Initial Value for GR /w Ashtekar Var. Eyo EyoIta defies Freidel and Smolin

[MTd2]

I will quote him, with his permission:

", I gave a talk a few months ago at P.I. on my research on finite states in QGRA. It was realized during the talk that I would have had to have solved the initial value problem of GR, in order to quantize it by my method. They didn't believe it at first, since GR is a major problem which apparently nobody knows how to solve. So they made me show them.
After I did, I'm not sure if they believed it totally, but certainly they began to see how it could be plausible: which Lee Smolin himself admitted. Laurent Friedel at first thought I must be completely wrong, but then changed his view from me as a guy making ludicrous claims, to the more open-minded possibility that I could have something there after I sketched out a few lines.
They asked me to write up a sketch of the proof, as it would be a significant discovery. I gave them a 70 page paper outlining some of the basics, without giving it completely away, at least to let the P.I. group could digest it.
So far, after several months, they are still trying to come to grips with the procedure: but have not yet come back to say that I'm wrong- or right: I have challenged Friedel to prove me wrong, but so far he hasn't: and likewise with Smolin and some other P.I. members.
I've been holding off on posting my solution, to give P.I. the chance to come to a definie conclusion: but I might just go ahead and post it so that others can have a chance to see it: since I'd like to get some feedback.
The classical solution is an intermediate step in my quantum solution: but I understand that many people are interested in the classical aspects as well.

It has to do with a set of new variables I've developed in QGRA. The `momentum' variable, which is essentially the antiself-dual part of the Weyl curvature tensor, has taken on a completely new interpretation. One of the properties it encodes about a spacetime is the amount of anisotropy, which has observational implications: amongst the things I've worked out include ways of testing the semiclassical limit of QGRA without needing to go all the way to the Planck scale- this limit would leave its imprint on these variables in ways which would stick out possibly at every day energy scales. The anisotropy in this tensor is in an internal SU(2) space, but can be transformed into spacetime by my procedure for constructing GR solutions. One thing it could potentially be used to corroborate is the anisotropy in the CMB temperature spectrum, and relate that to quantum cosmology.


Nonetheless, I would be cautious in saying that they can't prove me wrong: so far, P.I. has not yet arrived at a definite conclusion. The nature from their perspective is such that it takes time, intense concentration and rigor, and resources to get a handle on, and there are no shortcuts."

I have the sketch of the full paper.

 

[marcus]

...
"... They asked me to write up a sketch of the proof, as it would be a significant discovery. I gave them a 70 page paper outlining some of the basics, without giving it completely away, at least to let the P.I. group could digest it..."
...

Personally I'm very skeptical.
I watched the Ita talk at Perimeter some months ago, the week he gave it.
I thought the audience was forbearing. As I recall, he used the blackboard a lot. This is not a criticism, some people just do rely more on the blackboard. Probably the slides he came prepared with simply didn't adequately explain what he had to say.

I don't feel it would be proper for me to comment on whether the talk impressed me as convincing or not.

I did think the audience was patient, encouraging, and trying to be helpful.

If they suggested to him that he write up a sketch of a proof of something, that would be for his own good. If he can prove a theorem related to some outstanding problem, he could publish it.
I doubt that the suggestion was a challenge or meant in any adversarial way.

If he sent them a 70 page thing he calls "outlining the basics" but "without giving the secret completely away" that is not what mathematicians generally consider a sketch of a proof. I don't think that obliges anyone to go through it.

A sketch of a proof is supposed to make the core ideas clear in brief and give the essentials away as completely as possible. That way colleagues can tell if the proof will work or not. Often people are deluded and think they have proved something they haven't, and I mean reputable professional mathematicians. You are doing someone a favor to check out his or her proof (or sketch of proof) of a theorem.
A sketch can omit trivial details but the essentials must be clear and explicit.

I would advise Ita to
1. redo his sketch of proof, if he thinks he has proven anything
2. make it less than 70 pages
3. reveal everything, keep nothing back that could be considered essential
4. be prepared to be told it's wrong
5. be prepared to submit the sketch to other groups of mathematicians at other places if Perimeter does not respond

 

[M-tron]

Marcus, the full presentation is not online. It actually continued for about another hour. This is only part of the week he spent at perimeter.

Your 70 page requirement is unreasonable, especially in consideration of your recommendation #3. He is always open to #4, but has yet to be proven wrong and has solidified his position and improved his presentation at every such opportunity. I believe Perimeter is responsive and is certainly not objecting while they catch up and much of his work is on the Arxiv for other mathematicians.

I'm still catching up, too, and will be for some time.

 

[M-tron]

P.S. Of course they were forbearing.

 

[ensabah6]

So basically Smolin and Freidel and PI are taking a closer look t o Eyo Eyo Ita's thesis that ashtkar canononical program, is complete, that
using Randomo's theses of imirizi number taking a real value, Eyo Eyo publishes phD work that we know have a full 4d q gravity.