Dear Professor 't Hooft,

Regarding your email of Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, I gratefully accept your suggestion to provide for the 201st reference in your intended paper on the cosmological constant problem, entitled: "200 wrong theories for the cosmological constant."

Should you decide to change the title to "201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant", by mentioning my CD ROM "Physics of Human Intention", please read the essential ideas at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Klauber.html

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Granik.html#note

and in my White Paper,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/white_paper.html

If you wish to learn more about the so-called black holes and gravitational waves, please see the paper by Angelo Loinger at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Loinger.html

and references therein.

As you our acknowledged in your email of Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, our work is not finished. Please do write your paper on the cosmological constant problem.

Wishing you best of luck in your endeavors,

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
 
 

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, "Hooft 't G." wrote:
>
> I do not intend to continue this discussion for very long, but
> mentioning a few facts might help.
>
> As for the existence of black holes: if you take general relativity
> but leave out quantum mechanics, you get a theory that has been
> tested with great precision at the scale of the solar system
> (particularly with compact double star systems in astronomy).
> There seems to be no strong evidence against that theory.
>
> Taking it for granted, one is led inevitably to conclude that black
> holes exist. It is easy to imagine an initial state of matter that will
> lead to implosion and a black hole. Whoever denies that hasn't
> understood the theory.
> There is no reason to object "against the existence" of black holes.
> These objects, though exotic, do not violate any basic law of
> physics, have completely and uniquely predictable behavior, and
> there are several astronomical objects that seem to be quite in
> agreement with these predictions.
>
> In all known black hole solutions, the space-time singularity is
> well-hidden behind the horizon so that their existence has
> absolutely no physical consequence, so they are acceptable
> ingredients of a sound theory.
>
> However, all this applies to black holes that are so large that
> quantum mechanical effects are irrelevant to their description. For
> this to be true, these black holes must be larger than, roughly, 
> 10^(-30) cm. In the theory mentioned above, the size of a black
> hole is a free parameter, it can be anything between 10^(-30) cm
> and many light years across.
>
> Quantum mechanics sheds a different light on them. Tiny black
> holes will not only absorb but also emit particles. This still gives
> them a quite `reasonable' appearance. No reason to suspect
> anything wrong. To the contrary, QM strongly suggests that the
> very tiny black holes behave much like elementary particles, and
> perhaps there is no basic distinction between black holes and
> elementary particles.
>
> The only problem is that the details cannot (yet?) be worked out.
> We are talking about such an esoteric domain of physics that no
> experiments are possible. For doing thought experiments, a new
> mathematical language is needed that does not yet exist. No-one
> should be surprised: our work is not finished.
>
> Then the cosmological constant. it is not understood. I once
> planned to write a paper entitled: "200 wrong theories for the
> cosmological constant", with 200 references. Needless to say that
> most of these theories are also mutually exclusive. The right theory
> has not been found. You are wellcome to provide for the 201st
> reference in my paper.
>
> On some days of the week I am thinking of the possibility that
> general relativity only exists in the quantum Hilbert space that
> describes the statistics of a deterministic theory, but that it does not
> hold for the deterministic theory itself, in other words, that this
> theory shows a preference for flat coordinates. That would do
> away with the cosmological constant problem, but it would put
> many new problems in its place.
>
> Now strings. I am not a very strong supporter of string theory, but
> I do notice the remarkable coherence of the observations made by
> string theorists, and I do not want to dismiss all that as rubbish. It
> may well be that what is called string theory now will occupy an
> important corner of a future theory, but my approach is largely
> independent of that.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Gerard 't Hooft.

===========
 

Subject: 201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant, by Hooft 't G.
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:43:53 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>
CC: Wilma van Egmond <w.j.m.vanegmond@phys.uu.nl>,
     Stefan Nobbenhuis <S.J.B.Nobbenhuis@phys.uu.nl>,
     Mihaela Iftime <mihaela.iftime@bos.mcphs.edu>,
     John Stachel <stachel@bu.edu>,
     Gennadi Sardanashvily <sard@grav.phys.msu.su>,
     Vincent Moncrief <vincent.moncrief@yale.edu>,
     Oliver Pooley <oliver.pooley@philosophy.ox.ac.uk>,
     Paul Steinhardt <steinh@princeton.edu>,
     Piotr Chrusciel <chrusciel@univ-tours.fr>

Hi Gerard,

I very much hope you will complete your paper, entitled: "200 wrong theories for the cosmological constant", and will comment my proposal, as you stated in your email from Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Gerard.html#201

Back on April 6, 2001, you were certain that my proposal will turn out to be wrong. I don't question your expertise in paranormal phenomena,

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

but let me briefly explain my idea, just in case your mind-reading and other ESP skills were not entirely accurate (it happens).

I will try to elaborate on your unpublished idea [Ref. 1], but from a different perspective on the main issue -- "the discovery of a symmetry that forbids a cosmological constant term to appear". More on this fundamental symmetry at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#Negative_Mass

It should be *the* largest possible symmetry group, but I wouldn't
speculate on any boundary conditions [Ref. 1], since there couldn't be
any boundary conditions in the putative global mode of spacetime. The
latter enables the theory to be "invariant under all permutations of the
basic elements, out of which the theory is constructed", as suggested by
Mihaela Iftime and John Stachel [Ref. 2]. More on the hypothetical 'global mode of spacetime' at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Wald.html#note

Do you or any of your colleagues believe GR can be properly applied at scales larger than 10^14 cm, the size of the solar system [Ref. 1]? There is a lot of "dark" stuff there, which I believe are effects of the global mode of spacetime,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Minchin.html

It cannot be visualized, just as we cannot imagine the "spin" of elementary particles, nor the "spin" of the whole universe,

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/map_model_2.gif

To cut the long story short, I do believe in your hunch [Ref. 1], and regret that it wasn't published. How come you set the right track [Ref. 1, Eq. 10] with your 'intuitive knowledge' (scientia intuitiva, Benedict De Spinoza), but couldn't see the path?

Anyway, once you're ready with your fundamental paper, please drop me a line and I'll send you my proposal for your consideration.

Regards,

Dimi
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

References

[Ref. 1] Stefan Nobbenhuis, Categorizing Different Approaches to the
Cosmological Constant Problem, 5 December 2005, gr-qc/0411093 v3.

Sec. 3.2, Imaginary Space, p. 9:
"As was first observed by 't Hooft (unpublished), we can forbid the
cosmological constant term by postulating that the transformations
(...).
...
"there exists a copy of all known matter particles with negative mass
squared"
...
Sec. 3.3, Energy -->  - Energy, p. 10: "Crucial in this reasoning is that there is no coupling other than gravitational between the normal matter fields and their ghost counterparts, otherwise the Minkowski vacuum would not be stable."
...
p. 30: "Besides, it is conceivable that the need to introduce a very small cosmological constant or some other form of dark energy to explain an accelerating universe nowadays, is a signal that general relativity breaks down at very large distance scales. General relativity however, works very well on scales from 10^-1 mm to at least 10^14 cm, the size of the solar system.
...
p. 48: "Since even the sometimes very drastic modifications advocated in the proposals we discussed do not lead to a satisfactory answer, this seems to imply that the ultimate theory of quantum gravity might very well be based on very different grounds than imagined so far. The only way out could be the discovery of a symmetry that forbids a cosmological constant term to appear.
...
"Throughout this work I have benefited a lot from many valuable discussions with my supervisor Gerard 't Hooft."
 

[Ref. 2] Mihaela Iftime, John Stachel, The Hole Argument for Covariant Theories, gr-qc/0512021 v1.

"Informally this means that if everything is carried along, nothing is changed. The hole argument can only apply to background independent theories!
...
"Therefore, the following principle of generalized covariance should be a requirement on any fundamental theory: The theory should be invariant under all permutations of the basic elements, out of which the theory is constructed."
 

Note: It goes without saying that Prof. 't Hooft does not approve of my understanding of Einstein's GR: he believes that there is no problem with energy conservation (details here), while I believe energy conservation in GR is impossible in principle, because it requires a 'well-defined notion of time'. The latter is, however, the absolute time of Newton. The treatment of the coordinate "time" parameter in GR is entirely different, hence there is no 'back bone' on which you can stack a chain of physical states with well-defined energy states. See also the quasi-local nature of the gravitational analogs of the classical conserved quantities, from Laszlo Szabados here.

If you want math, click here and wait for the fundamental paper by Hooft 't G., entitled: "201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant".

The last time I heard from him, he wrote (Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:24:48 +0100): "I apologetically terminate this discussion." I wonder why. I think his idea [Ref. 1] is fantastic, only he needs help.

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

D. Chakalov
December 8, 2005
 

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

From: "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>
To: 'Dimi Chakalov' <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:12:24 +0200 

Yes, but I am considerably more selective than that; the site you mention
contains too much obvious nonsense.
Cordially,
G. 't Hooft

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimi Chakalov [mailto:dchakalov@gmail.com] 
Sent: dinsdag 4 april 2006 3:45
To: g.thooft@phys.uu.nl
Subject: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...

Dear Dr. 't Hooft,

RE your quant-ph/0604008 v1, perhaps you may wish to see what other people have said on the issue,

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

D.C.

===========

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 23:43:30 +0300
From: "Dimi Chakalov" <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl>
Subject: Re: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
 

On 4/4/06, Hooft 't G. <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl> wrote:
> Yes, but I am considerably more selective than that

Like Eq. 2.1, the "clock that gives a tick at every time step" maybe?

"For simplicity we therefore omit specific references to any clock 
(footnote 1)". Footnote 1: "Thus, we do, as yet, use an absolute notion of time. Special and general relativistic transformations are left for future
studies."

That's sheer nonsense, although not entirely obvious, since you've left it "for future studies". Unless, of course, you have already written your fundamental paper "201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant", and have proposed the 202nd theory, which is the correct one, hence can elaborate on your tantalizing Eq. 2.1.

Cordially,

D. Chakalov

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

Subject: RE: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:41:55 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Gerardus <g.thooft@uu.nl>, w.j.m.vanegmond@uu.nl
Cc: Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:12:24 +0200, "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl> wrote:
>
> Yes, but I am considerably more selective than that; the site you
> mention contains too much obvious nonsense.

You've so far failed to produce any proof for "obvious nonsense" at my web site.

I hope you are not only a theoretical physicist, but gentleman as well, so please be so kind as to show some "obvious nonsense" in my interpretation of QM at

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

Summary at

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

Nu rush, take your time. Chris has been quiet for seven years; I trust you can do better, as both physicist and gentleman.

Dimi
 

Addendum

On December 8, 2005, I stated that G. 't Hooft's idea [Ref. 1] is fantastic, only he needs help. It has been delivered by his Ph.D. student, Stefan Nobbenhuis [Ref. 3], but, as it stands, it's still "not yet sufficient" (p. 149). Let me see if I can help, too.

'Why does Nature prefer a flat spacetime?', asks S. Nobbenhuis [Ref. 3].

Perhaps because the local mode of spacetime is being created as a flat spacetime and perfect continuum. It is a scale-invariant 'back bone' of the whole physical world, from the Planck scale to the cosmological horizon. Once the inflationary stage was completed, the "two elephants" have an equal and opposite "pressure", and the space is brought to a dynamical stage of being "flat". If you look at the explanation offered by Eli Michael back in 1999, our understanding of the cosmic scale factor needs to be modified, in order to resolve the coincidence problem. Eli Michael wrote (links and emphasis added):

"The coordinates [X], [X], and [X] in the metric equation are "comoving" coordinates. A comoving coordinate system is one which expands with the universe. Therefore, the comoving distant between two points remains constant during the universe's evolution. The physical distance between two points does however change as the universe expands.

"It is the cosmic scale factor a which relates the comoving coordinates to physical distances, through the relation: d = a x. With the metric defined with comoving coordinates, the time evolution of the universe is described by the time evolution of the cosmic scale factor. If the cosmic scale factor grows in time then the universe expands, if it diminishes with time then the universe collapses.
...

"It is the fact that pressure also contributes to gravity that makes the inclusion of the cosmological constant interesting. If the field equations are rewritten so the cosmological constant appears on the right hand side of the equation, the cosmological constant term can then be associated with a vacuum energy density:

[XXX]

"Because the cosmological constant term is proportional to the metric, the pressure associated with the vacuum is then given by the relation:

[XXX]

"So the cosmological constant behaves gravitationally like matter and energy except that it has negative pressure. The net effect of a positive cosmological constant is then to create a repulsive gravitational force. This repulsion acts to expand the universe.

"The vacuum energy density behaves differently from matter and energy density in another regard. As the universe expands, matter and energy are spread out over more physical space and thus their gravitational attraction is diminished. For the vacuum energy, however, the PdV work done by the vacuum during adiabatic expansion provides exactly the amount of energy to fill the new volume to the same density. Therefore the cosmological constant remains truly constant, and its gravitational repulsion (or attraction) never changes during the universe's evolution."

Only it does change during the universe's evolution, which is the crux of the coincidence problem, firstly, and secondly -- the so-called 'coincidence problem' is actually the problem of discovering the true dynamics of the gravitational field. Since the cosmological "constant" appears on the right hand side of the equation, what should be added to the left hand side to achieve the perfect balance of gravitational repulsion & attraction of the flat spacetime?

NB: This perfect balance must be achieved and sustained during an accelerated expansion of the flat spacetime. Also, we need an additional degree of freedom that would allow dynamical adjustments of [lambda] during the whole evolution of the universe. That's the real challenge. The "effective" or "net effect" of the dynamical contributions of the vacuum require a brand new degree of freedom of the spacetime: the 'global mode' of the potential reality. It is not in the right hand side, nor in the left hand side of Einstein's equation, because the latter requires [lambda] to be a constant. Moreover, if we search for explanation of the Dynamic Dark Energy (DDE) in the framework of GR, as constrained by its Hamiltonian "dynamics", we inevitably reach the following formulation of the task: DDE creates the cosmological time, and in the same time DDE evolves in the time that is being created by it. It's ridiculous. Of course we have to modify GR [Ref. 3, p. 149].

Notice that the mechanism postulated for the adjustments of [lambda] is dynamical, such that the effective cosmological constant is currently "incredibly small". Just drop the presumption that the matter energy density "obviously decreases as the universe grows larger and larger" [Ref. 3], because an evolving cosmological "constant", as noted by R. Penrose, "would have to be accompanied by a compensating non-conservation of the mass-energy of the matter". We're dealing with 'potential reality', which is why "it is reasonable to look for modifications" of both GR and QM [Ref. 3, p. 149], as outlined here.

If you decide to ignore the potential reality, you'll face an insurmountable task: the second law of thermodynamics states that the universe must have started in an extremely low entropy state, and R. Penrose has argued that this makes the choice of our Initial Conditions very special indeed, namely, the probability to enjoy the universe around us, as evolving from this most special and unlikely choice, is as likely as 1 part in (10¹⁰)¹²³. So, if you don't like miracles or "anthropic" parapsychology à la Steven Weinberg, your only way out is to employ the potential reality, to which the second law of thermodynamics simply do not apply. Why not? Because you simply cannot apply the laws of thermodynamics to 'the whole universe as ONE'.

To sum up, first we must solve the puzzle of the classical world. Recall Asher Peres (Interpreting the Quantum World, quant-ph/9711003):

"In classical mechanics, a dynamical variable indeed has a definite value at each point of phase space. Specifying a point in phase space is the standard way of indicating the state of a physical system. However, in quantum mechanics, a dynamical variable is represented by a Hermitian matrix (or, more generally, by a self-adjoint operator). It is manifestly pointless to attribute to it a numerical value."

I believe there should exist a Lorentz-invariant, reversible, bi-directional, and smooth transition from the hidden unobservable quantum reality to the normal world of tables and chairs, and back to the hidden unobservable quantum reality. That's the puzzle of the classical world.

Please take part in the 'flipping a quantum coin' quiz here, and report your choice. (Recall that POVMs were designed to bypass, not resolve, the Pauli's argument that there is no self-adjoint time operator canonically conjugating to a Hamiltonian if the Hamiltonian spectrum is bounded from below.) More here.

Then comes the second hurdle: the dynamics of GR. It is manifestly pointless to attribute to the energy of the gravitational field a precise, numerical value: the alleged Dirac-ADM "dynamics" doesn't work. The problems are widely known, of course.

What is the common task? You need a mechanism for selecting "a definite value at each point of phase space", in both QM and GR. If your brain can do it, Mother Nature can to do it as well. Hence you get a scale-invariant 'back bone' of the whole physical world, from the Planck scale to the cosmological horizon: the local mode of spacetime. How? From the global mode, of course.

Please follow the links, and then ask G. 't Hooft for clarification. Being a renowned mind reader and clairvoyant, he declared five and a half years ago, on April 6, 2001, that my proposal will turn out to be wrong.



D. Chakalov
September 7, 2006
Last update: September 24, 2006

[Ref. 3] Stefan Nobbenhuis, The Cosmological Constant Problem, an Inspiration for New Physics. Ph.D. Thesis, defended June 15, 2006. Supervisor: Prof. Dr. G. ’t Hooft. gr-qc/0609011 v1, 4 September 2006


p. 4: "No symmetry is known that can protect the cosmological constant to such a small value.
...

"In conclusion, the question is why is the effective cosmological constant
so close to zero? Or, in other words, why is the vacuum state of our
universe (at present) so close to the classical vacuum state of zero energy, or perhaps better, why is the resulting four-dimensional curvature so small, or why does Nature prefer a flat spacetime? Apparently spacetime is such, that it takes a lot of energy to curve it, while stretching it is (almost) for free, since the cosmological constant is (almost) zero.
...

p. 6: "The first, or sometimes called "old" cosmological constant problem is
why is the effective cosmological constant so incredibly small, as described in the previous section.

"The second problem is, if it is so small, then why is it not exactly equal
to zero? Often in physics it is a lot easier to understand why a parameter
is identically zero, than why it is a very small number.

"And a third question may be posed, based on the measured value of the
effective cosmological constant. The energy density of the vacuum that it
represents, appears to be of the same order of magnitude as the present
matter energy density in the universe. This is quite peculiar, since, as we
we will see in chapter (2), vacuum energy density, denoted [Ved], remains
constant during the evolution of the universe, whereas the matter energy
density, [Med] obviously decreases as the universe grows larger and larger. If the two energy densities are of the same order of magnitude
nowadays, this means that their ratio, [Ved]/[Med] had to be infinitesimal
in the early universe, but fine-tuned to become equal now. Therefore, one
obviously starts to wonder whether we are living in some special epoch, that causes these two forms of energy density to be roughly equal in magnitude. This has become known as the "cosmic coincidence problem" and is also sometimes phrased as the "Why now?" problem.
...


p. 16: "Three approaches are studied in great detail. The first can be found in chapter 4 and is based on my paper written together with Gerard ’t Hooft [50], in which we explore a new symmetry based on a transformation to imaginary space. The idea is that the laws of nature have a much wider symmetry than previously expected, and that quantum field theory can be analytically continued to the full complex plane. This generally leads to negative energy states. Positivity of energy arises only after imposing hermiticity and boundary conditions, which opens the way for a vacuum state invariant under these transformations to have zero energy, leading to zero cosmological constant.


p. 59: "We do not address the issue of non-zero cosmological constant, nor the so-called cosmic coincidence problem. We believe that a symmetry which would set the cosmological constant to exactly zero would be great progress.

p. 60: "Thus, the symmetry that we are trying to identify is a symmetry of
laws of nature prior to imposing any boundary conditions. Demanding
invariance under [XXX] where [XXX] may be real or imaginary, violates
boundary conditions at [XXX], leaving only one state invariant: the physical vacuum.

p. 75: "The symmetry proposed in this chapter is different. It is suspected that the field equations themselves have a larger symmetry than the boundary conditions for the solutions. It is the boundary conditions, and the hermiticity conditions on the fields, that force all physical states to have positive energies. If we drop these conditions, we get as many negative energy as positive energy states, and indeed, there may be a symmetry relating positive energy with negative energy. This is the most promising beginning of an argument why the vacuum state must have strictly vanishing gravitational energy.

p. 149: "So far we can only conclude that in fact none of the approaches described above is a real outstanding candidate for a solution of the ‘old’ cosmological constant problem. The most elegant solution would be a symmetry, that protects the cosmological constant. All possible candidates we can think of were treated in chapter 3 and (4). However, no symmetry, consistent with established results, was found. The symmetry analytically continuing quantum field theory and general relativity to the full complex space (chapter (4)) is interesting, but as it stands, not yet sufficient.
...

"Since the cosmological constant problem lies at the heart of a fusion
between general relativity and quantum mechanics, it is reasonable to look
for modifications of either one, or even both.'

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

Subject: Re: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:40:42 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft, G. t" <G.tHooft@uu.nl>
Cc: Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

Gerardus,

Please keep in mind that I'm not interested in your emotional statements. Your granduncle and uncle were great physicists, and you were also very good in physics back in 1970s. I do believe you can do better than Chris Isham, as both physicist and gentleman.

1. Which statements of mine are "meaningless", in your opinion?

2. Have you made any meaningful statement or proposal whatsoever? For example, you wrote in your essay "The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics", arXiv:quant-ph/0604008v2, the
following (p. 4):

"Thus, we do, as yet, use an absolute notion of time. Special and general relativistic transformations are left for future studies."

2.1. Can you say anything meaningful regarding your "future studies"?

3. How can you reject the proposed new (to people like you) form of reality, known since Plato? It's a new metaphysics, only its mathematical formulation is still an open question, for reasons explained at

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

3.1. Are you going to say that my proposal is wrong, because it contradicts what is rejected by it from the outset?

Notice that I propose a joint solution to the measurement problem in QM and the cosmological "constant" problems, but again the math is not known yet.

Can you do better, Gerardus?

In the future, please be so kind as to sign your email messages. Even Mongolian shepherds sign their emails. But if you don't wish to do it, try at least to say something as a physicist. It's about time, really.

Dimi

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

Subject: RE: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:49:52 +0200
From: Hooft, G. t <G.tHooft@uu.nl>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>

That's the problem with nonsense, you can't find a place to even start with a serious analysis of the statements if they are all meaningless. I haven't seen any statement or proposal for any serious equations, calculations, or other thoughts that could make a dent in existing insights.


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

Van: Dimi Chakalov
Verzonden: do 20-8-2009 19:20
Aan: Hooft, G. t; Egmond-van der Klugt, W.J.M. van
Onderwerp: Re: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...

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

Go ahead Gerardus. Don't be shy. Make your best shot.

D.


On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:12:24 +0200, "Hooft 't G." <G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but I am considerably more selective than that; the site you
>> mention contains too much obvious nonsense.
>
> You've so far failed to produce any proof for "obvious nonsense" at
> my web site.
>
> I hope you are not only a theoretical physicist, but gentleman as
> well, so please be so kind as to show some "obvious nonsense" in my
> interpretation of QM at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Hilbert
>
> Summary at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#Chakalov
>
> No rush, take your time. Chris has been quiet for seven years; I trust
> you can do better, as both physicist and gentleman.
>
> Dimi
>

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

Subject: Re: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:07:12 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft, G. t" <G.tHooft@uu.nl>

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Hooft, G. t<G.tHooft@uu.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Chkalov,
> I apologise, but I do not wish to start discussions with you at this level.
> My time is too precious to me.
> G. 't Hooft

Please at least explain what do you apologize for.

1. On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, you wrote:

"I once planned to write a paper entitled: "200 wrong theories for the
cosmological constant", with 200 references. Needless to say that most
of these theories are also mutually exclusive. The right theory has not been found. You are wellcome to provide for the 201st reference in my paper."

2. On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:49:52 +0200, you wrote:

"That's the problem with nonsense, you can't find a place to even start with a serious analysis of the statements if they are all meaningless. I haven't seen any statement or proposal for any serious equations, calculations, or other thoughts that could make a dent in existing insights."

Please make your choice.

D. Chakalov

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

Subject: Re: If time is discrete, ..., if time is continuous, ...
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:22:18 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft, G. t" <G.tHooft@uu.nl>

P.S. I hope you remember that offered you a deal: *if* you explain my
"obvious nonsense" at

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

I will explain your non-obvious nonsense. If you accept the deal, I will elaborate on your non-obvious nonsense of "quantum phase factors" and conflating beables with changeables in your latest arXiv:0908.3408v1 [quant-ph]:

p. 10: "Clearly, the only way (emphasis added - D.C.) to handle quantum entangled states, is by assuming that these states were quantum-entangled right from day one in the universe. This, we think, should not be a problem at all.
...
p. 13: "It seems that the clue to the resolution of the Bell inequality paradox ensuing from our model is that the quantum phase factors that relate our quantum states to the ontological states of the theory, are fundamentally unobservable, since, indeed, they are ill-defined. We return to this issue again in Section 6.
...
p. 17: "Presumably, very special conditions have to be specified for the continuum limit of an automaton to display a symmetry as delicate as Lorentz invariance. Since we suspect that such Lorentz transformations will connect beables with changeables, Lorentz invariance will not be easy to perceive at the classical level.
...
p. 20: "So-far, our conclusions do take the form of an hypothesis. (...) Further investigations are much needed."

What have you been smoking?

D. Chakalov


On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Hooft, G. t<G.tHooft@uu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mr. Chkalov,
>> I apologise, but I do not wish to start discussions with you at this
>> level.
>> My time is too precious to me.
>> G. 't Hooft
>
> Please at least explain what do you apologize for.
>
> 1. On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:56 +0200, you wrote:

[snip]

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

Subject: Re: Update
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:09:49 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft, G. t" <G.tHooft@uu.nl>

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Hooft, G. t <G.tHooft@uu.nl> wrote:
>
> My thoughts are considerably more expensive than that. A (one word)
> abstract may be affordable to you, but I think you can guess it.
> G. 't H


Whatever you say, it has to be professional, which means that I expect from you to back it up with at least one argument. And that's what I've been asking you in the past six years, since Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:18:13 +0300.

Please go ahead. If you reply with one-word abstract, it will be poetry.

One of us is deadly wrong, and I think that's you.

Don't be shy. Make your best shot. Just please do it professionally.

Yours faithfully,

D. Chakalov


> ________________________________
> Van: Dimi Chakalov [mailto:dchakalov@gmail.com]
> Verzonden: zo 1-11-2009 4:05
> Aan: Hooft, G. t; [knip]
> Onderwerp: Update
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#NB
>
> A penny for your thoughts!
>
> Best - Dimi
>

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

Subject: Re: Update
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:51:13 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft, G. t" <G.tHooft@uu.nl>

P.P.S. Since you've published many poetic essays related to GR, try also

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

D.C.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> P.S. For the record:
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Gerard.html#deal
>
> D.C.

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

Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from Phys. Scr. - PS/330183/PAP/20351
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:27:16 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft, G. t" <G.tHooft@uu.nl>
Cc: "C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>,
Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
liesbeth.mol@springer.com

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:45:51 +0100, Message-ID:
<64650818A3A8FE49BCB9B0835918FD7933CD2B@uu01msg-exb05.soliscom.uu.nl>,
Hooft, G. t <G.tHooft@uu.nl> wrote:
>
> I said, and I'll try repeat it transparently even to babies: here is the
> theorem: given ANY simply connected space-time or a simply connected
> subspace of space-time, and suppose that in all points x of that (sub)
> space the Riemann tensor vanishes entirely (zero, zilch, to use your
> mathematical vocabulary), then a coordinate frame exists such that in
> that space (I mean, in the very same space or subspace, clear?), the
> metric is flat, when expressed in that vary same coordinate frame. This
> means that, in terms of those coordinates, we have
> g_munu(x)=eta_munu(x) , in the usual terminology. Anything not clear
> yet about this statement? Is Santa Claus ready to provide a counter
> example? He really will have to use magic, or, more likely, cheat.

So "in that space (I mean, in the very same space or subspace, clear?)" the metric is flat, when expressed in that very same coordinate frame.

And what can you, Chief Editor of 'Foundations of Physics', cook up with that dead flat metric, when expressed in that very same coordinate frame? Can you think of some other coordinate frames ?


D.

> I'll help him a bit: to find counter examples he might feel obliged to
> consider metrics that are not in L2; I would consider that cheating
> because metrics relevant for physics usually are in L2, but indeed, I did
> not go through the trouble of making this restriction above because I
> think it is unnecessary (something that is ill-defined cannot be said to
> be vanishing), so yes, I would be surprised and amused if Santa could
> concoct anything at all, knowing that it will be incorrect.
>
> " Are you inviting me to accept the very idea that I reject from the
> outset? "
> That's exactly what I am inviting you to do. The rejection is based on
> flawed preconceptions.
> G.'t H
> ________________________________
> From: Dimi Chakalov [mailto:dchakalov@gmail.com]
> Sent: Fri 12/25/2009 11:12 PM
> To: Hooft, G. t
> Cc: C. Y. Lo; Stephen Crothers; Laszlo Szabados;
> liesbeth.mol@springer.com
> Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from Phys. Scr. -
> PS/330183/PAP/20351
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Hooft, G. t <G.tHooft@uu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Amazing how people can misinterpret statements that should have
>> been perfectly clear. When I say that in a simply connected region of
>> space-time the Riemann tensor vanishes, I mean it vanishes at ALL
>> points in this region, otherwise indeed the statement would have been
>> a very crazy one (You'ld have to explain to me the use of English
>> phrases "vanishED" and "vanishING" in a mathematical context. I rather
>> hang on to a mathematical description: R_abcd (x) = 0 FOR ALL
>> VALUES OF ITS 4 INDICES, AT ALL POINTS x in this region of
>> space-time. Is this clear enough?)
>
> Of course not. Please provide a rigorous definition of "this region of
> space-time", and don't hesitate to use differential geometry.
>
>> The comparison with the electro-magnetic case should have taken
>> away any misconceptions. I am doing my best to try to make sense
>> out of statements of your sect members, but you do not seem to
>> make any of such attempts for me.
>
> I certainly will, provided you make your statement above mathematically
> clear.
>
>> <<Santa Claus doesn't like gravitational *analogues*, because he isn't
>> stupid and doesn't want to mix apples with oranges>>
>> Well, maybe one day he will open his eyes to notice that indeed this
>> analogy exists. Or else, why does Santa Claus not like to construct
>> counter examples?
>
> Analogies between apples and oranges? Are you inviting me to accept
> the very idea that I reject from the outset? Here's a typical example
> of such mismatch:
>
> "As in electromagnetism, the amplitude of the radiation is
> proportional to the second time-derivative of Q_jk" ( Bernard F.
> Schutz, Gravitational Radiation, AEI-2000-020, gr-qc/0003069 v1.
> Accepted by Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2000).
>
> As to counter examples, I made the effort to demonstrate, by reductio
> ad absurdum, that the whole "GW astronomy" is for the birds. I've sent
> you the link many times. Pity you didn't make the effort to read the
> argument at
>
> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#SBG
>
> But again, please provide a rigorous definition of "this region of
> space-time".
>
> D.
>

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

Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from Phys. Scr. - PS/330183/PAP/20351
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:26:25 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft, G. t" <G.tHooft@uu.nl>
Cc: "C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>,
Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
liesbeth.mol@springer.com

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:46:13 +0100, Hooft, G. t <G.tHooft@uu.nl> wrote:
>
> I must conclude, again, that the level of this discussion has descended
> way below the borderline that I can handle. I wish you luck with those
> odd friends of yours. Spam filter is on.
> G. 't H

I'm not interested in discussing issues that were sorted out way before you were born. Detailed explanation of your errors can be found in Logunov's arXiv:gr-qc/0210005v2, which is why I asked, what can you cook up with that dead flat metric, which shows iff described in that very same coordinate frame. If you were right, even your dog (if any) would understand GR.

If some day you wish to correct your Lecture Notes (after all, you are the Chief Editor of 'Foundations of Physics'), check out the argument at

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

In my email from Fri, 25 Dec 2009 06:07:53 +0200, I quoted from Sec. 15,
"Gravitational radiation", p. 62, at

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/lectures/genrel.pdf

"Far from the source the metric g_mv will stay close to that of flat space-time"

And also p. 65:

"There is gravitational radiation, but it is all described by L1 ."

The scientific level of your Lecture Notes is from 1922. Sorry.

D.


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

Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from Phys. Scr. - PS/330183/PAP/20351
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:46:51 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>
Cc: CEOFOP <G.tHooft@uu.nl>,
"C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>,
Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
liesbeth.mol@springer.com

Hi Laszlo,

Thank you for your opinion.

Just some brief remarks. You wrote (Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:22:38 +0100 (CET)):

"This indicates that the gravitational energy cannot be localized to points, i.e. there is no well defined gravitational energy *density*, and hence the gravitational energy is necessarily *non-local*. It should be emphasized that the root of this defect is not mathematical, it is *very much physical*, it is a direct consequence of the Eotvos experiment, viz the principle of equivalence."

I believe the terminology you used was not *non-local*, but *quasi-local*. You made great efforts to explain

"... why should the gravitational energy-momentum and angular momentum, or, more generally, any observable of the gravitational ‘field’, be necessarily *quasi-local* "

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

Which is why I asked the Chief Editor of 'Foundations of Physics' (hereafter CEOFOP), what he can cook up with that dead flat metric, which shows if and only if described in that very same coordinate frame.

Please explain, because CEOFOP declined, and put all of us in his spam filter.

You also wrote: "However, according to the second view the spacetime
points do *not* have objective meaning."

How could spacetime points *not* have objective meaning in the case
provided by CEOFOP?

Here's what he wrote (I will omit some of his characteristic expressions):

"When I say that in a simply connected region of space-time the Riemann tensor vanishes, I mean it vanishes at ALL points in this region (...) I rather hang on to a mathematical description: R_abcd (x) = 0 FOR ALL VALUES OF ITS 4 INDICES, AT ALL POINTS x in this region of space-time."
....
"I said, and I'll try repeat it transparently even to babies: here is the theorem: given ANY simply connected space-time or a simply connected subspace of space-time, and suppose that in all points x of that (sub) space the Riemann tensor vanishes entirely (zero, zilch, to use your mathematical vocabulary), then a coordinate frame exists such that in that space (I mean, in the very same space or subspace, clear?), the metric is flat, when expressed in that very same coordinate frame. This means that, in terms of those coordinates, we have g_munu(x)=eta_munu(x) , in the usual terminology. Anything not clear yet about this statement?"

I believe CEOFOP's statement is agonizingly clear. Please state your opinion on the questions above.

You also wrote: "4. Concerning the phrases like "sufficiently small" etc. This is *not* poetry, but mostly refers to the limit (as we learnt it in basic undergraduate courses in analysis and calculus). Of course, there could be cases where it is not quite obvious how this limit should be meant (e.g. in the problem of the world line of test particles, especially if they have intrinsic angular momentum as well), but these are still subject of investigations. I think, however, that the present situation is not such."

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, there is nothing more important in GR than "how this limit should be meant", as you put it. Please check out the “point particle limit” in Bob Wald's arXiv:0907.0412, p. 3, and ref [4] therein. According to Bob Wald:

"An analysis by Geroch and Traschen [4] shows that it does not make mathematical sense to consider solutions of Einstein’s equation with a distributional stress-energy tensor supported on a worldline. Mathematically, the expected behavior of the metric near a “point particle” is too singular to make sense of the nonlinear terms in Einstein’s equation, even as distributions. Physically, if one tried to compress a body to make it into a point particle, it should collapse to a black hole before a “point particle limit” can be reached."

You also wrote: "These are *exact* results in the *full* GR, not only in the linear, weak field approximation of GR. Since these are based on asymptotic techniques, one might want mathematically more sophisticated analyses and results."

NB: Do you know *any* asymptotic technique that makes sense? Because
the asymptotic *spacelike* regime is a total mess, and people just ignore it (names and references are available upon request).

And finally, you wrote: "Thus, theoretically, there is no question about the existence of gravitational waves in GR. The question of detectability of them is a different business, but since I am not an expert of this, I cannot comment on it at all."

Please look at the recipe employed by LIGO Scientific Collaboration:

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

Of course you can comment on it. Please recall my email from Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:41:47 +0200, Subject: Schizophrenic behavior of gravity ?.
You wrote:

> Let's do our job, science ...

We *both* know that you can demolish the LIGO project and save *hundreds of million dollars and euro*, all taxpayers' money. Just look at the link above. Yes you can.

So, let's do our job -- science.

Wishing you and your colleagues all the best for 2010 and beyond,

Dimi

-------

Note: Here's the opinion of two professional physicists, A. M. Abbassi and S. Mirshekari, regarding the problem of 'no generally accepted definition for energy and momentum in GR' (arXiv:0908.0286v1 [gr-qc], p. 2):

See also Bjoern S. Schmekel, Quasi-local definitions of energy in general relativity, arXiv:0708.4388v1 [gr-qc] (emphasis and links added - D.C.):

"Because of the problems associated with defining a local energy density it may be easier to make sense of the energy enclosed by a boundary. For regions of finite extend we expect non-zero values because in general a coordinate transformation can make the connection coefficients vanish at only one point. Therefore, it seems the only sensible way to define energy is by defining energy itself and not energy density.

"Of course this may seem ugly because a local covariant and tensorial formulation depends on densities evaluated at a point and its infinitesimally small neighborhood (in order to compute derivatives). A point remains a point under a Lorentz transformation, but needless to say the size of a finite region depends on the observer, so obviously such an energy will depend on the chosen coordinate system. It is therefore maybe not surprising that the first useful notions of energy were defined at infinity, i.e. they enclosed the whole system (cf. ADM mass [4], Bondi mass [5]). Like a point an infinitely large box does not change its size under a change of observer."

Notice a crucial hint from Bjoern Schmekel: there are only two objects, which are invariant under Lorentz transformations -- a point, and "an infinitely large box". They don't change, simply because they cannot change under any coordinate transformation. Everything else that happens in a finite region depends on the observer. Perhaps the most peculiar feature of GR is that the "presence" or "absence" of a gravitational field depends on whether the Riemann tensor differs from or equals to zero, but this "field" is anything but 'objective reality' -- it s a special metric entity, and its energy-components can be switched off literally 'by hand' (Hermann Weyl). It is obvious to me (but not to CEOFOP) that, in order to understand the peculiar nature of the metric filed in a finite region of space, we have to define rigorously the two unique objects above. An engineer need not care about what "happens" inside an infinitesimal, so that she/he can compute the finite length of a curve, say. We can't afford such careless attitude in GR. No way, CEOFOP.

To be specific, the unresolved task of computing energy densities at a point requires rigorous definition of 'the whole spacetime' wrapped with some "boundaries" fixed along spacelike and null directions. It's a package, because what happens 'at a point' depends on 'the whole spacetime', and vice versa. The Bianchi identities can't resolve this puzzle.

Yet in Lecture Notes (download link here), CEOFOP introduced the Bianchi identities "transparently even to babies" (see above), and wrote (p. 24):

And on p. 25:

I will leave the application of this "glued flat space" to the experts in GR. If CEOFOP were right, even his dog (if any) would understand GR.

Notice that we haven't even touched the crucial issue of 'GR without DDE' and 'GR with DDE' here. In the former case, there is no dynamics in the common (layman) sense, because in GR textbooks everything is already cats in 4-D, like a tapestry; time can "move" just as much as space can.

But in 'GR with DDE', we have a whole new ball game: see R. Rakhi & K. Indulekha and S. Carrroll here. Which brings us to CEOFOP's paper "201 wrong theories for the cosmological constant" (in preparation, hopefully).

D. Chakalov
December 28, 2009
Last update: December 30, 2009
 

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

Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from Phys. Scr. - PS/330183/PAP/20351
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:30:54 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Hooft, G. t" <G.tHooft@uu.nl>
Cc: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@gmail.com>,
"Szabados,L." <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu>,
"C. Y. Lo" <c_y_lo@yahoo.com>,
liesbeth.mol@springer.com


On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:12:32 +0100, CEOFOP <G.tHooft@uu.nl> wrote:
>
> With such circular arguments you will certainly impress your friends,
> such as Mr. Lo and Mr. Chakalov, but they give you a well-deserved
> position in my spam filter.

Don't read your spam then. And don't worry, nobody will replace you as the Chief Editor of Foundations of Physics (CEOFOP). Your students will laugh at you ...

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Gerard.html#zilch1

... but you will hear nothing, so you're safe.

D.

> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Crothers [mailto:thenarmis@gmail.com]
> Sent: Mon 12/28/2009 2:01 AM
> To: Dimi Chakalov
> Cc: Szabados,L.; Hooft, G. t; C. Y. Lo; liesbeth.mol@springer.com
> Subject: Re: Final decision on your article from Phys. Scr. -
> PS/330183/PAP/20351
>
> Dear Scientists,
>
> I note that the Defenders of the Realm, such as Mr. 't Hooft, ignore
> simple physical principles and irrefutable mathematical proofs in order to
> justify themselves.
...
> All attempts to circumvent this catastrophe by means of Einstein's
> pseudo tensor are futile because his pseudotensor implies, by
> contraction, a linear invariant that is solely dependent 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! Thus, the international search for gravitational waves is
> destined to detect none - and they have detected none in 40 years of
> effort and billions of taxpayers' dollars in expenditure.
>
> In the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" the quantity r therein is always
> treated as the radius with the origin at r = 0. However, it is irrefutable
> that this r is in fact the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of
> the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section and is
> thus not even a distance let alone a radial one in Schwarzschild
> spacetime. The actual radial quantity is determined by integration of the
> grr term. And one can generate an infinite number of counter examples
> to the Kruskal-Szekeres "coordinates" whereby the singularity is
> encountered before the so-called "event horizon". Here are the
> counter-examples:
>
> http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-20-01.PDF
....

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

Subject: Re: Gravitational radiation: Request for opinion
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:14:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Maurice J Dupre <xxxxx@xxxx.xxx>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Cc: [snip]

Hi Dimi,

From the comments in the email there only seems to be the statement of the well known mathematical fact that when the Riemann curvature tensor vanishes in a simply connected open subset then that open subset is isometric to an open subset of a semi-Riemannian vector space or in the special case of spacetime, an open subset of Minkowski spacetime. This theorem does not seem to me to have much to do with gravitational radiation except to say there is none in flat spacetime. His treatment in Chapter 15 seems to be along usual methods. He uses the linearized equations and as well assumes the energy stress tensor has vanishing coordinate divergence which is only approximately true. With all these approximations it is difficult to know how accurate is the expression derived for the radiated energy.

[snip]

It simply appears to me that we have to accept the fact that conservation of energy cannot apply to the gravitational source energy of the gravitational field itself. On the other hand all kinds of conserved quantities come up in the theory of partial differential equations and they can be very useful for understanding properties of the solutions. Conservation of energy has such a long tradition in theoretical physics that physicists are clearly against any attack on it, but in general relativity energy which can serve as a source for gravity is localizable by definition or the theory would be inconsistent.

This means that if a useful conserved quantity is found which coincides with energy where T is non vanishing may usefully be called an energy, but where T is zero this new energy must not be thought of as itself being able to cause gravity. The specific T gives the solution together with assumed boundary conditions and then for analyzing the solution use whatever methods you can and that certainly must include any coordinate conserved quantity available in specific problem.

[snip]

All the best

Maurice

Sent from my iPhone

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

Subject: Re: Gravitational radiation: Request for opinion
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:31:00 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Maurice J Dupre <xxxxx@xxxx.xxx>

Dear Maurice,

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply. I highly appreciate it.

> With all these approximations it is difficult to know how accurate is the
> expression derived for the radiated energy. However, I maintain that
> whatever energy is lost or radiated away cannot itself go out in the
> vacuum and itself then serve as source for gravity. This would be a
> contradiction of the Einstein equation itself since the energy momentum
> stress tensor of all matter and fields other than gravity, which I denote
> simply by T, is the source of all gravity according to the Einstein
> equation, so in any region where T vanishes there cannot be
> gravitational source.

I believe we already have a blatant contradiction of the Einstein field equation with the so-called DDE: please see R. Rakhi & K. Indulekha and S. Carrroll at

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

So, what if T (the energy momentum stress tensor of all matter and fields *other* than gravity) can *completely* vanish/dissolve into the vacuum, and stay available there for any partial, full, or "over unity" recall, if needed?

Perhaps we need a modification of Quantum Theory,

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

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

With all good wishes,

Dimi

[snip]

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

Subject: The vanishing of the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor is a quantum-gravitational phenomenon
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:49:06 +0300
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimayP0qeYAUJ3o01kcxOG6n0htXVro8nBEA56N0@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: "Dupre, Maurice J" <mdupre@tulane.edu>
Cc: Frank Tipler <tipler@tulane.edu>,
Fred Cooperstock <cooperst@uvic.ca>,
Roger Penrose <penroad@herald.ox.ac.uk>,
Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
Ted <newman@pitt.edu>,
Robert Geroch <geroch@uchicago.edu>,
Robert M Wald <rmwa@midway.uchicago.edu>


Dear Maurice,

Regarding your latest arXiv:1007.4572v1 [gr-qc], please recall my email from Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:31:00 +0200; details at

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

You will find there a simple recipe to disprove the claim in the subject line.

Wishing you a nice summer,

Dimi