(, and (,

H = p-1(p/(( + p(2p-1q/(((( - pq (2p-1/(((( , (16b)

and K is the Gaussian curvature of the surface ( = 1, ( = constant,

K = p2((2/((2 + (2/((2)ln p. (16c)

For this metric, the empty-space condition G(( = 0 reduces to

(2q/((2 + (2q/((2 = 0, and (2K/((2 + (2K/((2 = 4p-2((/(( - 3H)m. (17)

To see this metric has no dynamic connection, let us examine their special case as follows:

ds2 = 2d(d( - 2Hd(2 - d(2 - d(2, and (H/(( = (2H/((2 + (2H/((2 = 0. (18)

This is a plane-fronted "wave" [39] derived from metric (16) by specializing

p = 1 + ((2 + (2)K(()/4. (19a)
substituting
( = (-2 + (-1, ( = (, ( = (2, ( = (2, q = (4, (19b)

where ( is constant, and taking the limit as ( tends to zero [38]. Although (18) is a Lorentz metric, there is a singularity on every wave front where the homogeneity conditions

(3H/((3 = (3H/((3 = 0. (20)

are violated [38]. Obviously, this is also incompatible with Einstein's notion of weak gravity [2]. A problem in current theory is its rather insensitivity toward theoretical self-consistency [9,13,35,40-42].
From: Chungylo
To: cqg@ioppublishing.co.uk, jehogarth@home.com, DZG@vega.bac.pku.edu.com, philmorr@MIT.EDU, qmy@wuhan.comgb.com, seri@math.princeton.edu, demetri@math.princeton.edu, jawheeler@pupgg.princeton.edu, joe_wisnovsky@pupress.princeton.edu, beiglboeck@springer.de

File: C&K.ZIP (96253 bytes)

Debra Wills
Publishing Administrator
Classical and Quantum Gravity
E-mail: cqg@ioppublishing.co.uk


Dear Ms. Wills:

I have informed you two years ago that your board report will be responded in my published papers. Now, the two papers concerned your board report have been published. They are : C. Y. Lo, Physics Essays, 13 (1), 109-120 (March 2000); and C. Y. Lo, Physics Essays, 13 (4), 527-539 (Dec. 2000).
In the first paper, I show that the "solutions" constructed by Christodoulou and Klainerman are proven to be physically incorrect. Mathematically, their claims are invalid simply because the "proof" is incomplete. Your Journal is referred to in reference [44]. The second paper pointed out that the claims of Kuchar are also incorrect, and the "proof" is invalid because it is not applicable to a dynamical case. Also, the more recent paper of Klainerman and Nicolo published in your journal is also commented. My over all criticism to your journal on these issues are (in endnote [5]) that your journal considered these invalid claims as "proofs".
I assume that your board would be interested in reading my papers. For your convenience, the electronic files of these two papers are attached. Any comments the board of your journal may have will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
C. Y. Lo

上一页  [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]