gravity.fau.de


Dear Bianca,

In my email from Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:25:44 +0200 (regarding your arXiv:gr-qc/0411013v1), I argued that there are no "Dirac observables for gravity"; details at

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

Hope to see you and your colleagues in Prague.

Kind regards,

Dimi
---------

Note: I argued above that with the present-day GR it is impossible to solve the puzzle of 'time in GR', because any such "solution" is strictly forbidden -- it will expose the preferred global time which is "nondynamical and explicit" (Bill Unruh) yet totally hidden.

Let me try to explain the puzzle in the shortest possible way. Imagine you play with a Frisbee: it flies along a trajectory, and you can time its flight with your wristwatch. There is no puzzle with its dynamics, because you assume some rigid background medium, called Minkowski spacetime. But suppose that the center of mass of your Frisbee (it has to be a geometrical "point" to make the trajectory) corresponds to some "Dirac observable", if any. Firstly, we cannot imagine it "at a point", because it is 'quasi-local', and secondly -- its proper "time" is a "complicated non-local function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable" (Carlo Rovelli). Thus, GR should not allow for any evolution 'in terms of an observable time variable', because it will expose the preferred global time of "the universal coupling between matter and gravity" (Thibault Damour). Which is why Tom Thiemann arrived at a "devastating conclusion" that "we are missing some new physics."

I agree, only his conclusion is by no means "devastating": we know that we don't know the genuine dynamics of the coupling between matter and gravity -- it ain't linear. There's nothing "devastating" in the 'things we know that we don't know'. All we can say for sure is that this dynamics cannot be parameterized with/by what it produces: the observable, linearized, polynomial time of your Frisbee in the local mode of spacetime. In this local mode of spacetime, the gravitational energy density cannot be defined 'at a point' (MTW, p. 467), and the gravitational energy cannot be "conserved in time", to define the corresponding notion of 'time'. The genuine dynamics of GR is encoded in the reversible, bi-directional "transfer between the intangible energy of the gravitational field (as it will be called here), which is not described by the energy-momentum tensor, and the tangible forms which are so described" (Hermann Bondi).

This bi-directional, intangible <--> tangible energy conversion is the crux of the non-linear coupling between matter and gravity. The dynamics of the energy non-conservation in GR cannot be modeled with any linear theory. It doesn't even remotely resemble the "dynamics" of ADM and its tantalizing task for sorting out "which components are dynamic, which are constrained, and which are gauge" (Gregory B. Cook).

These are the 'things we know that we don't know' about Einstein's 'total field of as yet unknown structure.' If you disagree, try "the single Master Constraint", Eq. 1.7, in the Master Constraint Programme by Bianca Dittrich and Tom Thiemann. Then ask Karel Kuchar for help.


D.C.
April 2, 2012

 

 

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


Subject: "3+1 Formalism in General Relativity", p. 74
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 01:22:25 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Eric Gourgoulhon <eric.gourgoulhon@obspm.fr>
Cc: Stanley Deser <deser@brandeis.edu>,
Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu>

Hi Éric,

May I ask three questions. The opinion of your colleagues will be greatly appreciated, too.

You stated (p. 74) that you can incorporate without problems the cosmological "constant" in EFE.

1. How would you accommodate the brand new (to ADM) case of "expanding" space driven by some "dark" energy ?

2. How would you define "expanding" space: with respect to *what* ?

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

3. How would you rigorously define "event horizon", without any poetry ?

I assume that you are professional physicist, and don't play with GR as a hobby. If I'm wrong, please don't bother to reply to this email nor to my initial email from Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:56:37 +0300.

Regards,

Dimi

 


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


Subject: arXiv:1204.0054v1 [gr-qc], p. 6
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:28:55 +0100
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=Cht2zXWmgQJg52+MUjEaLYj5oQdMmkiOnADQkP2XrVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Yuri Bonder <yuri.bonder@nucleares.unam.mx>
Cc: slandau@df.uba.ar,
gabriel.leon@nucleares.unam.mx,
sudarsky@nucleares.unam.mx,
malcubi@nucleares.unam.mx,
monigal@physics.usyd.edu.au,
hwestman74@gmail.com,
hermann.nicolai@aei.mpg.de,
Simen.Brack@hioa.no,
Oyvind.Gron@hioa.no,
landsberg@hep.brown.edu,
jpereira@ift.unesp.br


Dear Dr. Bonder,

It is a rare pleasure to read your latest paper. Thank you.

I believe one can accommodate "*all* possible trajectories of the center of mass" (p. 6) and recover a genuine trajectory of single quantum particle with a new Quantum Theory,

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

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

Notice the latest paper by Simen Braeck and Øyvind Grøn, arXiv:1204.0419v1 [gr-qc], in which they argue that "the relative ‘motion’ of the galaxies must be attributed to an expansion of the three-space between them". The medium (the reference fluid of GR) w.r.t. which the 3-D space is "expanding" is addressed at

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

If we let the reference fluid of GR to keep "*all* possible trajectories of the center of mass", perhaps we could reconcile Quantum Theory with GR from the outset.

Will be happy to provide details, should you or your colleagues are interested.

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov

 

 

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


Subject: Re: The wine cellars of LIGO
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 01:33:23 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmnAsEBhBKjB4oYCzH1s8dtWpNNskneUNJv9qgkYkk18g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Joan Centrella <Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov>,
Alan J Weinstein <ajw@caltech.edu>,
James Ira Thorpe <James.I.Thorpe@nasa.gov>,
john.g.baker@nasa.gov,
stmcwill@princeton.edu,
markodh@googlemail.com,
robin.t.stebbins@nasa.gov,
Karen.m.Smale@nasa.gov,
Catherine.m.Corlan@nasa.gov,
notoya.r.russell@nasa.gov,
mor.vimmer@nasa.gov,
johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu,
stephen.m.merkowitz@nasa.gov,
meredith.gibb@nasa.gov,
lsfinn@psu.edu,
sheila.rowan@glasgow.ac.uk,
matthew.pitkin@glasgow.ac.uk,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Kip <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Karsten <karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de>,
David <garfinkl@oakland.edu>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Gabriela González <gonzalez@lsu.edu>,
Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
Peggy Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>,
OIG <oig@nsf.gov>,
HQ-OIG-Counsel@mail.nasa.gov,
Oliver Jennrich <oliver.jennrich@esa.int>,
SciTech.Editorial@esa.int,
Bruce Goldstein <Bruce.Goldstein@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Drew Keppel <drew.keppel@ligo.org>,
Hans-Jürgen Schmidt <hjschmi@rz.uni-potsdam.de>,
Thomas A Prince <prince@srl.caltech.edu>,
Vivian Drew <vdrew@stanford.edu>,
hamish.johnston@iop.org


Dear Colleagues,

Regarding my email from Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:44:12 +0200,
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmbWB_2nTzZWDuSWdpVT2TU+62ZNtsAWc_DoEoK3jQL8g@mail.gmail.com> ,
please notice an update at

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

Your professional feedback will be highly appreciated, and duly recorded -- the forthcoming scandal with wasting taxpayers' money by LIGO "scientific" collaboration will be *enormous*.

Please feel free to pass this email to all officials from NSF and NASA, involved with LIGO funding.

I will be more than happy to provide specific details.

Yours sincerely,

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



Note
: According to Wiki (emphasis added), "Waves familiar from other areas of physics such as water waves, sound waves, and electromagnetic waves are able to carry energy, momentum, and angular momentum. By carrying these away from a source, waves are able to rob that source of its energy, linear or angular momentum. Gravitational waves perform the same function. Thus, for example, a binary system loses angular momentum as the two orbiting objects spiral towards each other—the angular momentum is radiated away by gravitational waves."

Gravitational waves (GWs) "perform the same function", but, unlike electromagnetic waves, the energy transport by GWs is fundamentally non-linear phenomenon, so the first off question is this: how do you explain the transition between "the intangible energy of the gravitational field (as it will be called here), which is not described by the energy-momentum tensor, and the tangible forms which are so described" (Hermann Bondi) ?

To execute the "deformations" dictated by the passing GW, the tangible forms of energy, associated with the "deformations" of the "GW detector" (cf. below), will need an input from the intangible GW energy, originating way back from their source (see below), and this energy input is precisely the converted intangible GW energy into some tangible forms of energy.
 



The conversion of intangible GW energy into tangible forms of energy.
Source: B. C. Barish, LIGO-G030020-00-M, April 10, 2003, Slide #15


If LIGO Scientific Collaboration (800+ scholars) are not doing parapsychology, they will have to explain the input of tangible forms of energy, originating from the intangible GW energy. No, don't jump to interferometers. You have some tangible forms of energy of the source of very strong GWs, which have been somehow (how?) converted into intangible GW energy, and here on Earth you expect to detect the reversed conversion of the intangible GW energy into some tangible forms of energy (along with some characteristic "pattern" revealing information about the source of the initial very strong GWs).

Start with a simple object, say, a Coca Cola bottle: (i) what are the tangible forms of energy which "can do work", and (ii) how is the intangible GW energy being converted into these tangible forms ? Regarding the latter, is the Coca Cola bottle going to get "hotter" or "colder" upon its "stretching 'n squeezing" ?

Notice that (i) involves quantum effects in the Coca Cola bottle, at the length scale of 2.3×10-26 m. But first you have to resolve the riddles of energy non-conservation in GR and the quasi-localization of the intangible gravitational energy (MTW, p. 467).

If LIGO "scientific" collaboration cannot answer these two very simple questions, they will have to admit that the taxpayers' money they need -- "at least 3-4 billion dollars", as stated by Prof. Dr. Bernard F. Schutz above -- is actually for their 'GW parapsychology': some kind of 'effective stress-energy tensor' which would allow to safely separate "the background" from the "perturbation" (A. Buonanno, p. 17):
 

 

Details from Michele Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Theory and Experiments, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 34-35:
 

 

Then "something that is dimensionless" (exact quote from Kip Thorne), calculated in the case of PSR J1603-7202 as "2.3×10-26", would miraculously1 travel 5345ly to Earth, carrying its intangible GW energy, just to end up at LIGO's arms, at which point it will be converted into some tangible form of energy.

Is the Brooklyn Bridge for sale, again ?
 

D. Chakalov
Easter 2012
Last updated: April 24, 2012
 

1 MTW, p. 968:



Michele Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Theory and Experiments, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 32:

 

 

 

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



Subject: Relativity and Gravitation, June 25 - 29, 2012, Prague
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 00:59:11 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxnZKeaDDO1_+1BX2gwhuLdfexV_mdS4DghQxegSDrLtJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Bernd Brügmann <b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de>,
Marek Abramowicz <marek@fy.chalmers.se>,
Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>,
Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>,
Jirí Bicák <Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz>,
John Friedman <friedman@uwm.edu>,
Bernd Schmidt <bernd@aei.mpg.de>,
Luciano Rezzolla <rezzolla@aei.mpg.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Joseph Katz <jkatz@phys.huji.ac.il>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>


Dear Colleagues,

I believe you are members of the Scientific Organizing Committee of the Einstein Conference in Prague, and also staunch supporters of GW astronomy.

In my oral contribution submitted last December, which is still pending your approval, I will address two *very* simple questions posted at

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

Please let me know if you'd like me to elaborate in my talk on other problems of GW astronomy.

Wishing you a very happy Easter, and looking forward to meeting you in Prague,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
----------
 

Note: To prove the original assumption in physics that "mass is that which is conserved" (Hermann Bondi), one needs to demonstrate rigorously that 'negative mass' is indeed non-existent in GR, or somehow cancelled out: "within the general theory, it is not possible to have the active and passive masses different" (P. Bergmann). The latter argument presupposes "conservation of momentum, which means integrals over extended regions of space" (Hermann Bondi), that is, "passing to an appropriate asymptotic regime such that all gravitational effects are localized inside of it" (A. Helfer), the inertial reaction "forces" included. The latter are considered non-existent (much like Macavity) in some 'free falling elevator', yet they emerge instantaneously (cf. Mike Zucker below).

Why? How? And with respect to what (Ernst Mach)? The mainstream opinion, spelled out by Ciufolini and Wheeler (p. 270), does not answer these questions. As explained by J.F. Woodward, "when you push on something, it pushes back on you immediately. If they're caused chiefly by the most distant matter in the universe, how can that be?" Well, "it would be nice if the inertial mass of an accelerating particle were simply a back-reaction to its own gravitational field, but that is not the case. (...) Newtonian active gravitational mass (the creator of the field) goes over into GR as the creator of curvature. Newtonian passive gravitational mass (that which is pulled by the field) goes into banishment along with the ether, etc." (Wolfgang Rindler).

Going back to GWs, the seemingly obvious conjecture that gravitational radiation is being "emitted" in 3-D space (R. Feynman) also presupposes global conservation laws in GR: "If energy is not conserved quite generally, there is no need to make up a story about where it has gone when a system loses it" (C. Hoefer); details from Erik Curiel.

Surely there isn't any 'physically observable' gravitational radiation in the dipole and monopole mode, but this does not mean that such "ripples" cannot exist in Nature. Here people say that the conservation (if any) of energy-momentum would imply the absence of monopole and dipole gravitational radiation, so GWs should be sought exclusively with the quadrupole approximation. As explained by B. Schutz (reference here), by resorting to the post-Newtonian approximation and ignoring higher order effects:

"But this (Eq. 10 - D.C.) is the total momentum in the system, and (to lowest order) this is constant. Therefore, there is no energy radiated due to dipole effects in general relativity." See also Chris L. Fryer et al.: "At lowest order, GWs come from the time changing quadrupolar distribution of mass and energy; monopole GWs would violate mass-energy conservation, and dipole waves violate momentum conservation."

But how can we prove "mass-energy conservation" and "momentum conservation" in our universe dominated by the so-called "dark" energy, to eliminate monopole and dipole GWs? They cannot be "emitted" in 3-D space (R. Feynman) built with only one "charge", and cannot of course be detected by any "advanced" LIGO or Virgo either.

Mike Zucker provided the best hint for the atemporal nature of the monopole and dipole gravitational radiation: "For example, if two stars collide or a star explodes somehow, the change in the mass distribution, the presence or absence of a star where there was one before, has to somehow be communicated throughout the whole universe. And in Newton's picture, there's a problem with that because there isn't any way for that information to take some finite amount of time. Somehow the whole universe must know about everything instantaneously."

That's how we get the inertial reaction "forces" -- instantaneously, like in a school of fish bootstrapped by its "ripples". Such "ripples" must not carry energy that "can do work", which is why in the non-linear GR they can show up only as 'unphysical gauge' (Angelo Loinger). As Arthur S. Eddington pointed out in 1922 (p. 269), "They are not objective, and (like absolute velocity) are not detectable by any conceivable experiment. They are merely sinuosities in the co-ordinate system, and the only speed of propagation relevant to them is the speed of thought."

NB:
These are the "thoughts" of 'the universe as a brain'. No physical stuff "pulsates" in the quantum realm to produce quantum waves (with dimensionless amplitude), and no physical stuff alone could produce the gravitational "ripples" either. These are holistic effects of the Arrow of Space: the rule 'think globally, act locally' will induce wave-like behavior in 'the whole school of fish', a bit like the waves in the holomovement of centipede's legs. You have the same phenomenon of purely geometrical nature right above your neck: you think about your brain, by your brain, hence your brain is 'self-acting'. Physically, we cannot observe the "ripples" of 'the universe as a brain'.

All we can physically observe is a self-acting universe in which the conversion of the "negative mass" and "the intangible energy of the gravitational field" (Hermann Bondi) into 'tangible forms' is facilitated by perpetual energy non-conservation, and smuggled into the right-hand side of the Einstein field equations "post factum", due to the speed of light.

Perhaps a wave-like correlation of the energy content of the very early universe, at the instant it contained an equal amount of matter and antimatter, way before the so-called "spontaneous" symmetry breaking, can shed light on the cosmic microwave background (the drawing below is for illustrative purpose only, for the geometry of the universe could be quite different).

 




The unsolved puzzle here is the origin of the cosmic microwave background (CMB): "Where did the photons actually come from?" (Douglas Scott). The matter/antimatter asymmetry (about one matter particle per billion managed to "survive") was settled by the unphysical gravitational "ripples" over the whole universe en bloc. The background of the "survived" matter doesn't contain any trace from some real relic GWs.

The instantaneous synchronization of the initial perturbations and of the radiation arriving from opposite ends of the universe (Scott Dodelson et al., arXiv:0902.3796v1, p. 2) is due to the unphysical gravitational "ripples" -- the "thoughts" of the universe, which synchronize and bootstrap the whole universe as 'ONE'. Such kind of "John's thoughts" cannot be physical: Mens agitat molem (Der Geist bewegt die Materie), as Virgil argued in The Aeneid. Were the gravitational "ripples" physical, they would have to be produced by another physical agent, which would in turn have to be produced by yet another physical agent, etc., ad infinitum. Aristotle suggested the cut-off on this infinite regression with the First Cause which isn't physical: Der Geist bewegt die Materie. To eliminate the physical presence of 'Der Geist', the dual age cosmology has been introduced. Simple, no?

To prove/disprove these conjectures, we first need a rigorous formulation of 'isolated system in GR': "In some sense, we must say what it means to travel far from the system, and say that in that limit the system becomes “self-contained.” Roughly speaking, this should mean passing to an appropriate asymptotic regime such that all gravitational effects are localized inside of it" (A. Helfer).

To define 'isolated system in GR' by reaching "that limit" (Finite Infinity), we need to recover Einstein's 'total field of as yet unknown structure'. I will argue for the introduction of the 'free fall' in conjunction with 'time-orientability', as two fundamental and irreducible features of 'spacetime in GR', introduces as mathematical axioms 'by hand', from the outset. In my opinion, the seemingly innocent "relaxation" of the Einstein field equations "which, a priori, do not form a partial differential system of well-defined type" (T. Damour, The problem of motion in Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity, in: Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, ed. by Stephen W. Hawking and Werner Israel, Cambridge University Press, 1989, Sec. 6.8, pp. 147-149) is wrong. As I argued previously, there isn't any "evolution" whatsoever with the misfortunate "3+1 formulation": each and every "point" from the quasi-local geodesic is the nexus of 'already completed' negotiations between the positive-energy content localized at such "point" and 'everything else in the universe', in line with the ideas of Ernst Mach and the bootstrapping principle of Geoffrey Chew.

My oral contribution, submitted on December 16th last year, is still pending the approval of the Scientific Organizing Committee of the Einstein Conference in Prague. Stay tuned.


D. Chakalov
April 9, 2012
Last updated: April 17, 2012


 



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



Subject: Dynamics of General Relativity: Black Holes and Asymptotics,
ESI, December 2012
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 20:04:57 +0300
To: Robert Beig <robert.beig@univie.ac.at>
Cc: schoen@math.stanford.edu, mark.heinzle@univie.ac.at,
sascha.husa@uib.es, albert.fathi@ens-lyon.fr,
siconolf@mat.uniroma1.it


Dear Dr. Beig,

Please let me know when I can register for the Workshop in December. I would like to argue for the introduction of the 'free fall' in conjunction with 'time-orientability', as two fundamental and interlinked features of 'spacetime in GR', and will address some issues of "conserved" quantities in asymptotically flat spacetimes endowed with "dark" energy from the outset.

Some relevant material has been briefly mentioned at

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

Wishing you and your colleagues all the best for Easter,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
-------


Note: When it comes to the dynamics of General Relativity, the most difficult issues are those which refer to global features of spacetime: what is the origin of the 'free fall'? Could this ubiquitous phenomenon be a blueprint or maybe a "reversed image" from some global dynamics of spacetime produced by the arrow of events known since Heraclitus? Do we need to introduce the free fall phenomenon by hand at the level of 'differentiable manifold', as we do with time-orientability? In other words, what could possibly introduce a temporal structure to the "points" from a Borel set, to make it a genuine 'spacetime' equipped with the metaphysical principle of causality? We cannot start from thermodynamics and use some "top-down" approach.

What could be the phenomenon that connects the "points" in the first place? I will argue that such causal connection cannot be made only and exclusively only by matter. Matter is the necessary condition for the "connection", but the sufficient condition is purely geometrical, and can only come from 'the whole universe as ONE'. Namely, there exists a fundamental component of this "connection", which (i) originates from 'the whole universe as ONE' driven by an Arrow of Space, (ii) and makes these causally-connected "points" quasi-local, to accommodate the holistic input from 'the whole universe as ONE'. Let's go back to the 'free fall'.

The metaphor "closed room accelerating through space" (see above) is made of five words, each of which refers to a total mystery. I will argue that "space" could refer to Einstein's 'total field of as yet unknown structure', and "through space" could only mean 'along null hypersurface', namely, in a putative 'global mode of spacetime' which all physical clocks will read as some atemporal world, due to the "speed" of light. Obviously, the views of Robert Beig on the dynamics of General Relativity (GR) are incompatible with the new dynamics of spacetime: all things in GR happen 'in time' due to the Heraclitean transience (which is banned in GR) along the null-hypersurface of the Arrow of Space, which makes 'space' an emergent phenomenon (Isham and Butterfield). We shall also have a very "stimulating" (for the lack of a better word) discussion about the "conserved" quantities in the asymptotically flat spacetime of the "closed room", after my talk about John's jackets: we need to have the reference fluid of GR fixed at 'absolute rest', with respect to which we can define the dynamics of spacetime en bloc, as driven by the "dark" energy of Einstein's 'total field of as yet unknown structure'. We simply have no choice, or do we?

At the end of the day, I suppose Robert Beig and his distinguished colleagues would struggle with the temptation to strangle me with their bare hands...  but because they all are polite people, they will probably pretend that haven't heard anything important, and will continue to speculate about "black holes" and "asymptotics" in the framework of ADM, although neither of these concepts makes sense -- they cannot be rigorously defined, without juvenile mathematical poetry and/or wishful thinking introduced 'by hand' to the misfortunate '3+1 numerical relativity'. Sad but true. Why?

Very briefly: the idea about some "event horizon" cannot be rigorously defined (I can elaborate extensively here), so the speculation about "black holes" involves too much poetry and wishful thinking. As to the second issue, if you start from some feature of the physical spacetime, you cannot extend it exactly at infinity in order to produce some "boundary" placed at all directions (time-like, space-like, and null), such that there will be absolutely no leaking of mass and energy from "the unphysical spacetime" (Robert Wald, pp. 283-287) with respect to which the "physical" one has been defined -- you have to use Quantum Theory, hence cannot completely seal off the "boundary". Roger Penrose skipped this QM exercise in his 1964 conformal treatment of infinity, and almost half a century later Jeffrey Winicour still happily assumes that "matter fields do not spoil things", and poses the question whether the necessary boundary data can be "represented by gauge invariant, local geometric objects", again without bothering about quantum effects at the "spacelike cap on the future evolution domain." Instead of seeking some new, and still unknown, natural boundaries for the gravitational "field", he is trying to suggest that we might not need them, just like the old story about the Fox and the grapes.

Let's start from scratch.

I was never able to understand the Equivalence Principle (cf. B. Schutz), because of the apparent freedom to eliminate gravity locally, 'at a point'. It reminds me of an old joke: what do you see below?


|-----------------------|


Obviously, this is a wegtransformierbar elephant walking on (flat) tightrope! It always drops down due to the Equivalence Principle, poor thing.

Let me try something very simple: the finite size of the "neighborhood U" (cf. Yuri Bonder above and the unsolved task for a quantum version of the strong equivalence principle) in the excerpt below, from An Introduction to GENERAL RELATIVITY, by R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, March-April/2004, pp. 70-71:

 

 

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that GR were some "classical" theory, as usually stated in today's textbooks. Then it doesn't matter if we choose, or not-choose, to get rid of "the components of the Levi-Civita connection" -- Mother Nature has always made them vanished 'out there'. It's like our decision to look, or not-look, at the Moon at noon -- it just won't be there. This is the essence of 'objective reality out there' in any 'classical theory'. Thus, if GR were a bona fide "classical" theory, we would be always confined in the "neighborhood U" and will be always perfectly shielded from gravitation.

I think the wegtransformierbar gravitational energy is a quantum phenomenon: see the story about John's jackets here. Just like the UNdecidable uncolorizable pre-quantum Kochen-Specker state, the gravitational energy (John) must disappear totally at a "point" (remember the falling elephant?), leaving there only its fleeting positive-energy "jacket", one-at-a-time along the Arrow of Space. Ditto to the reality of gravitational waves -- they can enter the local (physical) mode of spacetime "post factum" only, through a null-surface.

 


 


To explain the emergence of a quasi-local "geodesic y going through a point P" above, consider again the Gedankenexperiment with four dice above, which are correlated "in the air" (in the global atemporal mode of spacetime), in such a way that the sum of their readings on the table (local mode of spacetime) must be confined in the interval [10, 20], at the instant ("point P") they are fixed/dropped on the table. We can physically observe only the dice on the table, where they exist as 'facts' explicated on a perfect continuum (local mode).

Suppose we observe consecutive sets of readings like n1: (3, 5, 1, 6), n2: (4, 4, 3, 5), n3: (5, 6, 2, 5), n4: (1, 3, 5, 1), etc., all of which are correlated 'post factum' by the requirement [10, 20]. Physically, we're constrained by the 'speed of light', so we will only observe an emergent quasi-local "geodesic y" of such already-correlated n-states explicated on a perfect continuum (local mode of spacetime). Every n-state matches the "point P" at which the components of the Levi-Civita connection have already vanished: all we can physically observe, due to the 'speed of light', is a pre-correlated quantum-gravitational "jacket" cast there from "John".

Here comes an explanation of the motto (since July 1998) of this website: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter. Notice that if we place these n-states in the phase space of classical mechanics, they will be separated by infinitely many point-like states, and all dice will be always confined 'on the table'. Hence it will take a finite time interval for all dice to roll from one set of "correlated" n-states to the next set (not to mention the Buridan-donkey computational task which will 'halt' your super-computer). In the quantum-gravitational realm, there are no "intermediate" states, because the one single atemporal EPR-like correlation is executed 'post factum' -- as it would have been recorded by a physical clock 'on the table'. A macroscopic ("dead") device cannot possibly log on the pre-correlated dice, and will inevitably "read" their dynamics by a "quantum jump".

But the "jump" isn't quantum. It is macroscopic. It is simply an artifact of the measuring device, facilitated by the representation of "probabilities" (Chris Isham). In the quantum-gravitational realm 'out there', we have only emergent quasi-local trajectories/geodesics (VGP formulation of GR).

"Wenn es doch bei dieser verdammten Quantenspringerei bleiben soll, dann bedauere ich, mich mit der Quantentheorie überhaupt beschäftigt zu haben" (If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved), Erwin Schrödinger.

NB: I will be more than happy to defend Schrödinger at the Erwin Schrödinger Institute, if only Bobby Beig allows me to talk. Observe that in both GR and QM we have lost the mundane concept of 'objective reality out there' from classical physics:

1. "The requirement of general covariance takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity," A. Einstein, 1916 (Annalen der Physik 49, 769-822)

2. "In general, a variable has no definite value before I measure it; then measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value that it has." E. Schrödinger, 1935

We can recover the notion of 'reality in QM', only it isn't physical but 'potential reality'; see the case studied by Nevill Mott here. To reveal the corresponding, in the context of GR, presentation of the UNdecidable uncolorizable pre-quantum Kochen-Specker state (never in plural), check out the original paper by Ernst Specker above, and Isham and Butterfield (arXiv:gr-qc/9910005v1, p. 3; emphasis added):
 

 

In a nutshell (C. Isham, arXiv:1004.3564v1, Sec. 5.1, 'The Kochen-Specker theorem and contextuality', p. 20):

"... the implication of the discussion above is that the value ascribed to B (resp. the result of measuring B) depends on whether it is considered together with A1, or together with A2. In other words the value of the physical quantity B is contextual. This is often considered one of the most important implications of the Kochen-Specker theorem."

What, if any, remains invariant in 'the quantity B' upon observing it 'together with A1' and 'together with A2'? What keeps its "sameness"? According to GR textbooks -- nothing, because the quantity B isn't 'observable' but gauge-dependant. Just like the so-called 'absolute structures', it isn't "physical". It doesn't obey the ‘generalized principle of action and reaction’ either (James L. Anderson, Principles of Relativity Physics, Academic Press, New York, 1967, p. 73 and p. 339).

What remains invariant is the unphysical 'John' --  not its gauge-dependant 'jackets' that can be introduced 'by hand' (and work amazingly well, e.g., energy pseudo-tensors), and also eliminated 'by hand', as in the case of GWs (cf. A. Loinger, arXiv:physics/0312149v3). It shows up in GR as Karel Kuchar's Perennials and the Aristotelian First Cause which governs the dynamics "from outside as an unmoved mover". Notice that John's "all time  τ  is eternally present" (idem), as it should be. Not surprisingly, the "waves" of John aren't "physical" either. Yes, they are real, but cannot be detected with LIGO, Virgo and the like.

Ditto to the "god particle"; details from Holger Lyre.

Observe that every n-state occupies the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, at which the two modes of spacetime coincide -- we have a re-created Phoenix Universe in which the "neighborhood U" is stretched to the dimensions of the whole universe, all negotiations between the two sides of the Einstein filed equation are settled, and the negative gravitational energy almost-exactly (here we enter the cosmological "constant" puzzle) cancels "the energy you think is being gained in the matter fields" (Sean Carroll). There is absolutely nothing "dark" in such frozen instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space. But if we compare the n-states 'now' along the "vertical" direction the Arrow of Space (like Photoshop layers), the holistic effects from 'the school of fish' (Machian QG) will be indeed deeply confusing, since people are conditioned, since 1930s, to seek explanation of such "dark" energy from some stuff with positive-energy density.

Notice again that all correlations "in the air" occur in the global luxonic time, which an (inanimate) wristwatch will read as "frozen". The obvious puzzle is that "nothing can “happen” along the wave direction, time stands still in the wave direction" (B. Schutz), which is why we need two modes of spacetime, global (atemporal) and local (physical). I believe the correct (not the Hamiltonian) formulation of GR can only be recovered with the geometry of null hypersurfaces (cf. Kevin Brown) which, "unlike that of space-like hypersurfaces, is not metric" (D.C. Robinson). There isn't any other feasible option to cure the initial error with the "splitting of spacetime": there is no problem of space in GR and in canonical quantum gravity. People are still treating 'spacetime' as a composite made of two separable entities (cf. Hermann Minkowski), and are "instructing" matter to "evolve" on a dead frozen "space" which can only "bent" (cf. below), but cannot evolve en bloc, as being driven uniformly by the "dark" energy of Einstein's 'total field of as yet unknown structure'.
 


 

To recover the genuine dynamics of GR, we need to make the very spacetime dynamical, to "fly" along the null hypersurface of the Arrow of Space.

Also, the proper GW detector must be endowed with the faculty of self-acting (see above), and must access the global mode of time: check out the time code of the animation from John Walker below depicting the 'relativity of of simultaneity' (no invariant meaning to “the same time but at different places”). You observe all events from the whole Cauchy slice en bloc from the global mode of spacetime. You are "outside" the 4-D spacetime, ]between[ the emission-and-absorption of a "free photon" (Kevin Brown), in the potential reality of 'John' (not his "colored jackets"), and of course your poor ("dead") wristwatch will read your luxonic time as "frozen".

 


 


Se non è vero è molto ben trovato, eh
?

Seriously, the task is indeed simple, because if we keep in mind the broader picture of quantum gravity, we should offer solutions to four tasks: (i) the measurement problem in Quantum Mechanics, (ii) the macro-objectification problem (smooth reversible transitions between the macroscopic world and the quantum realm), (iii) the gravitational effects of the quantum vacuum (F. Curtis Michel) and the “cosmological energy catastrophe” (Pavel Kroupa et al., arXiv:1006.1647v3, footnotes 1 and 2), and (iv) the emergence of Lorentzian metric from the so-called "spacetime foam". Once we put all this the table, the spectrum of choices to resolve these four puzzles will be very narrow. Then we'll try our best proposal, and if it resolves another problem effortlessly (e.g., the origin of CMB1), we'll gain further confidence in our approach toward quantum gravity -- it will be 'simple', simply because at this point we would have practically no freedom to get it wrong. Soon or later, all pieces from the jigsaw puzzle will snap to their places, effortlessly.

But then comes a gentle reminder from Friedrich Schiller:
 

Nur die Fülle führt zur Klarheit,
Und im Abgrund wohnt die Wahrheit.
 


D. Chakalov
April 15, 2012
Last updated: May 3, 2012
 

1 The interpretation of CMB as an 'echo' of some "big bang" presupposes some cancellation of matter/anti-matter (called "annihilation") resulting in the observed matter/anti-matter asymmetry, but the questions of "how many" baryons exist in the universe today, in the form of matter rather than antimatter, and what happened to the antimatter are still unsolved: there is far too much "non-baryonic dark stuff" to fit in the universe.
 




 

Which is why I use the term cancellation, as with the other "dark" element from the tug-of-war gravity, e.g., the cancellation "between different contributions to 1 part in 1060, in order to be consistent with the observed size of the Universe" (N. Afshordi, pp. 6-7).

Think about 'baryons in the universe today' (about one particle per billion) as John's jackets emerging from the cancellation of, say, 1 part in 109. No "big bang" and no violent eruption ever happened -- just a quiet cancellation of 'all but one jacket', as in the Potential Reality (PR) interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Namely, the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space offers only one empty template to be filled in with only one jacket', with unit probability. The rest of "quantum states" (cf. R. Feynman above) simply do not show up as 'physical reality' in the instant 'now', hence there is no violation of the unitary dynamics kept by 'John' (not his 'jackets') in the quantum realm 'out there'. The non-unitary "collapse" (cf. Steve Adler) is also an artifact from the macroscopic devices: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

Recall the story about Wheeler's "cloud" in the game of 20 questions:

"There had been a plot not to agree on an object to be guessed, but that each person, when asked, must give a truthful answer concerning some real object that was in his mind, and which was consistent with all the answers that had gone before." With only one question left, John Wheeler guessed: "Is it a cloud?" The answer was "Yes!" (John and Marry Gribbin, In Search of Schrödinger's Cat, Black Swan, London, 1998, p. 209).

The answer 'cloud' did not exist as "baryons" or any positive-energy stuff before the first question asked by John Wheeler, nor until the 19th answer. It rather emerged like John's jackets from Margenau's Onta during the ongoing specification on the context, in perfect agreement with Kochen-Specker and Conway-Kochen theorems mentioned below. The "ongoing specification" is performed by one standing quantum-gravitational wave -- the "thought" of the universe correlating the instantaneous emergence (as it would have been recorded with a physical clock) of "jackets" in the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space. Simple, no?

Notice again that the "thought" of the universe (the GPI field of Einstein) is neither physical nor mental phenomenon, but 'potential reality'. It is not some uniform homogeneous filed -- its has "clumps" of associations, like the associative links in the human memory, only in this case we're talking about the "memory" of 'the universe as a brain' bootstrapped by its quantum-gravitational wave. These "clumps" of associations show up as "quarks" which are totally "confined" from the outset, as explained eloquently by Don Lincoln below.
 




Compare this with the explanation from David J. Miller

 

What physicists at CERN call 'mass' is the "verbalized thought", or rather the physical "jacket" from these clumps of associations in the GPI field of Einstein (the "thought" of the universe). If we parameterize the effects, denoted with E (from 'entanglement with the universe as ONE'), of the GPI field with an open interval of natural positive numbers, (0, infinity), we will start from the case of 'E approaching asymptotically 0', which corresponds to the mundane world of classical mechanics. As E grows, it will outline the GPI layer of QM, in which the GPI field absorbs Margenau's latent observables. The next layer is the one at which the GPI field incorporates Margenau's possessed observables, such as the "mass" of elementary particles in QCD. Going further, the next GPI layer will be well beyond the "standard model", as some yet-to-be discovered inclusion of the electron in the extended (with some help from Fibonacci) family of "quarks". What comes next is anyone's guess, but notice the case of 'E approaching asymptotically infinity': well, this may be a super "heavy" clump of associations of all potential particles in the quantum vacuum, which also exist as 'potential reality' (recall that 'John' himself does not gravitate; only his "jackets"). If you wish to described this last GPI layer with "quarks", check out again Fibonacci. It's all "quarks" down the road, but there must be a cut-off at the Planck scale. Simple, no?

Not surprisingly, my offer to elaborate in details at CERN's Summer Institute on BSM Physics (18 - 29 June 2012) was not appreciated. Yet the people at CERN's Theory Group can't introduce gravity in their "standard model", which is why they don't have a clue about the leptoquark "mass".

But they have money. A humongous amount of money. Billions and billions of Euro.


We haven't the money, so we've got to think!
Lord Rutherford, 1962 Brunel Lecture, 14 February 1962

 


 

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



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: Re: Event horizon, if any: request for reference
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 20:08:05 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Samir <mathur.16@osu.edu>
Cc: Richard Woodard <woodard@phys.ufl.edu>,
Avi Loeb <aloeb@cfa.harvard.edu>,
Neven Bilic <bilic@thphys.irb.hr>,
Alan Coley <aac@mathstat.dal.ca>,
Bernard J Carr <b.j.carr@qmul.ac.uk>,
Tomohiro Harada <harada@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
George Svetlichny <svetlich@mat.puc-rio.br>,
Paul K Townsend <p.k.townsend@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Miguel Sanchez Caja <sanchezm@ugr.es>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>,
Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Abhay Ashtekar <ashtekar@gravity.psu.edu>,
Robert Beig <robert.beig@univie.ac.at>,
James Fry <fry@phys.ufl.edu>,
Gary W Gibbons <G.W.Gibbons@damtp.cam.ac.uk>



Dear Samir,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

> i dont know a good reference, but ashtekar has developed a theory of many
> different kinds of horizons (apparent, event, etc.) so he must have made these all exact

He should have made the 'event horizon' exact but hasn't, I'm afraid.

Here's the standard explanation from Paul Townsend, well before the discovery of the "dark" energy (arXiv:gr-qc/9707012v1, pp. 52-53): "The location of the event horizon H+ generally requires knowledge of the *complete* spacetime. Its location cannot be determined by observations over a finite time interval. However if we wait until the black hole settles down to a stationary spacetime... "

Seems to me that the last sentence contains too much poetry, which hasn't been eliminated in the review article by Jonathan Thornburg, 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."

How do you define 'stationary spacetime' with (asymptotically timelike) Killing vector obtained from the "dark" energy of [whatever] ? And how long you may need to wait until the "black hole" settles down to a stationary spacetime, *after* which it will obtain an "event horizon" and eventually become a "black hole" ?

I have an alternative to the Killing vector filed and the "dark" energy at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#ESI

but people like Gary Gibbons don't like it, so I guess you or some of your colleagues can come up with a better idea spelled with math.

All the best,

Dimi



On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Sorry for this bulk email.
>
> I wonder if you are aware of some rigorous proof of the existence of
> 'event horizon' in GR. I've been searching for many years, with no
> success.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dimi Chakalov

 

 

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

 

Subject: Re: Event horizon, if any: request for reference
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:54:04 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Luigi Foschini <luigi.foschini@brera.inaf.it>
Cc: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>


Dear Luigi,

Thank you for your reply.

> I think that the best definition is that coming from the mathematics. That
> is, given - for example - the Schwarzschild metric, the event horizon is
> that coordinate singularity occurring when the distance from the centre is
> equal to 2GM/c^2.

Check out Stephen J. Crothers,

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

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-09.PDF

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF


> In this case, the dt^2 term vanishes, while the dr^2 term
> and the angular one diverge to infinite. It is a singularity different from
> that for r=0: the event horizon can be removed with a proper choice of
> coordinate (e.g. Kruskal), while the singularity at r=0 is an essential
> singularity and cannot be removed.
>
> Hope it is useful.

Well, it is a very good example of how people "read" the math. Details from Angelo Loinger, The black holes do not exist - "Also Sprach Karl Schwarzschild", arXiv:physics/0402088v1.

All the best,

Dimi


> On 5/16/12 3:57 PM, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
> Dear Luigi,
>
> Can you suggest a rigorous definition of 'event horizon' ?
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#EH_if_any
>
> All the best,
>
> Dimi
>

 

Note: Another startling example of how people "read" the math is Gerardus ’t Hooft:

 

"Due to the energy that should exist in a gravitational wave, gravity should interact with itself. Einstein’s equation should have a term describing gravity’s own energy. In fact, it does. (...) One way to see how this works, is to split the metric gμν into a background part, goμν, for which we could take flat space-time, and a dynamical part: substitute in the Einstein-Hilbert action:

 gμν = goμν + g1μν .

"The dynamical part,  g1μν ,  is defined to include all the ripples of whatever gravitational wave one wishes to describe. Just require that the background metric goμν obeys the gravitational equations itself; one can then remove from the Lagrangian all terms linear in  g1μν. This way, one gets an action that starts out with terms quadratic in  g1μν, while all its indices are connected through the background field goμν. This is because both  goμν and g1μν transform as true tensors under a coordinate transformation; all terms in the expansion in powers of g1μν  are therefore separately generally invariant.

"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. In spite of DC calling it "utter madness", this procedure works just perfectly."

 

Yes, it is utter madness to relate hydro-electric plants and daily tides with any "splitting the metric" into two "parts", background and dynamical.

 

"L and C shout that this stress-energy-momentum tensor is a "pseudotensor". Indeed, its transformation properties are subtle, and one might wish to claim that splitting gμν in a background part and a dynamical part is "unphysical". But then, indeed, one should accept the fact that the notion of energy is observer dependent anyway. An observer who is in free fall in a gravitational field may think there’s no energy to be gained from gravity.

"Actually, one can define the energy density in different ways, since one has the freedom to add pure gradients to the energy density, without affecting the total integral, which represents the total energy, which is conserved. Allowing this, one might consider the Einstein tensor Gμν itself to serve as the gravitational part of the stress-energy-momentum tensor, but there would be problems with such a choice. The definition using a background metric (which produces only terms that are quadratic in the first derivatives) is much better, and there’s nothing wrong with a definition of energy, stress and momentum that’s frame dependent, as long as energy and momentum are conserved. In short, if one wants only first derivatives, either frame dependence or background metric dependence are inevitable."

 

To say that the splitting gμν in a background part and a dynamical part is "unphysical" would be a compliment to G. ’t Hooft, which I'm afraid he does not deserve; cf. A. Perez, arXiv:1205.2019v1 [gr-qc], p. 4.



D. Chakalov
May 17, 2012

 


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



Subject: Re: STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, by G. 't Hooft
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:59:31 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Gerardus <g.thooft@uu.nl>
Cc: "Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
"Dupre, Maurice J" <mdupre@tulane.edu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>,
Norbert Straumann <norbert.straumann@gmail.com>,
Domenico Giulini <domenico.giulini@itp.uni-hannover.de>,
Luca Bombelli <luca@phy.olemiss.edu>,
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>


Hello Gerardus,

Regarding my email from Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:50:10 +0200, I quoted from your masterpiece at

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

Please say something. Don't be shy. Make your best shot.

D.


 

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


Subject: Event horizon, if any: request for reference
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 22:03:46 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Pankaj <psj@tifr.res.in>, Ravindra <ravindra.saraykar@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Woodard <woodard@phys.ufl.edu>,
Avi Loeb <aloeb@cfa.harvard.edu>,
Alan Coley <aac@mathstat.dal.ca>,
Bernard J Carr <b.j.carr@qmul.ac.uk>,
Tomohiro Harada <harada@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
George Svetlichny <svetlich@mat.puc-rio.br>,
Paul K Townsend <p.k.townsend@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Miguel Sanchez Caja <sanchezm@ugr.es>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
Jörg Frauendiener <joergf@maths.otago.ac.nz>,
Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Abhay Ashtekar <ashtekar@gravity.psu.edu>,
Robert Beig <robert.beig@univie.ac.at>,
James Fry <fry@phys.ufl.edu>,
Gary W Gibbons <G.W.Gibbons@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Harvey S Reall <H.S.Reall@damtp.cam.ac.uk>,
Jiří Bičák <Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz>


Dear Pankaj and Ravindra,

You acknowledged in arXiv:1205.3263v2 [gr-qc] that GR "does not predict that such a singularity will be necessarily covered in an event horizon, forming a black hole", and it is by no means clear that we can speak about "singularity" in the first place, given the lack of any observational evidence for either "event horizon" or "time-like naked singularity" (arXiv:gr-qc/0410041v1).

Ravindra: I wonder if you are aware of some rigorous proof (no mathematical poetry) of the existence of 'event horizon' in GR. I've been searching for many years, with no success. I asked Pankaj previously, but he couldn't provide such reference. Since you're trained in math, I hope you know the problem in details.

The current status of my search for a rigorous proof of 'event horizon' is posted at

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

I hope to hear from your colleagues as well: just the math of 'event horizon', and no poetry, please!

Best regards,

Dimi

 

 

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


Subject: "Gravitational Wave Astronomy: Needle in a Haystack," by Neil J. Cornish
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:12:25 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekx=j2Uob8JX4Zm6OSGtJygkA5wgyis-iuHJZnnk7dBwbAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Neil J Cornish <cornish@physics.montana.edu>
Cc: Suzanne Abbott <philtransa@royalsociety.org>,
Stuart Taylor <stuart.taylor@royalsociety.org>,
press@royalsociety.org, rld@astro.ox.ac.uk,
lyndsay.fletcher@glasgow.ac.uk,
lahav@star.ucl.ac.uk, s.miller@ucl.ac.uk


Hello Dr. Cornish,

Paper is a valuable commodity, it must not be wasted. I think you should immediately pull out your arXiv:1204.2000v1 [gr-qc] from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, and start from scratch:

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

I stand ready to explain your errors in details.

Sincerely,

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


Note
: Do you know how to cook Andean Flamingo with Jabuticaba? Easy. No problem. Just try two handy approximations, for obvious reasons. Instead of Andean Flamingo, use a large broiler, and if you can't find Jabuticaba in your local grocery, replace it with cabbage, then cook it as 'chicken with cabbage'.

Same story with LIGO "scientific" collaboration and their two approximations, linearized GR (cf. Hermann Weyl) and quadrupole approximation. I'm not sure if the Editors of The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society would be desperate for a piece of cold chicken with soggy cabbage though. Highly unlikely.

Actually, the proper epitaph for 'the needle in a haystack' is from Confucius: The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.

“For if we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted” (K. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2002, p. 124).

Probably Neil Cornish will just reject my email. That will be really "smart", yes. Typical for LIGO "scientific" collaboration, too.


D. Chakalov
April 12, 2012
Last updated: April 18, 2012

 


 

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


Subject: PSR1913+16
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:55:02 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Guo Jun Qiao <gjn@pku.edu.cn>
Cc: Ingrid H. Stairs <stairs@astro.ubc.ca>,
Edward P. J. van den Heuvel <e.p.j.vandenheuvel@uva.nl>,
J. M. Lattimer <lattimer@mail.astro.sunysb.edu>,
M. Prakash <prakash@snare.physics.sunysb.edu>,
Jin Lin Han <hjl@bao.ac.cn>,
R. T. Gangadhara <ganga@iiap.res.in>,
K. J. Lee <k.j.lee@water.pku.edu.cn>,
R. X. Xu <r.x.xu@pku.edu.cn>,
H. G. Wang <hgwang@gzhu.edu.cn>,
Yuan Jie Du <duyj@nssc.ac.cn>


Dear Professor Qiao,

May I ask for your opinion about all possible reasons for the loss of kinetic energy of PSR1913+16,

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

Perhaps pulsar wind [Ref. 1] or other mundane physical process?

I extend this request to your colleagues as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Your sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


[Ref. 1] Jin Lin Han, Pulsars as Fantastic Objects and Probes,
arXiv:0901.1593v1 [astro-ph.SR]
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1593

Sec. 2 Pulsar emission

Radio emission from pulsars is generated in pulsar magnetosphere. We define the boundary of this magnetosphere by the light-cylinder, e.g. at the radius where the rotation speed is equal to the light speed. The particles, i.e. positrons and electrons, are accelerated along the magnetic fields above polar cap or the outer gap. These particles radiate [22] so that we can see the emission in radio and high energy band.

However, it is not clear what physical processes are involved for the particles to radiate. Pulsar wind or wind nebula [63] can be formed if particles flow out through the open magnetic field lines passing through the light-cylinder. It is the rotation that provides the energy source for pulsar emission and particle outflowing (... hence the latter will rob the energy source of the pulsar, but with some luck you may get a Nobel Prize for the alternative hypothesis -- D.C.).

 

 

 

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




Subject: arXiv:1204.1350v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:44:42 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Gergely Székely <szekely.gergely@renyi.mta.hu>

Dear Dr. Székely,

I found your article very illuminating. May I share some thoughts about the irrational numbers.

Consider the Golden Ratio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

and imagine the middle point, C, such that AC/CB = AB/AC. If we attach rational numbers to A and B, C will be uniquely defined but irrational, although it is by no means ontologically different than the "points" A and B. If we choose to set, say, AC = 1 m, then
A and C will be rational numbers, but not B.

BTW are you aware of the Thompson Lamp paradox?

Kind regards,

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


Note: Gergely Székely and his co-authors posed a very intriguing question: What do numbers have to do with the geometry of spacetime? The ideas hinted in my email do not support their arXiv:1204.1350v1 [gr-qc] (nor the views of Alfred Tarski), however.

Since both natural and irrational numbers are related to "points", the first claim about the the geometry of spacetime -- the grin of the Cheshire cat without the cat, as observed by Alice (in the l.h.s. of the Einstein filed equation) -- is that any finite chunk of space contains uncountably infinite "points". If you treat these "points" as a 'set', "its cardinal number is larger than that of the set of all natural numbers" (Wiki).

But as the Thompson Lamp paradox suggests, it may not be a 'set', because a finite, and purely geometrical, chunk of 'the grin of the Cheshire cat without the cat' both involves a "point" that belongs to the 'set', and at the same time the same "point" does not belong to the 'set'. Hence we have a beautiful logical contradiction, showing the dual nature of a very special "number" -- zero. Actually, what we call 'spacetime' is comprised exclusively from such dual objects. Let me try to explain.

On the one hand, if we apply potential infinity to the end-state of the Thompson Lamp hypertask, it will look like 'the empty set R' which, as people argue (Wiki), does not belong to the "set" of divergent 'on/off states of the lamp'. But on the other hand, if we apply actual/completed infinity à la bartenders, the end-state of the lamp does belong to the same "set".

The logical paradox can be resolved only with the dual nature of the "number" zero in the framework of the so-called 'John's jackets': 'the empty set R' is the UNdecidable pre-quantum Kochen-Specker state which is non-existent (hence "zero") in the local (physical) mode of spacetime ("John" doesn't belong there), yet if treated with actual/completed infinity the same empty set R will display its fleeting physical "jacket". The latter can be presented with both natural and irrational numbers. Q.E.D.

To paraphrase Henri Poincaré, the Mengenlehre and Baldy's Law1 are a disease from which we have not yet recovered -- see the "open sets" above and the discussion of the Equivalence Principle viz. the quasi-localization of the gravitational energy with respect to 'everything else in the universe'.

As Steven Weinstein pointed out (General relativity and quantum theory -- ontological investigations, in: Metadebates on Science: The Blue Book of 'Einstein Meets Magritte', Vol. 6, edited by Gustaaf C. Cornelis, Sonja Smets, and Jean Paul van Bendegem, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1999, pp. 267-279):

"From a strictly mathematical perspective, the metric is an attribution of properties to points on the manifold, and the manifold does not in itself represent spacetime."

Replace 'the points on the manifold' with "jackets", and 'the manifold in itself' with "John", and you're done. Always keep in mind the fundamental difference between the metric "field" from GR textbooks, and the Affine Connection -- the pre-geometric binding agent of the "points" from 'the manifold in itself' does not exist in the local (physical) mode of spacetime. It is the omnipresent empty set R, denoted with the unique number zero. It exists in the global, atemporal, non-Archimedean mode of spacetime as 'potential reality', thanks to the Arrow of Space.

To those who disagree, I suggest to read here about the quarrel I had in 1986 with a Russian physicist, and then recall the 1929 paper by Nevill Mott: you have continuous, uninterrupted interactions involving energy exchange between a single quantum particle and its macroscopic detector. You can measure with your wristwatch the duration of the track, so how would you explain the macroscopic "copies" ("jackets") of that single quantum particle, produced by its continuous energy exchange with its detector ?

If you can explain the puzzle without John's jackets, call CERN's Theory Group and tell them that they might eventually detect their "god particle". Then call LIGO "scientific" collaboration and assure them that they too can detect their dimensionless ghost. And finally, call the Scientific Organizing Committee of the Einstein Conference in Prague and tell them that I have nothing new to offer, so they can safely reject my talk.


D. Chakalov
April 16, 2012
Last updated: April 20, 2012



1 Baldy's Law: Some of it plus the rest of it is all of it.


 

 

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










Subject: Re: arXiv:0704.2291v1 [astro-ph]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:25:24 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7Ekxm7z1a+wmyOVwjq-WbyTOrC3PrJvBZd3ooEzHBOnz7nEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Simon White <swhite@mpa-garching.mpg.de>
Cc: Pavel Kroupa <pavel@astro.uni-bonn.de>,
Hans Peter Nilles <nilles@th.physik.uni-bonn.de>,
Mordehai Milgrom <Moti.Milgrom@weizmann.ac.il>,
Craig J Copi <cjc5@po.cwru.edu>,
Robert Minchin <rminchin@naic.edu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>


Dear Simon,

Seems to me you've neglected my email sent five years ago, on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:24:49 +0300 (cf. below).

At the debate with Dr. Pavel Kroupa on 18 November 2010, 'Anmerkungen zur Dunkle-Materie-Debatte: Kroupa vs. White',

http://www.scilogs.de/kosmo/blog/himmelslichter/allgemein/2010-12-06/
anmerkungen-zur-dunkle-materie-debatte-pawel-kroupa-vs.-simon-white

you insisted on your definition of "dark" matter as some "invisible" (e.g., non-baryonic) stuff made of positive-energy density (recall the failure to detect some WIMPS).

On the other hand, your colleague was trying to suggest some interpretation of these anomalous effects with MOND.

I think there is a third possibility based on quantum gravity: please see an outline at

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

Will be happy to elaborate.

All the best,

Dimi


------------
Subject: Re: arXiv:0704.2291v1 [astro-ph]
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:24:49 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Simon White <swhite@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE>
References: <001d01c782ec$2d980a20$6501000a@home>
<20070420082358.GE16275@ncb-11.MPA-Garching.MPG.DE>

Dear Simon,

Thanks you for your reply. Just a few thoughts.
[snip]

It is a pleasure to read your review article to Nature, "The large-scale structure of the Universe". I am deeply puzzled by VIRGOHI 21,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Minchin.html#1
[snip]


 


 

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



Subject: Request for advice
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 02:10:41 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jack Lee <lee@math.washington.xxx>
Cc: Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>


Dear Professor Lee,

I have an immodest request. If possible, please help me find the proof (if any) that the manifold specified in GR [Ref. 1] is indeed (i) second countable and (ii) orientable, even if its "points" are *uncountably* infinite, as I argued at

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

It seems to me that, given
Gödel's explanation of Cantor's continuum problem (November 1947), a line in Euclidean space contains uncountably infinite "points", hence we are dealing with a non-Archimedean realm in which adding/subtracting any number of "points" simply doesn't matter, as explained eloquently in the song about aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall,

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Aleph-0.html

This is an open question in GR, since many people believe that 3-D space "expands" due to some non-dilutable "dark" energy of [whatever], by somehow inserting "more space". However, if the Archimedes' lemma does not hold for the manifold in GR textbooks, we may have a whole new ball game.

Thank you for your time, and please excuse my violent curiosity.

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


[Ref. 1] Lars Andersson, The global existence problem in general relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/9911032v4, Footnote 1, p. 3: "All manifolds are assumed to be Hausdorff, second countable and C∞, and all fields are assumed to be C∞ unless otherwise stated."
---------


Note
: If you are dealing with uncountably infinite "set" of points, you can't make them "second countable" ("countable base" topology cannot recover all points "counted" with irrational numbers). Such "set" cannot be made orientable either. Surely if you open the window of your room in a cold winter day, you will notice that your room gets colder, but Jack Lee can't insert such "orientability" from thermodynamics into the underling manifold.

Here's an excerpt from his textbook 'Riemannian Manifolds: An Introduction to Curvature' (source here): "The most fundamental fact about geodesics, which we prove in Chapter 4, is that given any point p € M and any vector V tangent to M at p, there is a unique geodesic starting at p with initial tangent vector V ."

But you can't define any point p in GR, simply because "points" are defined by their physical content: "the points occurring in the base sets of diffrerentiable manifolds with which general relativity models spacetime should not be reified as physically real" (J. Butterfield and C.J. Isham, arXiv:gr-qc/9903072v1). The only thing that can make some "point" physically real is its fleeting physical "jacket", but the latter cannot be fixed at a "point" (MTW, p. 467).

Thus, we have a "set" of uncountably infinite "points", all of which are quasi-local: the "localization" is being performed (i) dynamically (cf. "not yet" below) and (ii) relationally, with respect to 'everything else in the universe'.

These are the very first statements you should read on p. 1 of every graduate-level text on differential geometry, to understand "curvature", "metric", and the Affine Connection. But I don't know if it possible to convert these statements into theorems and try to "prove" them: check out the logical paradox above.

In general, it seems mathematicians would prefer to keep their privileged status of people who need not to learn physics. Consider, for example, the following expression:

10-44.1044 = 1

If this was a "definition" of 'one second' with the Planck time, it will be total nonsense: we cannot add up things at the Planck scale, as we do in the Archimedean definition of 'one second', by some Gedankenexperiment that cannot be reproduced with any physical stuff.

So, what is the topological presentation of non-Archimedean geometry?

I talked with two highly respected mathematicians here in Sofia, over a glass of scotch, about the puzzle from Lucretius, and they basically said, 'look, we're dealing with abstract entities, we aren't concerned about physics', and I said, 'fine, but then how would you describe mathematically a Platonic idea, resembling the non-colorizable, UNdecidable, pre-quantum Kochen-Specker state? What is your notion of 'genuine zero' corresponding to 'the ideal monad without windows?'

Then of course we changed the subject and finished the bottle. You never get headaches from a bottle of fine scotch, as opposed to the "open sets" in topology.


D. Chakalov
April 20, 2012

 

 

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


Subject: Re: arXiv:1204.4325v1 [ quant-ph]
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:29:03 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkudVf069DbCW0N8++A5tRcj-kyw1O0QvYwjNG1ZzHDhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Tejinder Singh <tpsingh@tifr.res.in>
Cc: Angelo <bassi@ts.infn.it>, kinjalk@tifr.res.in,
satin@imsc.res.in, h.ulbricht@soton.ac.uk,
Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu>,
Adrian Kent <A.P.A.Kent@damtp.cam.ac.uk>


Dear Tejinder,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

> Chapter 5 of Adler's book `Quantum theory as an emergent phenomenon'
> explains how an underlying theory such as Trace Dynamics evades the KS
> theorem.

With all due respect to you and Steve, I don't see how any theory, Trace Dynamics included, can evade the KS Theorem. Once you have the "states" which are 'neither UP nor DOWN' and hence are shifted to the uncolored KS sphere, you can't bring them back to the Hilbert space. You can't say anything about these UNdecidable [whatever], because any statement will bring 'color', while they are UNcolored: check out the quote from Erwin Schrödinger (November 1950) at

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

This is a fundamental quantum phenomenon of "failure to predict" (nothing to do with Bell's theorem): "It also makes it clear that this failure to predict is a merit rather than a defect, since these results involve free decisions that the universe has not yet made" (John Conway and Simon Kochen, The Free Will Theorem, quant-ph/0604079 v1). You've talked with Simon Kochen last July at "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" (International Academy Traunkirchen, Austria), so I suppose you're familiar with these UNdecidable [whatever].

Erwin Schrödinger predicted them in November 1950. Henry Margenau called them 'Onta'. Can't fit them into any Hilbert space.

I will be happy to elaborate.

Best regards,

Dimi
 

 

 

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



Subject: Listening for gravitational-waves with "ears wide open"
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:55:10 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxkKWwVaE9rNotyuXq_TwR+OQNNfu=GfQ2MO37uG+oxz9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Francesco Salemi <francesco.salemi@aei.mpg.de>
Cc: Joan Centrella <Joan.Centrella@nasa.gov>,
Alan J Weinstein <ajw@caltech.edu>,
James Ira Thorpe <James.I.Thorpe@nasa.gov>,
john.g.baker@nasa.gov,
stmcwill@princeton.edu,
markodh@googlemail.com,
robin.t.stebbins@nasa.gov,
Karen.m.Smale@nasa.gov,
Catherine.m.Corlan@nasa.gov,
notoya.r.russell@nasa.gov,
mor.vimmer@nasa.gov,
johnson@ligo.phys.lsu.edu,
stephen.m.merkowitz@nasa.gov,
meredith.gibb@nasa.gov,
lsfinn@psu.edu,
sheila.rowan@glasgow.ac.uk,
matthew.pitkin@glasgow.ac.uk,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
LSC Spokesperson <reitze@phys.ufl.edu>,
Kip <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Karsten <karsten.danzmann@aei.mpg.de>,
David <garfinkl@oakland.edu>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Gabriela González <gonzalez@lsu.edu>,
Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Tom Carruthers <tcarruth@nsf.gov>,
Ramona Winkelbauer <rwinkelb@nsf.gov>,
Peggy Fischer <pfischer@nsf.gov>,
OIG <oig@nsf.gov>,
HQ-OIG-Counsel@mail.nasa.gov,
Oliver Jennrich <oliver.jennrich@esa.int>,
SciTech.Editorial@esa.int,
Bruce Goldstein <Bruce.Goldstein@jpl.nasa.gov>,
Drew Keppel <drew.keppel@ligo.org>,
Hans-Jürgen Schmidt <hjschmi@rz.uni-potsdam.de>,
Thomas A Prince <prince@srl.caltech.edu>,
Vivian Drew <vdrew@stanford.edu>,
Hamish Johnston <hamish.johnston@iop.org>,
Pedro Marronetti <pmarrone@nsf.gov>,
Bernd Brügmann <b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de>,
Marek Abramowicz <marek@fy.chalmers.se>,
Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>,
Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>,
Jirí Bicák <Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz>,
John Friedman <friedman@uwm.edu>,
Bernd Schmidt <bernd@aei.mpg.de>,
Luciano Rezzolla <rezzolla@aei.mpg.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Joseph Katz <jkatz@phys.huji.ac.il>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>



http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-S6BurstAllSky/
-------------


Dear Mr. Salemi,

You and your app. 800 LIGO 'n Virgo colleagues wrote the following:

"No gravitational wave signal was detected in this search using 1.74 years of good quality data, including the previous LIGO-Virgo joint science run. (...) The second figure on the right shows the resulting rate limits versus signal strength for several hypothetical waveforms. (...) So we can be confident that the search *would have* caught pretty much any type of gravitational wave burst that arrived during that time at the sensitivity level achieved by present detectors."

You used MOCK "data" -- "hypothetical waveforms" -- that have been custom-made to fit your "filters", so that now you "can be confident that the search *would have* caught pretty much any type of gravitational wave burst that arrived during that time at the sensitivity level achieved by present detectors."

This is a classical example of parapsychology-type thinking.

NB: You and your LIGO 'n Virgo colleagues are total disgrace to the whole GR community.

Check out the bold facts at

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

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

Yes, I will expose your dirty little secrets at the Einstein Conference in Prague.

Unless, of course, the Scientific Organizing Committee decides to "save" you by rejecting my talk, hence prolong the cover up of the enormous waste of taxpayers' money by LIGO and Virgo members.

I will soon find out whether I will be allowed to talk at the Einstein Conference in Prague.

If my talk is rejected, the last remaining option will be to call a press conference in Prague on Monday, June 25th, and expose your game to the media and other interested individuals. It will make a fascinating reading in the tabloid newspapers. Trust me, I can do it -- and I have nothing to lose.

How about you ?

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU


==========================
 

Note: Five seconds after I sent the email above, I received confirmation from NSF OIG:


Subject: NSF OIG has received your submission.  Thank you.
From: "OIG" <oig@nsf.gov>
To: "Dimi Chakalov" <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:55:15 -0400
Message-ID:
<2D1C5457CACAB04F9325751A96F342D904BC4AB8@NSF-BE-03.ad.nsf.gov>


No response from the Inspector General at NASA to my email from Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:44:12 +0200 has reached me so far. The ref. no. of my inquiry is 6786.
 





In summary, the proponents of "GW astronomy" do not have any theory of strong GWs from which one could derive some very week limit, to verify their initial assumptions (cf. the two "if-s" above). Actually, they openly admit that such theory is not feasible: check out the excerpt from M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Theory and Experiments, p. 32 above. They approach the challenge of detecting a very week GW with approximations which are totally inapplicable to the initial, and very strong, gravitational radiation. They
kill the very effect they wish to measure with "GWs in flat spacetime" -- the assumption that by reaching the "advanced" LIGO these waves will be "very weak" is irrelevant: the transport of energy by GWs is fundamentally non-linear phenomenon. It makes no sense to "enhance the sensitivity" of what has been a dead turkey from the outset. They totally ignore the opinions of experts in GR, published in peer reviewed journals. Even after five (or more) consecutive failures, the proponents of "GW astronomy" are not willing to address their initial problems. They just ask for more money -- in the range of billions.

To understand the absurdity of "GW astronomy", think of Schrödinger's equation: it is a perfectly legitimate approximation for all cases in which the vacuum effects in QFT can be ignored. But if you wish to explore some very strong vacuum effect, you will use QFT -- not Schrödinger's equation. But because the proponents of "GW astronomy" do not have the theory equivalent to QFT, they "use" what they have -- the linearized approximation of GR -- despite the fact that it is inapplicable to their quest for detecting GWs, as proven by Hermann Weyl in 1944. They don't read, don't think, but just ask for more and more taxpayers' money -- in the range of billions.

For comparison, look at Leonid Marochnik: he uses "one–loop approximation of quantum gravity" which has the crucial merit of "remoteness from the Planck epoch", and seriously suggests "the appearance of ghosts in the theory of quantum metric fluctuations", yet does not propose some very sensitive ghost detectors and doesn't ask for money either. Likewise, if the proponents of "GW astronomy" were not wasting money earned with hard labor by millions of people, and were not wasting paper for their publications -- fine. Let them play with their math as much as they can; it's a free world.

There is no communist censorship in a free world, right? Well, it depends.


The Scientific Organizing Committee decided to change the rules: they will consider only those applicants for oral presentation (talk), who have already paid the conference fee of EUR 350, before April 15, 2012. This is the new precondition, announced on April 24th this year, to applicants submitting their oral presentations -- all of which are still waiting to be approved by the Scientific Organizing Committee (cf. below).

It goes without saying that I was not informed about this new precondition until April 24, 2012 (the legal terms is antedate). Also, the Scientific Organizing Committee was fully aware that I haven't paid the conference fee of EUR 350 by April 15, 2012.

I wish I knew about this new precondition prior to April 15, 2012. Yet even if I had paid those EUR 350 before the deadline, how could such payment influence the value of my talk? Aren't 'science and money' totally different, like apples and oranges?

Check out my last email from Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:35:02 +0300 printed below.

I will not be allowed to speak at the Einstein Conference in Prague. The LIGO and Virgo members can take a breath and relax -- nobody will challenge their GW parapsychology.

As I stated above, "the last remaining option will be to call a press conference in Prague on Monday, June 25th, and expose your game to the media and other interested individuals. It will make a fascinating reading in the tabloid newspapers. Trust me, I can do it -- and I have nothing to lose."
 

À la guerre comme à la guerre.


D. Chakalov
April 25, 2012, 13:00 EET

 

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

Subject: Re: Conference website login information
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:35:02 +0300
Message-ID: <CAM7Ekxmtfn+enENbd8rdossHoJwSkYGVnXqHzdbptWSjwaZg0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: info@ae100prg.mff.cuni.cz
Cc: Bernd Brügmann <b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de>,
Marek Abramowicz <marek@fy.chalmers.se>,
Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>,
Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>,
Jirí Bicák <Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz>,
John Friedman <friedman@uwm.edu>,
Bernd Schmidt <bernd@aei.mpg.de>,
Luciano Rezzolla <rezzolla@aei.mpg.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Joseph Katz <jkatz@phys.huji.ac.il>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Hermann Nicolai <Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de>,
Paul Tod <tod@maths.ox.ac.uk>



On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:24:47 +0200, ae100prg <ae100prg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Chakalov,
>
> the list of accepted contributed talks is not known yet. Since
> September 2011 the deadline for contribution submission was advertised
> to be April 15 2012, and now after this deadline, the suggested
> contributions are with the Scientific Organizing Committee to find
> those of contributions of REGISTERED participants which will be
> presented in about 60 slots for contributed talks.
>
> Unfortunately, I found you are not among the registered participants

Two things.

1. No need to write with capital letters.

2. Before replying, please make an effort to read the text to which you reply: see my email from December 16, 2011 printed (again) below.

I will list a few facts, and will ask a question.

You did not provide any indications that the Scientific Organizing Committee will require registration to your Conference (EUR 350 before April 15, 2012) as a *precondition* for entering into the list of applicants willing to deliver an oral presentation (talk).

You opened the registration on December 16, 2011, and I did register immediately, on December 16, 2011.

You did not inform me about the change of rules until today, April 24, 2012. As of today, there is still no hint at your web site that you have changed the rules.

These are the facts.

I want to *compete* with you -- both individually, and en bloc.

As I wrote in my email from December 16, 2011, "I cannot compete with the proponents of the "splitting of spacetime" (ADM) with a poster."

But today, on April 24, 2012, you decided to change the rules, and shut me up.

Q: Do you think this is fair ?

I extend this questions to all members of the Scientific Organizing Committee.

Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:57:24 +0300, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleague,
>>
>> I still haven't received your reply to my email from December 16th
>> last year (printed below).
>>
>> Please let me know if I will be allowed to talk at your Conference.
>>
>> Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Dimi Chakalov
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Colleague,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your email. I submitted today the abstract of my
>>> intended oral contribution (for your convenience, please see a copy of
>>> the abstract printed below).
>>>
>>> I would like, if I may, to ask you for confirmation that my talk will
>>> indeed be approved, after which I will immediately register. The
>>> reason for this immodest request of mine is that it is impossible to
>>> explain the proposal with a poster, and if my submission for oral
>>> presentation is denied, there will be no sense to attend the
>>> Conference.
>>>
>>> Stated differently, I cannot compete with the proponents of the
>>> "splitting of spacetime" (ADM) with a poster.
>>>
>>> I will be happy to provide specific details on my intended talk, as
>>> well as any other information you may require for your decision.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to hearing from you,
>>>
>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>
>>> Dimi Chakalov
>>>
>>> [snip]

 

 

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



Subject: Open letter to LSC Spokesperson Prof. Gabriela Gonzalez
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:14:52 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmoLSviqxm8VQEZiEUEdvX6_ytpsLyZBghxxRKbj_vWmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: LSC Spokesperson Gabriela Gonzalez <gonzalez@lsu.edu>
Cc: info@ae100prg.mff.cuni.cz,
Bernd Brügmann <b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de>,
Marek Abramowicz <marek@fy.chalmers.se>,
Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>,
Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>,
Jirí Bicák <Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz>,
John Friedman <friedman@uwm.edu>,
Bernd Schmidt <bernd@aei.mpg.de>,
Luciano Rezzolla <rezzolla@aei.mpg.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Joseph Katz <jkatz@phys.huji.ac.il>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Hermann Nicolai <Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de>,
Paul Tod <tod@maths.ox.ac.uk>,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>,
Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Pedro Marronetti <pmarrone@nsf.gov>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Kip Thorne <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Jeremiah P Ostriker <ostriker@princeton.edu>,
Evangelos Melas <evangelosmelas@yahoo.co.uk>,
Ted Newman <newman@pitt.edu>,
Josh Goldberg <goldberg@phy.syr.edu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>


Dear Professor González,

Funded munificently by the U.S. National Science Foundation, LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) is currently made up of more than 800 scientists from dozens of institutions and 13 countries worldwide. According to the Bylaws of LSC (LIGO M050172-04, 29 March 2006), "The Spokesperson leads the LSC, and is empowered to represent the LSC to the outside world" (Sec. 4.1), and "identifies key issues and opportunities and brings them to the attention of the Collaboration" (4.5.3).

May I draw your attention to the real danger for an exceptionally unbalanced presentation of views on the very possibility for detecting gravitational waves (GWs) at the forthcoming Einstein Conference in Prague, June 25 – 29, 2012: if you look at the list of invited speakers, I believe you can safely predict that Bernd Brügmann, Karsten Danzmann, Luciano Rezzolla, Bernard Schutz, and Clifford Will will undoubtedly advocate the current opinion that GWs can, at least "theoretically", be detected by the so-called Advanced LIGO and Virgo,

http://ae100prg.mff.cuni.cz/program

While we all agree that GWs exist, my opinion is opposite to yours: no, they cannot -- not even in principle -- be detected by LIGO or Virgo, no matter how "advanced". A brief list of the insurmountable, in my opinion, problems of LSC is posted at

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

Two days ago (Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:24:47 +0200), I was shocked and stunned to learn that my intended oral contribution to the Einstein Conference in Prague (submitted on December 16, 2011) will *not even be examined* by the Scientific Organizing Committee: a new *precondition* has been introduced to ban all applicants for oral presentations, who have not paid the conference fee of EUR 350 before the deadline on April 15, 2012.

It goes without saying that I was not informed about this new precondition (the legal term is antedate) until April 24, 2012. Also, I believe the Scientific Organizing Committee was fully aware that I haven't paid the conference fee of EUR 350 by April 15, 2012.

Thus, I will not be able to present my arguments (cf. the link above) to you and your colleagues, which may totally degrade the quality of the discussion of your mission at the Einstein Conference in Prague, by converting it to a fully predictable gathering resembling the meetings of the former Komunistická strana Československa (KSČ),

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

NB: I am certain that you are not only an expert in General Relativity, but a person with pride and dignity as well, and under these circumstances you will feel terribly awkward, to say the least. I am also definitely sure that you did not advise the Scientific Organizing Committee to impose this unprecedented precondition, to eliminate my chance to share with you and your colleagues my arguments and grave concerns regarding the very possibility to detect GWs.

I am respectfully urging you to take the necessary actions, in line with your power and duties of Spokesperson of LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Please feel free to pass this 'open letter' to your LSC colleagues, as well as the NSF officials responsible for funding LSC: you may be on a totally wrong tack, a dead-end.

I stand ready to provide all information you may deem necessary.

Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,

Yours sincerely,

Dimitar G. Chakalov
[snip]

-------------------
 

Note: Why is the issue of GWs important? Because they are real but not physical, in the sense that these "waves" do not carry anything physical, in terms of mass and energy. These "ripples" may be emerging in the real but not physical realm of the universe, called 'potential reality'. In the framework of GR, this new (to some theoretical physicists) form of reality may be Einstein's 'total field of as yet unknown structure'.

As Max Planck stated in 1944, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter".

I only wanted to defend the opinions of Albert Einstein and Max Planck. If the universe does indeed function as a 'brain', there could be one standing quantum-gravitational wave resembling these "thoughts", and originating perhaps from [John 1:1].

Only an ideal or 'meta' observer, placed in the global mode of spacetime, could "see" the quantum-gravitational wave that emerges in the 'school of fish'.

Imagine looking at a hill covered with a forest, where some of the threes are not vertical but leaning at an angle:

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

///////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 


You can see the swathe of trees (in red) leaning in the same direction, and infer from it that they were exposed to strong wind (passing "wave"), yet the wind itself is not visible: all you can see is that some orientable-by-wind trees have been correlated en bloc. In order to detect such passing "wave", you need to install at some correlated tree (depicted with  /  above) a brand new GW detector endowed with the faculty of self-acting -- the EPR-like correlation from the passing "wave" is conducted along the null surface (Sic!) of the Arrow of Space, which is why the resulting physical effect from it will show up locally as 'self-acting'. You cannot trace back the origin of such holistic effect made by 'the whole forest' (
school of fish), hence you will interpreted it as "dark". And again, you are only one single tree confined in the local (physical) mode of spacetime, which cannot "see" the whole forest en bloc.

Again, the fleeting physical content, which identifies each and every quasi-local "point" (depicted with / above) dynamically along the Arrow of Space, is only the necessary condition for the "wave", while the sufficient condition is the holistic correlating effect from 'the forest'. The latter is smuggled into the r.h.s. of the Einstein field equations as 'effect of geometry on matter', and is converted into perfectly legitimate 'source of gravitation'. The linearized treatment of this phenomenon can show only one instant along the null surface of the "wave propagation", and of course people cannot detect any physical effect from it.

Yes, the  "thoughts" of the universe do exist, and should be revealed in the ongoing elimination of "negative mass": at every instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, we have only two worlds with inverted spacetime basis. The task is strictly mathematical, but unfortunately I won't be able to explain it at the Einstein Conference in Prague.

Nobody will acknowledge the pertinent tasks of Einstein's unfinished quest for Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie (recall the problems with the "background" geometry ηab, in A. Perez, arXiv:1205.2019v1 [gr-qc], p. 4). People will continue to dream about "GW astronomy" and speculate about "black holes" and dynamics of GR. At the end of the Conference, they will congratulate each other for their 'valuable research' and will of course reassure themselves that 'more research is needed'. Combined with the beautiful Prague and its famous pubs, they will have a jolly good time. But once the "advanced" LIGO and Virgo fail to detect any GW strain, the 'jolly good time' will end with a bucket of cold water. I'll be there to help and will set the record straight: it was a scam, ladies and gentlemen, and you bloody knew it.

The scam is really huge --
"at least 3-4 billion dollars", as stated by Bernard F. Schutz above. It is based on the unwarranted assumption that GWs propagate exclusively in 3-D space 'from point A to point B' on a dead flat background spacetime (recall Hermann Weyl article from 1944 above) which will not, in no circumstances, alter the GW itself (see MTW p. 968 and M. Maggiore, p. 32 above), although you know bloody well that (i) such dead flat background spacetime is impossible to obtain from the spacetime of initially strong GWs (see above), and (ii) you cannot calculate the tangible forms of energy associated with the deformations of the Coca Cola bottle above. Like my teenage daughter, all you can say is this: 'I want my Barbie!' But unlike my daughter, you have been addicted to play with such Barbies, you have devoted your professional vocation to obtaining 'the ultimate Barbie' at any cost to the taxpayers, you get you pay check for 'playing with Barbies', and you simply cannot do anything else but pushing for the ultimate $4 billion Barbie.

When you fail miserably again, you will launch the Plan B -- 'you know, it was Einstein who got it all wrong, I trusted his GR, but it failed'. To be precise: "Any such failure of GR should point the way to new physics" (B. F. Schutz et al., arXiv:0903.0100v1 [gr-qc]).

If this isn't a scam, what is it ?


D. Chakalov
April 26, 2012
Last updated: May 16, 2012, 11:58:06 GMT

 

 

 

 

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




Subject: Claus Kiefer, Quantum Gravity, Third Edition (5 April 2012)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 02:47:06 +0300
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxmnsEDGbauYVQqA6530LWFfvn-0YmOeAC4fxffQWAh9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>
Cc: Friedrich W Hehl <hehl@thp.uni-koeln.de>,
Jose Geraldo Pereira <jpereira@ift.unesp.br>,
Masaru Shibata <mshibata@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
Takahiro Tanaka <tanaka@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
Misao Sasaki <misao@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
Shigehiro Nagataki <nagataki@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
Takashi Nakamura <nakamura@phys.titech.ac.jp>,
Deirdre Shoemaker <deirdre.shoemaker@physics.gatech.edu>,
Alessandra Buonanno <buonanno@physics.umd.edu>,
Laura Cadonati <cadonati@physics.umass.edu>,
Harald Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cita.utoronto.ca>,
Dick Bond <bond@cita.utoronto.ca>,
office@cita.utoronto.ca,
info@cifar.ca


Dear Claus,

I've been trying to show some subtle points in your monograph since its first edition, hoping that you will elaborate.

Here's an incomplete list of issues which you again left unclear.

You wrote: "One particularly impressive example is the case of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16: the decrease of its orbital period can be fully explained by the emission of gravitational waves as predicted by GR."

Check out an alternative at

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

Details at

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

Regarding the Einstein-Hilbert action, you wrote: "The integration in the first integral of (1.1) covers a region M of the space–time manifold, and the second integral is defined on its boundary ∂M, which is assumed to be space-like."

The last assumptions about some (i) "boundary" that might be (ii) "space-like" are by no means clear, and neither is the main stipulation that "it is the three-geometry that is the dynamical object of GR",

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

You also claim that "a natural generalization of general relativity is the Einstein–Cartan theory".

I believe we can seek a natural generalization of GR only after we understand the genuine dynamics of GR: the three-geometry may not be the only dynamical object.

Would you like me to elaborate? I can offer you the opinion of Einstein on his GR, for a start.

Regards,

Dimi

P.S. I included some people in the CC: list, who are still unaware that LIGO is for the birds.
---------------
 

Note: The last email from Claus Kiefer reached me in 2003, just to say that he can't open the CD ROM I sent him by surface mail, because all PCs at the University of Cologne run on Unix. Meanwhile he published three editions of his monograph Quantum Gravity, carefully avoiding all fundamental unsolved issues mentioned at this web site.

The importance of the task for revealing the genuine dynamics of GR (forget about ADM) is most clear in quantum cosmology: some people claim that the history of the universe would reach a "point" of past incompleteness, while other people argue that the age of the universe might be "effectively at minus infinity".

The third option of 'dual age cosmology', briefly explained above, cannot be read on paper, but only on my "blog", as Fred Hehl called this web site. Notice that each and every "point" from the spacetime continuum has the dual temporal nature of The Beginning, and the asymptotic structure of reaching 'the universe as ONE' at actual infinity: the primordial object called 'the universe as ONE' (global mode of spacetime) is being multiplied in the local mode of spacetime as 'uncountably infinite' points dressed with their fleeting "jackets" -- one-at-a-time, along the null-surface of the Arrow of Space. Hence the local (physical) mode of spacetime is re-created at each and every instant 'now' as a perfect continuum: the "binding" object ]between[ the points is 'the universe as ONE'. It is totally absent in the local (physical) mode due to the "speed of light". The whole content of 'potential reality' is shifted in the potential future of the Arrow of Space, rendering the local mode a perfect continuum, thanks to which we can look at any direction in 3-D space and see "as far as we like" (Lee Smolin).

The genuine dynamics of GR (forget about ADM) is still missing in GR textbooks. Look again at the drawing below, from Kiefer and Sandhöfer:


 

The component of the Hamiltonian "perpendicular" to the hypersurfaces is the "direction" of the expansion of Ned Wright's balloon, driven by its "dark" energy. Ned Wright argues that one can safely separate the "time dimension of 4-D spacetime" from a "4th spatial dimension", which is true, but the point is that the "4th spatial dimension" is compactified to zero in the local mode of spacetime: it is physically non-existent there. It is the instant 'now' from the Arrow of Space, at which the two modes of time coincide, and merge with the other three components "tangential to the hypersurfaces". Once this happen, you may introduce some Killing vector from the Arrow of Space and run the "foliation time" back to the "big bang"; more from Karel Kuchar above.

Notice also the poetry in the Einstein-Hilbert action above: the second integral is defined on the "boundary" ∂M defined on "a region M of the space–time manifold" that is "assumed to be space-like": how can you define any "boundary" whatsoever on a space-like region?

What physical stuff could be instructed 'by hand' to "run" on a space-like region until it reaches "infinity", to produce a 'well-defined' (as Claus Kiefer may say) cutoff, hence safely separate the physical spacetime from the "unphysical" one (Robert Wald, pp. 283-287)?

Can you define any "boundary" on the slice called Cauchy surface?

 

 

The roots of the task are strictly mathematical, and I hope Claus Kiefer will address them in the next edition of his monograph. Bottom line is to recover the correct Machian gravity à la 'school of fish', namely, the localization of gravitational energy (MTW, p. 467) at a quasi-local "point"; the gravitational coupling 'here and now' should be determined "post factum", by the distant distribution of matter at 'the universe as ONE', in the atemporal global mode of spacetime with respect to which we can define the dynamics of the physical one.

Currently, the dynamics of the three-geometry ("the dynamical object of GR", as stated above) is being "defined" intrinsically, with respect to itself (much like Baron Münchhausen lifted himself and his horse), because Claus Kiefer failed to find the reference fluid of GR (Brown and Kuchar). Ditto to the "expansion" of space.
 


 

It seems Karel Kuchar is concerned mainly with the problem of time in canonical quantum gravity, given the title of his forthcoming talk, but who is concerned with the problems and paradoxes of 'space' ? How come there is no 'problem of space' in GR ?

"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.
 


D. Chakalov
May 3, 2012
Last updated: May 5, 2012, 06:15 GMT

 

 

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


Subject: Re: Open letter to LSC Spokesperson Prof. Gabriela Gonzalez
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 14:44:06 +0100
Message-ID:
<CAM7EkxnEAM=T57jMPnopaRVAznOvx15wHfXr-a2veYFUueGvjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Jiri.Bicak@mff.cuni.cz, info@ae100prg.mff.cuni.cz
Cc: Bernd Brügmann <b.bruegmann@tpi.uni-jena.de>,
Marek Abramowicz <marek@fy.chalmers.se>,
Lars Andersson <laan@aei.mpg.de>,
Roger Blandford <rdb3@stanford.edu>,
John Friedman <friedman@uwm.edu>,
Bernd Schmidt <bernd@aei.mpg.de>,
Luciano Rezzolla <rezzolla@aei.mpg.de>,
Helmut Friedrich <hef@aei.mpg.de>,
Joseph Katz <jkatz@phys.huji.ac.il>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Karel V Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
Hermann Nicolai <Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de>,
Paul Tod <tod@maths.ox.ac.uk>,
Bernard Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
Clifford Will <cmw@wuphys.wustl.edu>,
Karsten Danzmann <office-hannover@aei.mpg.de>,
Beverly Berger <bberger@nsf.gov>,
Pedro Marronetti <pmarrone@nsf.gov>,
Jorge Pullin <pullin@lsu.edu>,
Kip Thorne <kip@tapir.caltech.edu>,
Jeremiah P Ostriker <ostriker@princeton.edu>,
Evangelos Melas <evangelosmelas@yahoo.co.uk>,
Ted Newman <newman@pitt.edu>,
Josh Goldberg <goldberg@phy.syr.edu>,
Adam Helfer <helfera@missouri.edu>,
LSC Spokesperson Gabriela Gonzalez <gonzalez@lsu.edu>,
Ruth.A.Netting@nasa.gov,
nancy.j.leon@jpl.nasa.gov,
HQ-OIG-Counsel@mail.nasa.gov,
kdienes@nsf.gov,
bkeister@nsf.gov,
elomon@nsf.gov,
rpratt@nsf.gov,
hseidel@nsf.gov,
devasius@nsf.gov,
alerner@nsf.gov,
tcross@nsf.gov,
oliver.jennrich@esa.int,
SciTech.Editorial@esa.int,
Steven Weinberg <weinberg@physics.utexas.edu>


Dear Dr. Bicák,

I am writing to you as the speaker for the Scientific Organizing Committee of the Einstein Conference in Prague, June 2012.

No reply has been received to my Open letter to LSC Spokesperson Prof. Gabriela Gonzalez, dated Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:14:52 +0300, posted at

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

I am respectfully urging you and all recipients of this email to reply professionally, as soon as possible.

Let me state it once more, in plain English.

You and your colleagues from the Scientific Organizing Committee rejected my intended oral contribution by imposing a new precondition (the legal term is antedate) on April 24, 2012 (cf. the link above), which resulted in the following:

You and your colleagues from the Scientific Organizing Committee condone and effectively endorse the deliberate waste of taxpayers' money by LIGO and Virgo collaborations.

Deliberate waste of taxpayers' money falls under the category of 'scam' -- please consult your lawyer.

You couldn't possibly claim that you were unaware of the *scam* (check out the legal definition of 'scam') conducted by LIGO and Virgo collaborations. Once the "advanced" LIGO and Virgo fail to detect any GWs in 2014 (for reasons explained by Hermann Weyl in 1944), you and your colleagues from the Scientific Organizing Committee will have to explain why you rejected my talk in June 2012, thus condoned and effectively endorsed the deliberate waste of taxpayers' money by LIGO and Virgo collaborations.

After wasting hundreds of million USD and Euro, even more taxpayers' money is scheduled to be wasted for the "advanced" LIGO and Virgo.

NB: This is a *scam* organized and conducted by LIGO and Virgo collaborations. Yes, I can and will elaborate.

You all are experts in General Relativity, and you are fully aware of the insoluble problems of "GW astronomy" (cf. the link above).

Please feel free to pass this email to your colleagues and interested individuals.

If this email does not bounce back immediately, I will consider its delivery to your email account as a 'fact'.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

Dimitar G. Chakalov
[snip]

 

 

 





 

Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.

Max Planck, 1948

 

 

D. Hilbert

 

 


 

The latest version of this web page, in .PDF format (front_page.pdf), can be downloaded by clicking the image below.