7/29/2019 On the Errors of Bertschinger and Hughes of MIT in GR

1/2

President Shirley Ann Jackson

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

110 Eighth Street, Troy, NY USA 12180

President.general@rpi.edu

Tel: (518) 276-6000

On the Errors of Bertschinger and Hughes of MIT in General Relativity

Dear President Jackson:

This is a continuation of my last letter.

A central issue of general relativity is whether the Einstein equation has a dynamic solution. Almost

everybody, from the viewpoint of physics, believes that a dynamic solution should exist. However, this is

only a physical requirement for the viewpoint of the principle of causality. The real issue is whether the

Einstein equation has the mathematical dynamic solution for his equation. So far, there is no example that

can illustrate the existence of a dynamic solution. On the other hand to prove the non-existence of a

dynamic solution is far from easy.

This is the reason that after my paper is published at Astrophysical Journal in 1995, Prof. P. Morrison

questioned me on this issue for almost a month, and finally understood it. Then, he went to Princeton toquestion Taylor, who could not answer Morrisons questions. Thus, in his return Morrison suggested that I

should write a book on this problem alone. So, essentially there are probably only three people in the world

Morrison, Chandrasekhar (the editor of Astrophysics Journal), and me at that time that understood my

paper. Unfortunately, Chandrasekhar passed away shortly after the publication of my paper.

This is a difficult problem because either mathematics or physics alone cannot solve this world-class

problem. To solve this problem a combined skill of mathematics and physics is required. The problem wasnot solved because physicists are poorly trained in pure mathematics and mathematicians generally do not

understand the physics. I was a lucky exception because I have the adequate training in both fields for such

a problem. A crucial point is to understand the principle of causality, but even journals such as the Physical

Review do not understand this principle adequately.

We are very proud of the fact we have a D. Sc. degree from MIT. However, the mathematics learned from

our degrees is actually far from enough to understand general relativity. However, you can rely on the

expertise of the others. For instance, the Journal of Space Exploration is examining my paper On theQuestion of Dynamic Solution in General Relativity, and you can ask their opinion on my paper.

The Physics Department of MIT does not respond, as they should. A reason is that both Professors

Edmund Bertschinger 1) and Scott A. Hughes 2) do not understand the basics of general relativity. They

disobediently ignored MIT President Reifs directive, i.e., to study my work and communicate with me.

For instance, Bertschinger does not understand the basic mathematics that, for the dynamic case, the non-linear Einstein equation is not compatible with its linearized equation. In fact, the linearized equation is

actually compatible with a modified Einstein equation with an additional source term of gravitational

energy-momentum tensor with an anti-gravity coupling. Thus, although Bertschinger used the linearized

equation to fit the data, he actually does not understand the justification of the linearized equation. Also, the

major research topic of Scott A. Hughes is on the gravitational waves, but he also does not understand that

there is no gravitational wave solution for the Einstein equation. Like Bertschinger, Hughes also does not

know that the linearized equation is compatible with only the modified Einstein equation, but not theEinstein equation.

The current practice of the Princeton University, which is also the current major source of errors, is to

stonewall all the challenges; otherwise they would expose their shortcomings further. Bertschinger and

Hughes simply built another stonewall.

Moreover, to admit that the Einstein equation has no dynamic solution means that everybody in general

relativity has made a serious mistake. This is unfortunate. However, sciences are based on evidence. They

only need to produce an example of a dynamic solution. They may claim that they can produce it with

mailto:President.general@rpi.edumailto:President.general@rpi.edu

7/29/2019 On the Errors of Bertschinger and Hughes of MIT in GR

2/2

perturbation. Apparently, they fail to understand that for the dynamic case, the non-linear equation and the

linearized equation have no compatible solutions.

So, my conclusion is that you should be very cautious on the question of a dynamic solution. Please do notlet the errors of Bertschinger and Hughes make a bad mark on your otherwise very bright career in physics.

Best regards

Sincerely yours,

C. Y. Lo

Endnotes:

1) Edmond Bertschinger, is the intellectual grandson of S. Chandrasekhar. In 1995 Chandrasekhar, as

the editor of the Astrophysical Journal, was finally convinced that there is no dynamic solution for

the Einstein equation.

2) Scott A. Hughes, gots his Ph.D. (1998) at Caltech under Kip Thorne, who is known for being

unable to tell facts such as what is Einsteins equivalence principle.