Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.

2)2008:149 -170

THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY AND THE CYLINDRICALLY

SYMMETRIC METRIC OF EINSTEIN AND ROSEN

C. Y. Lo
Applied and Pure Research Institute, 7 Taggart Drive, Unit E, Nashua,
NH 03060 USA

ABSTRACT

From the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsars experiment, it has been

found that the nonexistence of gravitational wave solutions is due to a
violation of the principle of causality. Nevertheless, some still believe
that the wave solutions exist because singularities in the solution of
Einstein & Rosen are removable. It is shown that the violation of causal-
ity can be proven from the metric form of Einstein-Rosen type, in addi-
tion to explicit cylindrical “waves”. Metrics of Einstein-Rosen type vio-
late Einstein’s equivalence principle, and violate the principle of causal-
ity due to the impossibility of having valid sources. Concurrently, the
cylindrical symmetry metric, obtained by G. ‘t Hooft from combining
“waves”, is also discussed. There are two fundamental errors, namely: 1)
the plane wave has been implicitly extended beyond its physical valid-
ity as an idealization, and 2) the integration over the angle cannot be
justified with a physical process.

Key words: Einstein’s equivalence principle, covariance principle, Euclidean-like structure, prin
ciple of causality, plane-wave. 04.20.-q, 04.20.Cv

“Science sets itself apart from other paths to truth by recognizing that even its
greatest practitioners sometimes err.” -- S. Weinberg, Physics Today, November
2005.

1. INTRODUCTION
A common mistake among theorists (Lo 2000b) including Einstein (Ein-
stein et al 1938), Feynman (1996), Landau & Lifshitz (1962), etc., was assuming
the existence of dynamic solutions for the Einstein equation of 1915. This issue of
dynamic solutions was raised by Gullstrand (1921) in his report to the Nobel
Committee. Due to conceptual errors such as ambiguity of coordinates as
pointed out by Whitehead (1922), Fock (1964), and Zhou (1983), many cannot
reconcile the non-existence of dynamic solutions with the three accurate predic-
tions. It was not until 1995 that based on the principle of causality, the nonexis-
tence of dynamic solutions is proven (Lo 1995, 1999a) and related issues are ad-
dressed subsequently (Lo 2000b). This becomes possible (Lo 2003b) because it is
proven that a physical space must have a frame of reference that has a Euclidean-
 150
C. Y. Lo
like structure. 1) Meanwhile, unphysical solutions were accepted (Kramer et al.
1980) because Einstein’s equivalence principle was not well understood (see Ap-
pendix A).
To explain the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsars experiment, it is necessary to
modify the Einstein equation with an added source term, the gravitation energy-
stress tensor (with an antigravity coupling), to accommodate the waves (Lo 1995,
1999a) and to have a valid linearized equation. Since the gravitational wave,
whose sources are energy-stress tensors, carries energy-momentum, a gravita-
tional wave should carry a source along. Then, it becomes clear (Lo 2000b) that
the non-existence of gravitational waves is due to a violation of the principle of
causality (see Section 2).
Historically, Einstein & Rosen (1937) could be considered as the first to
discover the non-existence of wave solutions, but editors of the Physical Review
found that the singularities they discovered are removable (Kennefick 2004). This
led to a self-deceptive satisfaction that subsequently hindered progress in phys-
ics. Also Christodoulou & Klainerman (1993) claimed to have constructed dy-
namic solutions for the Einstein equation because they made some basic errors in
mathematics (Lo 2000a). Moreover, the editors of the Physical Review and other
journals failed to identify the violation of physical principles such as the princi-
ple of causality (Lo 2000b, 2003a, 2007c).
Surprisingly some still clinch on the cylindrical solution of Einstein-
Rosen type. The reason seems to be that this provides a seemingly close mathe-
matical analogy with the case of electromagnetism. For instance, ‘t Hooft pro-
vided an example (Lo 2006b) to illustrate his claim of the validity of the Einstein
equation for the dynamic case. His goal is to justify the linearization of the Ein-
stein equation although this has been proven invalid for the dynamic case (Lo
1995, 2000b).
In this paper, it will be shown that the cylindrical solution of Einstein-
Rosen type is invalid because both Einstein’s equivalence principle and the prin-
ciple of causality are violated. To illustrate these, the example of ‘t Hooft is ana-
lyzed together the solution of Weber and Wheeler (1957). The violation of these
principles will be identified and discussed with the details of the examples. It is
hoped that thereafter theorists would study the problem of gravitation anew
with adequate physical considerations included.

2. THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY

The time-tested assumption that phenomena can be explained in terms of
identifiable causes is called the principle of causality (Lo 1995, 2000b). This prin-
ciple is the basis of relevance for all scientific investigations. This principle is
commonly used in symmetry considerations in electrodynamics.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

150
 151
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

In general relativity, Einstein and subsequent theorists have used this

principle implicitly on symmetry considerations (Lo 2000b) such as for a circle in
a uniformly rotating disk and the metric for a spherically symmetric mass distri-
bution. In fact, a crucial argument in the proof of the nonexistence of dynamic
solutions of Einstein equation (Lo 1995, 2000b) is based on symmetry considera-
tions due to the principle of causality.
However, physicists have not considered its other consequences until re-
cently. For instance, parameters unrelated to any physical cause in a solution are
not allowed and a dynamic solution must be related to an appropriate dynamic
source. Moreover, that the weak sources would produce weak gravity is, in fact,
the theoretical foundation of Einstein’s requirement on weak gravity. Neverthe-
less, this principle is often neglected in the consideration of solutions (Lo 2000b;
Kramer et al.1980; Einstein & Rosen 1937).
A reason is that since the coordinates are ambiguous, it is often difficult
to apply the principle of causality in a logical manner other than implicitly. The
negligence is apparently habit forming, and thus theorists who are still dominat-
ing the field of general relativity essentially forgot this principle. The so-called
“covariance principle” that many theorists incorrectly believed 2) is also respon-
sible for such a strange situation. (Besides, few would venture out to related
fields in mathematics and physics. 3))
Thus, it would be necessary to clarify the physical meaning of coordi-
nates. Then Einstein’s requirement on weak gravity can be justified (Lo 1999b).
On the other hand, if the physical meaning of space coordinates is not clear, it is
difficult to justify in applying this principle to symmetry considerations as Ein-
stein and others implicitly did.
An illustrative example for a violation of the principle of causality is the
metric of Bondi, Pirani & Robinson (1959), claimed as a wave from a distant
source,
ds2 = exp(2φ)(dτ2 – dξ2) – u2[cosh2β (dη2 + dζ2) + sinh2β cos2θ (dη2 – dζ2)
– 2sinh2β sin2θ dηdζ], (1)

where φ, β, θ are functions of u (= τ – ξ ). It satisfies the equation (i.e., their eq. [2.8]),

2φ' = u(β' 2 + θ' 2 sinh2 2β). (2)

Metric (1) is unbounded, although its frame (ξ, η, ζ) has a Euclidean-like struc-
ture. Thus they had to claim that Einstein’s requirement for weak gravity is
meaningless.
However, such a rejection is insufficient to justify metric (1). When grav-
ity is absent, i.e. φ = β = 0, the metric is reduced to

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

151
 152
C. Y. Lo
ds2 = (dτ2 – dξ2) – u2 (dη2 + dζ2). (3)

On the other hand, the metric for no gravity should be the flat metric or its
equivalence as in the case of “cylindrical waves” of Einstein & Rosen (1937).
Thus, to justify metric (1), one must show that, for the given frame, (3) could be
equivalent to the flat metric. Moreover, metric (1) violates the principle of causal-
ity since there is no parameter of physical causes to be adjusted such that metric
(1) becomes equivalent to the flat metric.
Consider another metric accepted as valid by Penrose (1964) as follows:
ds2 = du dv + H du2 – dxi dxi, where H = hij(u)xixj, (4)
and
hii(u) ≥ 0, hij = hji , where u = ct - z, and v = ct + z . (5)
Here t is the time coordinate; and x, y, z are the space coordinates; and hij(u) is
an energy-stress tensor related to the cause of this gravity, an electromagnetic
plane-wave.
Metric (4) is a Lorentz manifold. However, independent of hij(u), H can
always be arbitrarily large. This is incompatible with Einstein's notion of weak
gravity and the correspondence principle. Moreover, in general H = hij(u)(xi –
ai)(xj – aj) and the parameters are chosen as (a1, a2) = (0, 0). Thus, the principle of
causality is violated since parameters ai (i = 1, 2) are unrelated to any physical
cause.

3. THE CYLINDRICAL SYMMETRY METRICS OF EINSTEIN AND ROSEN

Let us examine their cylindrical “waves” of Einstein & Rosen (1937)
again. In coordinates, ρ, ϕ, and z, their solution is
ds2 = exp(2γ – 2Ψ)(dT2 – dρ2) – ρ2exp(–2Ψ)dϕ2 – exp(2Ψ)dz2 (6)
where T is the product of the velocity of light and the time coordinate. Its frame
of reference has the Euclidean-like structure. γ and ψ are functions of ρ and T.
They satisfy
Ψρρ + (1/ρ)Ψρ – ΨTT = 0, (7a)
γρ = ρ[Ψρ2 + ΨT2], and γ T = 2ρΨρΨ T. (7b)
Also, the function γ satisfies an inhomogeneous linear equation of Maxwell-type,
γρρ + γρ/ρ – γTT = 2ψT2 (8)
When gravity is absent (i.e., γ = ψ = 0), the reduced metric is equivalent to the flat
metric.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

152
 153
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

Weber & Wheeler (1957) claimed, “We concluded that many of the oth-
erwise apparently paradoxical properties of this cylindrical wave can be under-
stood by taking into account the analogy between gravitational waves and elec-
tromagnetic waves, and the special demands of the equivalence principle, which
rules out a special role for any particular frame of reference.” 4) Their claims
could be valid if γ(r, T) had a physical solution. However, their own solution im-
plies otherwise.
Weber and Wheeler (1957) obtained a solution as follows:
　Ψ = AJ0 (ωρ) cos ωt +BN0 (ωρ) sinωt, (9a)
where A and B are constants. The second function γ in the special case B = A, re-
duces to
1
γ = 2 A2ωρ{J0(ωρ)J0’(ωρ) + N0(ωρ)N0’(ωρ) + ωρ[(J0(ωρ))2 + (J0’(ωρ))2

+ (N0(ωρ))2 + (N0’(ωρ))2] + [J0(ωρ)J0’(ωρ) – N0(ωρ)N0’(ωρ)] cos2ωT

2
+ [J0(ωρ)N0’(ωρ) + N0(ωρ)J0’(ωρ)] sin2ωT} – π A2ωT (9b)

According to (9b), exp(2γ) gets very large as T gets large negatively. (Note that T
and ωρ should have been respectively t and ωρ/c.) Moreover, since exp(2γ) ap-
proaches zero as T gets large positively, the condition for weak gravity (1 >> |γμν|)
would fail.
Moreover, metric (6) cannot satisfy coordinate relativistic causality. We-
ber and Wheeler agreed with Fierz's analysis that γ is strictly positive where Ψ(ρ,
T) ≈ 0 for large ρ (1957). On the other hand, for a cylindrical coordinate system,
Einstein’s equivalence principle implies time dilation and space contractions, and
this would mean
– gρρ ≥ 1 ≥ gtt , – gϕϕ/ρ2 ≥ 1 , and – gzz ≥ 1 . (10a)
These would imply coordinate relativistic causality (Lo 2002). Thus, from metric
(6) one has exp (2γ) ≤ 1 and exp (2γ) ≤ exp(2Ψ). It thus follows that γ ≤ 0. Hence,
the condition γ > 0 cannot be met. In fact, it follows (10a) directly that
(2γ – 2Ψ) ≥ 0 ≥ (2γ – 2Ψ), –2Ψ ≥ 0 , and 2Ψ ≥ 0. (10b)
Thus Ψ = γ = 0. This shows that there is no physical wave solution for Gμν = 0.
This above analysis shows not only there is no wave solution, but also no
physical solution of any kind. Unlike the case of plane waves, a cylindrically
symmetric metric must have a source because it is not a local idealization of
waves from distant sources. It will be shown in the next section that it is impos-
sible to have appropriate sources.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

153
 154
C. Y. Lo

4. REMARKS ON THE MAXWELL-NEWTON APPROXIMATION

To the above end, some review of the Maxwell-Newton Approximation
would be useful. It was incorrectly believed that the linear Maxwell-Newton Ap-
proximation always provides the first order approximation for the Einstein equa-
tion (Einstein 1954; Wald 1984; Will 1981). This belief was verified for the static
case only. For a dynamic case, however, this is no longer valid (Lo 1995, 2000b).
Nevertheless, some theorists believe that the cylindrically symmetric metric
could be an exception.
To discuss this, let us consider the Maxwell-Newton Approximation as fol-
lows:
1 1
2 ∂ c∂c γ μν = – K T(m) μν , where γ
μν = γμν – 2 ημν(ηcdγcd) (11a)
and
3

r = ∑(x − y ) .
γ K 1 i 2
μν(xi, t) = – 2π ∫ r Tμν[yi, (t – r)]d y,
3 2 i
where (11b)
i =1

From (11b), a source would give γμν as of the first order. From (11a), it is clear
that the linearized harmonic gauge ∂ c γ cd = 0 would imply the conservation law,
∂ cT(m)cd = 0. In turn, as pointed out by Wald (1984), this would mean that the test
bodies move on geodesics of the flat metric ημν. On the other hand, the covariant
conservation law,
∇cT(m)cd = 0, (12)

implies only that ∂ c γ cd is of the second order. Thus, theoretical consistency re-
quires that the linearized harmonic gauge is not exact. In other words, for gen-
eral relativity, a tensor T(m)cd that satisfies ∂ cT(m)cd = 0 is invalid.
Consider the metric of Einstein & Rosen (1937). For the case of weak grav-
ity, we have the lowest order:
2
γ tt(ρ, t) = –2Ψ , γ zz(ρ, t) = – 4Ψ(ρ, t)+2[γ(ρ, t)+ Ψ2], γ xy(ρ, t) = –2γ(ρ, t) xy/ρ2,
γ xx (ρ, t) = 2γ(ρ, t) y2/ρ2+2Ψ2, and γ yy (ρ, t) = 2γ(ρ, t) x2/ρ2+2Ψ2. (13)
Thus,
∂ cγ ct = – 4Ψ(r, t )Ψt(r, t), ∂ c γ cz = 0, (14a)
∂c γ cx = 2γ(ρ, t)[x/ρ2] – 4Ψ(r, t )Ψx(r, t), (14b)
and
∂c γ cy = 2γ(ρ, t)[y/ρ2] – 4Ψ(r, t )Ψy(r, t). (14c)
Thus, the linearized harmonic gauge would be satisfied if γ(ρ, t) is bounded and

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

154
 155
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

|γ(ρ, t)| ≈ O(ρ), as ρ → 0. (14d)

However, in the solution of Weber & Wheeler, γ (r, t) is not bounded.
Even if γ is bounded and (14d) is satisfied, since only γ z z could be of the
first order, the gravity should be generated only from T(m) zz . Thus masses are
moving in the z direction. Since γ zz (ρ, t) is independent of z, the motion is uni-
form with respect to z. Moreover, since γ tt (ρ, t) is of second order, there is no T t t
to generate the metric. Thus, there is no valid source for a cylindrically symmet-
ric metric of Einstein-Rosen type.
In other words, the principle of causality is violated. The metric (6) being
in violation of Einstein’s equivalence principle is also a statement of the fact that
it is impossible to move an infinitely long mass uniformly in the axial direction,
but there is actually no mass involved. The only hope seems to have waves that
could be argued as having the sources at infinity. This is probably the motivation
of ‘t Hooft’s metric solution.

5. THE CYLINDRICAL SYMMETRY ‘WAVE’ SOLUTION OF ‘t Hooft

The cylindrical metric constructed by ‘t Hooft (Lo 2006b) provides an in-
teresting example violating the principle of causality. His original goal is, how-
ever, to show the existence of wave solutions. His cylindrical metric is as follows:
2π 2
∫
Ψ (r , t ) = A d ϕ e −α (t −r cos ϕ )
0
, (15)

where A and α (> 0) are free parameters. For simplicity, take them to be one. |ψ| is
everywhere bounded. He claimed that, at large values for t and r, the stationary
points of the cosine dominate, so that there are peaks at r = |t|. And this is a
packet coming from r = ∞ at t = –∞ bouncing against the origin at t ≅ 0 (always
obeying the correct boundary condition there), and moving to r = ∞ again at t
→ ∞. The metric satisfies equations:
1
Ψrr + Ψr − Ψtt = 0 , γ r = r (Ψr2 + Ψt2 ) , γ t = 2rΨr Ψt . (16)
r

At |t| >> r, the function ψ drops off exponentially, and at r >> |t| as a power:
π
Ψ→2 (17)
r −t2
2

‘t Hooft claims that his metric solution is bounded, and has a weak limit.
However, it should be noted that Ψ(r, t) is not a wave packet as he claimed.
Let us calculate Ψr and Ψt as follows:

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

155
 156
C. Y. Lo
2π 2 2π 2
Ψt = −2 ∫ dϕ e −(t − r cos ϕ ) (t − r cos ϕ ) Ψr = 2 ∫ dϕ e −(t − r cos ϕ ) (t − r cos ϕ )(cos ϕ ) .(18)
0 0

−α ( r cos ϕ ) 2π 2
Consider the case t = 0, and we have Ψ (r , 0) = ∫0 dϕ e
2π 2 2π 2
Ψt = −2 ∫ dϕ e −( r cos ϕ ) r cos ϕ = 0 , but Ψr = 2 ∫0 dϕ e
− ( r cos ϕ )
r cos 2 ϕ ≠ 0. (19a)
0

2π 2
Consider another case r = 0, and we have Ψ (0, t ) = ∫0d ϕ e
− (t )

2π 2 2π 2
Ψt = ∫ dϕ e − (t ) (−2)(t ) ≠ 0, but Ψr = ∫ dϕ e −(t ) (−2)(t )(− cos ϕ ) = 0. (19b)
0 0

Thus, |Ψr(r, t)| ≠ |Ψt (r, t)|, and their ratio changes with (r, t). Thus, Ψ (r, t) is not a
plane wave packet, and γ(r, t) might have a bounded solution. However, since

γ r ± γ t = r (Ψr ± Ψt ) 2 , (20)

the function γ(r, t) has the same kind of problem (see also next section).
One might argue that since (15) satisfies a Maxwell-type equation in vac-
uum, its wave should have the same phase speed. However, such an argument is
valid only for a physical wave packet. Since (15) does not satisfy Einstein’s
equivalence principle, other kinds of violation are expected as shown in the solu-
tion (4) of Weber and Wheeler (1957).
‘t Hooft claimed, “The other function γ(r, t) is found by integrating one of
the two other equations (they of course yield the same value).” γ drops off expo-
nentially at | t | >> r and for r >> | t | it goes asymptotically to:

− 2πr 2
γ→ + Cst . (21)
(r 2 − t 2 )
Note the t ↔ –t symmetry throughout. This estimation of ‘t Hooft (2007) is based
on asymptotic expansion as follows:

⎛2 1 + 2t 2 3(3 + 12t 2 + 4t 4 ) 1 ⎞
　Ψ (r, t) = A π ⎜⎜ r + 2r 3 + 16r 5
+ O( 7 ) ⎟⎟ (22)
⎝ r ⎠

for r >> t. This gives for the function the asymptotic expansion:

2 3 + 8t 2 9 + 48t 2 + 24t 4 1
　γ (r, t) = πA (C −
2
2
− 4
− 6
+ O( )) (23)
r 2r 4r r8

An implicit assumption of this approach is that the expansion (23) converges.

Moreover, at r→0, the expansion is

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

156
 157
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

−t 2 ⎡ 2 2 1 ⎤ 4
　γ (r, t) = A2 π e ⎢1 + r (t − 2 )⎥ + O(r ) . (24)
⎣ ⎦

Then, using the same implicit assumption as above, for r →0 one has

2 2 2 2 −2 t 2
　γ (r, t) = 8π A t r e + O (r 4 ) . (25)

Then, (21) was derived and he concludes that

4πA2 > γ(r, t) > 0. (26)

As ‘t Hooft requested, details are included in Appendix B. Note also that just as
in the solution (9) of Weber and Wheeler (1957), there are problems related to γ
according to eq. (20). Nevertheless, these mathematical details are no longer im-
portant since it has been proven that this type of metric is not physically valid.
The plane-wave of the Maxwell equation is a local idealization with no
sources. However, for a cylindrical solution, it is different. Understandably, ‘t
Hooft concluded that (16) should have the following extended form,

1
Ψtt − Ψrr − Ψr = J (r , t ) where J(r, t) = δ(t) Φ2(r) + δ’(t)Φ1(r) , (27a)
r
which requires

　Ψ (r, t) → Φ 1(r) , 　Ψ t(r, t) → Φ2(r) , as t↓0 (27b)

Note that Φ2(r) = 0 in the given example. However, having a delta function of t,
the source in (27) is invalid, because this solution cannot be attributed to the mo-
tion of accelerated masses. Thus, the principle of causality is violated. Note that
the causality of ‘t Hooft is based on a Maxwell-type equation, which is also satis-
fied by metric (9).
Thus, a major issue would be whether (15) is a wave packet because it was
hoped that one could argue that the sources were at infinity. However, (15) is not
a wave packet that requires all its components to have the same wave speed.
Moreover, there is no source related to r = ∞, and (15) is invalid (see also next
section). In conclusion, the principle of causality is violated since there is no ap-
propriate source for packet (15).

6. PHYSICS RELATED TO THE PLANE WAVE AS AN IDEALIZATION

To see the physics clearly in a simple manner, the method of idealization
is often used. A good example is the plane wave. A plane wave with frequency

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

157
 158
C. Y. Lo
ω, uω (x, t) is an idealization of a wave in a ray with a single frequency from a dis-
tant source. In such an idealization of a section of the ray, the change of ampli-
tude over distance is neglected and thus the source would not be seen directly,
but it is implicitly included in the amplitude. Thus, although the total energy of a
plane wave is infinite, the energy density of a plane wave is finite. Thus, a plane
wave is not a real wave, but it is physically valid as an idealization of a section of
wave within a narrow ray of propagation.
In a plane wave idealization, the direction of propagation is essential.
The characteristic of plane wave is used to form wave packets in terms of linear
combinations. This is more realistic since a real wave generally contains multiple
frequencies, and its amplitude is noticeably non-zero only in a finite range. Then,
a wave packet is
1 ∞
u(x, t) =
2π
∫−∞ A(ω )uω ( x, t )dω (28)

Note that the coefficients A(ω) could be arbitrary. However, the propagation di-
rection and speed are maintained since

∂ x uω(x, t) = –∂ t uω(x, t) implies ∂ x u(x, t) = –∂ t u(x, t) (29)

Thus, such a wave packet is a valid idealization. An example of the wave packet
is
2
u ( x, t ) = Ae − (t − x ) (30)
It is understood that the validity of (30) is within the neighborhood of a narrow
ray propagating in the x-direction.
Now, consider that x = r cos ϕ in a coordinate system (r, ϕ, z). Then, ‘t
Hooft (2007) claimed that his solution,
2π 2
Ψ ( r , t ) = A∫ dϕ e −α (t − r cos ϕ ) (31)
0

is obtained by superimposing plane wave packets of the form exp [−α(x − t)2] ro-
tating them along the z axis over angle ϕ, so as to obtain a cylindrical solution.
Note that since the integrand exp[−α(t − r cosϕ)2] = exp[−α(t − x)2], there is no rota-
tion along the z axis. The function exp[−α (t − x)2] is propagating from x = – ∞ to x
= ∞ as time t increases.
However, (28) is integrated over a parameter ω unrelated to the x-axis;
whereas the “superimposition” (31) is integrated over ϕ(x, y). Since, (31) is a
combination that involves the coordinate ϕ (x, y), it is not a superimposition of
plane waves propagating along the x-axis. Furthermore, the integration over all
angles ϕ is a problem that would violate the requirement of the idealization be-

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

158
 159
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

cause it requires that the plane wave is valid over the whole x-y plane. Thus,
function (31) is not valid as an idealization in physics.
Alternatively, (31) could be interpreted as the sum of infinitely many
“wave packets”, each of which is in the narrow ray at angle ϕ with a different
amplitude at a point (r, t) and with a different phase speed,
r 1
=
t cos ϕ . (32)

Hence, the wave speed would be ranging from –∞ to –1 and 1 to +∞ at different

rays. This is also unacceptable in physics since energy should not propagate
faster than c. Note that since the wave packet exp[–α(t – x)2]dy is propagating
along x-axis, physically it is incompatible with the “packet” exp[–α(t – r cosϕ)2]dϕ
propagating along r.
Therefore, in solution (31), two fundamental errors have been made,
namely: 1) the plane wave has been implicitly extended beyond its physical va-
lidity, and 2) the integration over dϕ is a process without a valid physical justifi-
cation.5) These are other forms of violation of the principle of causality.

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Einstein’s equivalence principle is important, thus it is necessary to clar-
ify the fine points in its application. Moreover, the application of the principle of
causality could be subtle at times. To illustrate this, examples of the violation of
these basic principles have been given. The constructed solution of ‘t Hooft pro-
vides an additionally very good example to illustrate the power of these princi-
ples. A basic difference between a plane-wave metric and a cylindrical symmetry
metric is that the latter must have a source.
Weber & Wheeler (1957) and ‘t Hooft (Lo 2006b) drew physical interpre-
tations from Ψ, which satisfies a Maxwell-type equation. However, γ would
have a “wave” source as shown by eq. (3). Mathematically a plane-wave source
would guarantee the solution of γ to be invalid (Lo, Chan, & Hui 2002). (How-
ever, Ψ in the solution of ‘t Hooft is not a wave.) Physically, a violation of the
principle of causality should be expected since this metric does not satisfy Ein-
stein’s equivalence principle.
In ‘t Hooft’s solution, components of Ψ (r, t) would propagate at various
speeds larger than the light speed. His metric further illustrates the absence of a
valid physical source just as Einstein’s equivalence principle would imply.
Moreover, Ψ (r, t) of ‘t Hooft is also physically invalid even if considered for the

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

159
 160
C. Y. Lo
case of Maxwell’s equations (see Section 6). In short, Ψ is constructed with opera-
tions that are invalid in physics.
Thus, a violation of causality is expected and it supports the physical va-
lidity of Einstein’s equivalence principle. Nevertheless, some theorists still do not
know what Einstein’s equivalence principle is. For instance, having mistaken it
the same as Pauli’s version, Synge (1971) incorrectly claimed Einstein’s equiva-
lence principle as nonessential. Similarly, Wald (1984) simply ignores it (see also
Appendix A).
‘t Hooft’s metric further illustrates the absence of a physical source just as
Einstein’s equivalence principle would imply. For the gravitational waves that
VIRGO and LISA want to detect, the sources of the plane waves are not dis-
cussed. However, it is known that such plane waves are solutions of a modified
Einstein equation (Lo 1995, 2000b), but are beyond the 1915 Einstein equation (Lo
2006a).
A common error 6) was to assume the existence of dynamic solutions for
the Einstein equation (Lo 2000b). However, the non-existence of dynamic solu-
tions was clarified because the principle of causality can be applied (Lo 2000b)
after the physical meaning of coordinates is clarified with Einstein’s equivalence
principle. Nevertheless, many still mistake (Lo 2007b) Einstein’s equivalence
principle to be the same as Pauli’s (1958) version; and the formula of Landau &
Lifshitz for space contractions was rejected (Lo 2005b). In addition, many still in-
correctly regard Einstein’s equivalence principle of 1921 to be the same as the
1911 assumption of equivalence (Cheng 2005).
In general relativity, problems are often related to inadequate under-
standing of Einstein’s equivalence principle. Sometimes even Einstein himself
also did not understand his own principle well. Otherwise, he would not have
proposed a metric form that has its violation. However, this is no longer a sur-
prise since it has been shown that Einstein’s theory of measurement is inconsis-
tent with his equivalence principle (Lo 2003b, 2005). Many theorists also do not
understand Einstein’s equivalence principle (Lo 2007b), except possibly a few
such as Zhou Pei-Yuan (1983, 1987). 7) 8)
In addition, Liu & Zhou (1985) recognized that physical requirements
must be considered for a solution of plan-waves. In contrast, Penrose (1964) ac-
cepted solutions with unphysical parameters (Lo 2000b). Unaware of a violation
of the principle of causality, Christodoulou & Klainerman (1993) claimed to have
dynamic solutions constructed, because they made errors in mathematics (Lo
2000a).9) On the other hand, ‘t Hooft’s error is essentially in the area of physical
understanding. In fact, quite a few theorists do not understand the principle of
causality adequately (Lo 2007c). It is hoped that the scientific community will
give the necessary help to those relativists.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

160
 161
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

The cylindrical symmetry "wave" solution of Einstein and Rosen is inva-

lid since both Einstein’s equivalence principle and the principle of causality are
violated. In fact, some fail to understand the principle of causality because they
do not understand Einstein’s equivalence principle. The principle of causality is
the oldest and simplest principle in physics. The inadequate deliberation of this
principle and/or the difference between mathematics and physics are probably
just due to carelessness. 10) However, this is not an isolated problem even in the
Royal Society.
It is hoped that this paper will fairly settle the historical account of the
events between Einstein and the Physical Review. More important, theorists will
no longer ignore physical principles in their work on general relativity. Remem-
ber that the serious error of accepting Einstein’s interim covariance principle was
made by almost the whole physics community. Nevertheless, the cause of such
an error is merely due to inadequate deliberation of the difference between phys-
ics and mathematics (Lo 2008a).
Just like Einstein, ‘t Hooft also made mistakes. However, this does not di-
minish their status as great physicists earned by their contributions. In fact, new
discoveries just further reaffirm Einstein’s great contribution since implications of
general relativity have far reaching consequences such as unification that only recently
we begin to appreciate (Lo 2007a, 2008b).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is dedicated to Heng for unfailing encouragements over years.
The author is grateful for stimulating discussions with S. L. Cao, David P. Chan,
A. J. Coleman, S. -J. Chang, Richard C. Y. Hui, Liu Liao, and A. Napier on plane-
waves and the analysis of Weber and Wheeler on the cylindrical symmetry met-
ric of Einstein and Rosen. Special thanks are to G. ‘t Hooft and John Dyson, Uni-
versity of Leeds UK, for extensive discussions on the solution of ‘t Hooft; and A.
Napier for editing the whole manuscript. This work is supported in part by In-
notec Design, Inc., U.S.A.

Appendix A: Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, the Einstein-Minkowski

Condition
As shown by Einstein (1954; Einstein et al. 1923), a consequence of his
equivalence principle is the Einstein-Minkowski condition that the local space of a
particle under gravity must be locally Minkowskian, from which he obtained the
time dilation and space contractions. However, many others often regarded this
condition as non-essential (Norton 1989). Although Einstein used it in his initial
paper and his book, “The Meaning of Relativity”, many may still have missed
this important point (Lo 2007b).

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

161
 162
C. Y. Lo
First, let us state Einstein’s principle, which is based on the equivalence
of inertial mass and gravitational mass due to Galileo, with Einstein’s own words.
In his book, “The Meaning of Relativity”, Einstein (1954) wrote:
‘Let now K be an inertial system. Masses which are sufficiently far
from each other and from other bodies are then, with respect to K, free
from acceleration. We shall also refer these masses to a system of co-
ordinates K’, uniformly accelerated with respect to K. Relatively to K’
all the masses have equal and parallel accelerations; with respect to K’
they behave just as if a gravitational field were present and K’ were
unaccelerated. Overlooking for the present the question as to the
“cause’ of such a gravitational field, which will occupy us latter, there
is nothing to prevent our conceiving this gravitational field as real, that
is, the conception that K’; is “at rest” and a gravitational field is present
we may consider as equivalent to the conception that only K is an ”al-
lowable” system of co-ordinates and no gravitational field is present.
The assumption of the complete physical equivalence of the systems of
coordinates, K and K’, we call the “principle of equivalence;” this prin-
ciple is evidently intimately connected with the law of the equality be-
tween the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension
of the principle of relativity to coordinate systems which are non-
uniform motion relatively to each other.’
Later, Einstein made clear that a gravitational field is generated from a space-
time metric. Thus, his principle was proposed for the gravity as an integral part
of the physical space.
Einstein’s equivalence principle is different from Einstein’s 1911 pre-
liminary assumption on the equivalence between uniform acceleration and uni-
form Newtonian gravity (Einstein et al. 1923). Fock (1964) found it impossible to
show that the related metric is of the following form, ds2 = g t t (x) c2dt2 – dx2 –
dy2 – dz2 (Lo 2007b).
What is new in Einstein’s equivalence principle in 1916 is the claim of
the Einstein-Minkowski condition as a consequence (Einstein et al, 1923, p. 161).
While Einstein’s 1911 preliminary assumption was based essentially on his intui-
tion, the Einstein-Minkowski condition additionally has its foundation from
mathematical theorems (Synge 1971) in Riemannian geometry as follows:
Theorem 1. Given any point P in any Lorentz manifold (whose metric sig-
nature is the same as a Minkowski space) there always exist coordinate
systems (xμ) in which ∂gμν/∂xλ = 0 at P.
Theorem 2. Given any time-like geodesic curve Γ there always exists a co-
ordinate system (so-called Fermi coordinates) (xμ) in which ∂gμν/∂xλ = 0
along Γ.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

162
 163
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

In these theorems, the local space of a particle is locally constant, but not neces-
sarily Minkowski. However, after some algebra, a local Minkowski metric exists
at any given point and that along any time-like geodesic curve Γ, since a moving
local constant metric exists. The only condition is that the space-time metric has a
proper Minkowski signature.
What Einstein added to these theorems is that physically such a locally
constant metric must be Minkowski. Such a condition is needed for special rela-
tivity as a special case (Einstein et al. 1923). In a uniformly accelerated frame, the
local space in a free fall is a Minkowski space according to special relativity. It
should be noted, however, that validity of the Einstein-Minkowski condition
used in Einstein’s calculations (Einstein 1954; Einstein et al. 1923) is assumed
only.
Accordingly, Pauli’s version is essentially a simplified but corrupted
version of these theorems. Pauli’s (1958) version is as follows:
“For every infinitely small world region (i.e. a world region which is
so small that the space- and time-variation of gravity can be neglected
in it) there always exists a coordinate system K0 (X1, X2, X3, X4) in
which gravitation has no influence either in the motion of particles or
any physical process.”
Thus, Pauli regards the equivalence principle as merely the mathematical exis-
tence of locally constant spaces, which may not be locally Minkowski. In addition,
Pauli invalidly extended the removal of uniform gravity to the removal of grav-
ity in general. However, in spite of Einstein’s objection (Norton 1989), his equiva-
lence principle was commonly but mistakenly regarded the same as Pauli’s ver-
sion.
Einstein’s equivalence principle is also often misinterpreted. For instance,
this happens in the highly praised book of Will (1981), which also misinterpreted
(Lo 1995, 2000b) the binary pulsars experiment of Hulse & Taylor. Will (1986, p.
20) claimed “’Equivalence’ came from the idea that life in a free falling laboratory
was equivalent to life without gravity. It also came from the converse idea that a
laboratory in distant empty space that was being accelerated by a rocket was
equivalent to one at rest in a gravitational field.” Moreover, the British Encyclo-
pedia also stated Einstein’s Equivalence Principle incorrectly and ignored the
Einstein-Minkowski condition.
Apparently, Pauli (1958), and Will (1981, 1986), overlooked (or disagreed
with) Einstein’s (Einstein et al., p.144) remark, “For it is clear that, e.g., the gravi-
tational field generated by a material point in its environment certainly cannot be
‘transformed away’ by any choice of the system of coordinates…” Now, it should
be clear that Pauli and his followers knew little about functional analysis in
mathematics.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

163
 164
C. Y. Lo
Ignoring the Einstein-Minkowski condition, Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler
(1973; p. 386) claimed that Einstein’s equivalence principle is as follows: -
“In any and every local Lorentz frame, anywhere and anytime in
the universe, all the (Nongravitational) laws of physics must take
on their familiar special-relativistic form. Equivalently, there is no
way, by experiments confined to infinitestimally small regions of
spacetime, to distinguish one local Lorentz frame in one region of
spacetime frame any other local Lorentz frame in the same or any
other region.”
In their eq. (40.14), they got an incorrect conclusion on the local time of the
earth in the solar system. Ohanian & Ruffini (1994, p. 198) also had the same
problems as shown in their eq. (50). However, Eddington (1975), Straumann
(1984), Wald (1984), and Weinberg (1972) did not make the same mistake.
Moreover, based on invalid calculations of Fock, Ohanian & Ruffini
(1994), and Wheeler also claimed that Einstein’s equivalence principle is inva-
lid. Nevertheless, many claimed that his version is a “standard theory” al-
though the founders of the International Society on General Relativity and
Gravitation have not reached a common consensus. Note also that Herrera,
Santos & Skea (2003) publish an incorrect paper on E = mc2 (Lo 2007b), and
missed the evidence for unification (2007a).

Appendix B: The Related Calculation Details and Statements of G. ‘t Hooft

Consider the solution
2π 2 r
Ψ ( r , t ) = A∫ dϕ e −α (t − r cos ϕ ) , γ (r ) = ∫ r (Ψr2 + Ψt2 )dr (B1)
0 0

Here, A can be as large or as small as we please a), and α must be positive. It is

clear that γ (r) is a monotonously increasing function of r.
Using Mathematica®, the asymptotic expansion of Ψ(r, t) at r >> |t| is found to be
(we can add as many terms as we want):

π ⎛⎜ 2 1 + 2αt 2 3(3 + 12αt 2 + 4α 2 t 4 ) 1 ⎞

Ψ (r , t ) = A + + + O ( )⎟ (B2)
α ⎜⎝ r 2αr 3 16α 2 r 5 r 7 ⎟⎠

This gives for the function γ (r, t) the asymptotic expression:

2⎛ 2 3 + 8αt 2 9 + 48αt 2 + 24α 2 t 4 ) 1 ⎞

γ (r , t ) = πA ⎜ C −⎜ − − + O( )⎟ (B3)
⎝ αr 2 2αr 4 4α 3 r 6 r 8 ⎟⎠

This series expansion of Ψ (r, t) at r → 0 is

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

164
 165
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

1
Ψ (r , t ) = 2πAe −αt (1 + α r 2 (α t 2 − )) + O(r 4 )
2

(B4)
2
and γ (r, t) is therefore

γ (r , t ) = 8πA 2 α 2 t 2 r 2 e −2αt + O(r 4 )

2
(B5)
As a consistency check, one can verify these expansions obey

γ t (r , t ) = 2rΨr Ψt (B6)
To estimate the constant C, and find a bound for γ (r, t), we calculate it at t = 0,
where
1 1
Ψ (r ) = 4 A∫ dx e −α r
2
x2
0 ; (B7)
1− x 2
1 x2
Ψr (r ) = −8 Aαr ∫ dx e −α r
2
x2
Ψt(r)= 0, <0 (B8)
0
1− x 2
By partial integration:
1
− Ψr (r ) = 8 Aα r ∫ dx 1 − x 2 (1 − 2αr 2 x 2 )e −α r
2
x2
0
. (B9)

Since the second term is negative, this is bounded by

1
Ψr < 8 Aα r ∫ dx 1 − x 2 = K 0 r , K0 =2πAα.　. (B10)
0
and also by
1
Ψr < 8 Aα r ∫ dxe −αr
2 2
x
= 8 A πα = K1 . (B11)
0

To find a good bound at large r, we write (B8) as

π /2
Ψr (r ) = −4 Aα r ∫ dx sin 2 ϕ e −α r sin 2 ϕ
2

−π / 2
. (B12)

In the integration region, we have

sin ϕ < ϕ , but sin ϕ > 2 ϕ / π , (B13)

so that
∞ 2 − 4αr 2ϕ 2 / π 2 Aπ 7 / 2
Ψr < 4 Aα r ∫ dϕϕ e = K2 / r , 2
K2 = . (B14)
−∞ 4 α
The function γ (r) is an increasing function and since γr = Ψr2 at t = 0, we have the
bounds
γ r < K 02 r 3 , γ r < K 12 r , γ r < K 22 r 3 . (B15)

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

165
 166
C. Y. Lo
It is best to use the first and the last one. We find that these two bounds, coming
from (B10) and (B14) are equal at

r = r0 = ( K1 / K 2 )1 / 3 . (B16)
This gives the bound

πA 2 C = ⎛⎜ ∫ + ∫
r0 ∞ ⎞γ (r )dr < 1 K 2 r 4 + 1 K 2 / r 2 = 3 K 2 / 3 K 4 / 3 = 3 A 2 π 16 / 3
⎟ 0 0 0 0 2 ;
⎝ 0 r0 ⎠ 4 2 2 4 16
3 13 / 3
C< π = 26.7496 (B17)
16
Thus, we found an absolute bound on the constant C, which bounds the mo-
notonously increasing function γ (r):
0 ≤ γ < π CA 2 (B18)
We note that this is just one small subset of the infinite class of solutions to the
Einstein equation, in particular the ones with cylindrical symmetry.
Note a): For A infinitesimal, we have a solution of the linearized Einstein equa-
tions.

ENDNOTES
1) In a Euclidean-like structure of a frame, the Pythagorean Theorem is satisfied.
2) In support of Einstein’s covariance principle, it is often argued that the out-
come of a calculation cannot depend on a choice of coordinates. However, a
necessary implicit assumption in such an argument is that the physical inter-
pretation of the coordinates does not change. The existence of the Euclidean-
like structure in the frame of reference of a physical space (Lo 2003b) implies
that the physical meaning of coordinates is necessarily gauge-dependent, and
so are measurements. Therefore, the notion of gauge invariant “genuinely
measurable quantities” is merely an illusion in mathematics. And the deflec-
tion of light to second order is an example to Einstein’s covariance principle
being invalid (Lo 2008a).
3) Few theorists in gravitation read beyond a few specialized journals to under-
stand non-linear equations. Many are still unaware of the non-existence of
dynamic solutions (Lo 1995, 2000b). Moreover, many insist on misinterpret-
ing the formula E = mc2 to be unconditionally valid (Lo 1997, 2007d; Lo &
Wong 2007), and ignore the challenge of the Royal Society (Bondi et al. 1959),
who are earlier than Lo (1999a) and Zhou (1983) pointing out that there are
inconsistencies in Einstein’s general relativity. Those theorists, including C. M.
Will and also Eric J. Weinberg, editor of the Physical Review D, are out-dated,

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

166
 167
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

about half a century. The root of the problems is essentially that they failed to
understand Einstein’s equivalence principle (Lo 2008a).
4) Here, Weber & Wheeler (1957) have mistaken Einstein’s “Covariance princi-
ple” as Einstein’s equivalence principle.
5) A common problem among some applied mathematicians is that they often
take a conditionally valid mathematical expression as physically absolute and
thus out of contact with the physical reality. This is a form of confusion on
mathematics and physics. If Professor ‘t Hooft had paid more attention to the
physics of plane-waves, he could have saved himself from making such an
error. Moreover, if he studies more pure mathematics, he will be able to see
that there is no dynamic solution and that Pauli’s version of equivalence prin-
ciple is due to his errors in functional analysis, as illustrated by the example
given by Einstein (Einstein et al. 1923; p. 144).
6) It was believed (Einstein et al. 1938; Feynman 1996) that the two-body prob-
lem could be solved in Einstein’s equation. However, as suspected by Gull-
strand (1921) and conjectured by Hogarth (1953), the opposite is correct (Lo
1995, 2000b).
7) Zhou (1983) pointed out, “The concept that coordinates don’t matter in the
interpretation of Einstein’s theory … necessarily leads to mathematical results
which can hardly have a physical interpretation and are therefore a mystifica-
tion of the theory.” However, from Zhou’s experiment of local light speeds
(Zhou 1987), it is clear that the term “coordinates” in the above statement
should be understood as “meanings of coordinates” or “gauges”. This confu-
sion could be avoided if such physical meanings have been clarified in terms
of measurements (Lo 2003b).
8) Zhou (1987) proposed to measure the local light speeds. However, theorists
such as Ohanian & Ruffini (1994), who do not understand Einstein’s equiva-
lence principle, claimed that the measured light speeds are invariably c. The
fact is that very small differences between light speeds of perpendicular di-
rections have already been detected by the Michelson-Morley (1887) experi-
ment (Miller 1933).
9) These two Princeton Professors failed to justify their assumed initial condi-
tions for a dynamic case. It turns out that their assumption is not justifiable
(Lo 1999a, 2000a).
10) However, as Burton Richter (2006) put it, “I have a very hard time accepting
the fact that some of our distinguished theorists do not understand the differ-
ence between observation and explanation, but it seems to be so.” It was very
difficult to accept that some of our distinguished theoreticians cannot really
tell the difference between mathematics and physics, but it is found to be so.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

167
 168
C. Y. Lo

REFERENCES
1. Bondi,H., Pirani,F. A. E. and Robinson,I.1959.Proc. R. Soc. London A .51:519.
2. Cheng,Tai-Pei .005, Relativity, Gravitation, and Cosmology – a basic intro-
duction (Oxford University Press).
3. Christodoulou,D. & Klainerman,S. 1993. The Global Nonlinear Stability of
the Minkowski Space (Princeton University Press). Princeton Mathematical
series no. 41.
4. Eddington,A. S. 1975, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (Chelsea,
New York).
5. Einstein A. 1954, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press).
6. Einstein,A., Infeld L., & Hoffmann,B. 1938. Annals of Math. 39 (1): 65-100.
7. Einstein,A., Lorentz,H. A., Minkowski,H.& Weyl,H. 1923, The Principle of
Relativity (Dover, New York).
8. Einstein,A. & Rosen,N. 1937. J. Franklin Inst. 223: 43 (1937).
9. Feynman,R. P. 1996. The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation (Addison-
Wesley, New York).
10. Fock,V. A.1964, The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation, translated by N.
Kemmer (Pergamon Press).
11. G. ‘t Hooft 2007, claimed that his cylindrical symmetry solution is a wave
packet (private communication, August and September 2007).
12. Gullstrand,A. 1921. Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 16, No. 8.
13. Herrera,L., Santos,N. O. & Skea,J. E. F.2003.Gen. Rel. Grav. 35, No.11, 2057
(2003).
14. Hogarth,J. E. 1953. Ph. D. Thesis, Dept. of Math., Royal Holloway College,
University of London, p. 6.
15. Kennefick,D. 2004. “Einstein versus the Physical Review,” Phys. Today (Sep-
tember).
16. Kramer,D., Stephani,H., Herlt,E., & MacCallum,M.1980, Exact Solutions of
Einstein's Field Equations, ed. E. Schmutzer (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam-
bridge).
17. Landau,L. D. & Lifshitz,E. M. 1962. Classical Theory of Fields (Addison-
Wesley, Reading Mass.).
18. Le,Bas Louise, Publishing Editor, the Royal Society, A Board Member’s
Comments (July 24, 2007).

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

168
 169
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

19. Liu,H. Y. & Zhou,P.-Y. 1985, Scientia Sincia (Series A) 1985, XXVIII (6) 628-
637.
20. Lo,C. Y. 1995, Astrophys. J. 455: 421-428 (Dec. 20).
21. Lo,C. Y. 1997, Astrophys. J. 477:700-704.
22. Lo,C. Y. 1999a, Phys. Essays, 12 (2) : 226-241 (June).
23. Lo,C. Y. 1999b, Phys. Essays 12 (3): 508-526 (September).
24. Lo,C. Y. 2000a. Phys. Essays, 13 (1): 109-120 (March).
25. Lo,C. Y. 2000b, Phys. Essays, 13 (4): 527-539 (December).
26. Lo,C. Y. 2002, Phys. Essays, 15 (3): 303-321 (September).
27. Lo,C. Y. 2003a, Phys. Essays, 16 (1): 84-100 (March).
28. Lo,C. Y. 2003b, Chinese J. of Phys., 41 (4): 332-342 (August).
29. Lo,C. Y. 2005, Phys. Essays, 18 (4): 539 (December).
30. Lo,C. Y. 2006a, Astrophys. Space Sci., 306: 205-215.
31. Lo,C. Y. 2006b, Special Relativity, Misinterpretation of E = Mc2, and Ein-
stein’s Theory of General Relativity, in Proc. IX International Scientific Con-
ference on ‘Space, Time, Gravitation,’ Saint-Petersburg, August 7-11, 2006b.
32. Lo,C. Y. 2007a, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 26D (1): 29 - 42.
33. Lo,C. Y. 2007b, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 26D (2): 73-88.
34. Lo,C. Y. 2007c, Phys. Essays, 20 (3), (Sept.).
35. Lo,C. Y. 2007d, Chin. Phys. (Beijing), 16 (3): 635-639 (March).
36. Lo,C. Y. 2008a, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 27D (1): 1-15.
37. Lo,C. Y. 2008b, The Mass-Charge Repulsive Force and Space-Probes Pioneer
Anomaly, in preparation.
38. Lo,C. Y., Chan D. P., & Hui R. C. Y. 2002, Phys. Essays 15 (1): 77-86 (March).
39. Lo,C. Y. & Wong C. 2006. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 25D (2): 109-
117.
40. Michelson,A. A. & Morley E. W. 1887. Am. J. Sci. 34 : 333-345.
41. Miller,D. C. 1933.Reviews of Modern Physics 5: 203-241 (July).
42. Misner,C. W., Thorne K. S., & Wheeler J. A. 1973. Gravitation (Freeman,
New York).
43. Norton,J. 1989. “What was Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence?” in Einstein’s
Studies Vol. 1: Einstein and the History of General Relativity, eds. D. How-
ard & J. Stachel (Birkhäuser).

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

169
 170
C. Y. Lo
44. Ohanian, H. C. and Ruffini,R. 1994.Gravitation and Spacetime (Norton,
New York).
45. Pauli,W. 1958, Theory of Relativity (Pergamon Press, London).
46. Penrose,R.1964. Rev. Mod. Phys. 37 (1): 215-220.
47. Richter,B. 2006. “Theory in particle physics,” Physics Today, October 2006:8.
48. Straumann,N. 1984, General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics
(Springer, New York).
49. Synge,J. L. 1971, Relativity: The General Theory (North-Holland, Amster-
dam, 1971), pp. IX–X.
50. Wald,R. M. 1984, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago).
51. Weber,J. & Wheeler J. A. 1957. Rev. Modern Phys. 29 (3):509.
52. Weinberg,S. 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology: (John Wiley Inc., New York),
p.3.
53. Whitehead,A. N. 1922, The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press).
54. Will,C. M. 1981, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Camb.
Univ.).
55. Will,C. M. 1986, “Was Einstein Right?” (Basic Books, New York), p. 20.
56. Zhou,Pei-Yuan, 1983 “On Coordinates and Coordinate Transformation in
Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation” in Proc. of the Third Marcel Grossmann
Meetings on Gen. Relativ. ed. Hu Ning, Sci. Press & North Holland. (1983),
1-20.
57. Zhou(Chou), P. Y. 1987. “Further Experiments to Test Einstein’s Theory of
Gravitation” in Proc. of the International Symposium on Experimental
Gravitational Physics, Guang Zhou, China August.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

170
 171
The principle of causality and the cylindrical symmetry metric of Einstein and Rosen

Dr Elisabeth A.L. Mol

Editorial Director
Foundations of Physics
Springer
Van Godewijckstraat 30
3311 GX Dordrecht
Netherlands
Phone:+31786576136 Fax +31 78 657 6377
E-mail:liesbeth.mol@springer.com

Dear Dr. Mol:

I am writing to you because I want to make sure that Professor G. ‘t Hooft would surely
receive my paper, “THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY AND THE CYLINDRI-
CALLY SYMMETRIC METRIC OF EINSTEIN AND ROSEN”, which will be
published in Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D (No.2) 2008:149 -170.
This paper is my response to his detailed comments (which is faithfully included in the
paper as Professor ‘t Hooft requests) on my earlier paper about the cylindrical symmetric
metric of Einstein and Rosen. Since this paper is not in print yet, he is invited to give fur-
ther clarification of his viewpoints if he feels desirable to give such additions.
Moreover, Professor ‘t Hooft has claimed in the INTERNET that I do not respond to
comments of disagreement. This is simply not true and probably Professor ‘t Hooft was
misinformed. Moreover, I want to let him know personally that this is a groundless misin-
formation. About a month ago I have sent a copy of this paper to him to his email address.
However, he has not acknowledged its reception yet. Moreover, it is also known that his
email address does filter out unimportant emails. This is why I want to be sure he re-
ceives this paper by going through you. Thank you.
The paper is related to an important issue in general relativity that Professor ‘t Hooft and
I disagree. It is on whether Einstein's field equation has a solution for gravitational waves.
Professor ‘t Hooft believes that such wave solutions exist whereas I have proven that no
such wave solutions exist.
Initially, I also believed that such wave solutions exist since the linearized equation of
Einstein has such wave solutions. However, in 1993 I have found that the linearization of
Einstein equation, though valid for the static case, is not valid for the dynamic cases,
from which the gravitational waves would be generated. Then, I start to investigate
whether wave solutions exist for the non-linear Einstein equation, although I believe the
physical existence of gravitational waves.
At first I find that there is no plane-wave solution and then I find that as suspected by
Gullstrand in the report to the Nobel Committee [1], there is no physical solution for a
two-body problem. This paper was published in Astrophysical Journal in 1995 [2]. In re-
sponse to related questions, a supporting paper was published in Physics Essays in 2000
[3]. More recently, a conclusive paper on plane- waves is published in Astrophysical and
Space Science [4].

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

171
 172
C. Y. Lo
Apparently, Professor ‘t Hooft did not find any errors in the above papers. This is under-
standable since Professor ‘t Hooft is essentially an excellent applied mathematician. In
these papers, there are areas that he is not familiar with. Nevertheless, he believed that
instead he could establish a counter example to support his viewpoint and it was sent to
me. This approach of over simplification would inevitably lead to errors. (Recently a
good example is that theorists of the black holes stand out against the experiment on high
energy physics.) However, I appreciate his interest on this problem, but I respectfully dis-
agree.
In my new paper, I show that THE CYLINDRICALLY SYMMETRIC METRIC OF
EINSTEIN AND ROSEN violates both Einstein’s equivalence principle and the
principle of causality. Therefore, this determined that the example of ‘t Hooft cannot be
valid in physics. Moreover, his detailed calculations indicate that he does not understand
adequately the physical nature of the plane-wave as an idealization. This amazes us since
errors of such a nature normally should not occur to him.
For instance, when I was in an August Conference in London, people just could not be-
lieve that Professor ‘t Hooft, a Nobel Laureate, could make such a mistake on the nature
of plane-waves. Also, one of my friends Dr. C. C. Lo has to admit that Professor ‘t Hooft
is in error after he failed to defense the position of Professor ‘t Hooft. Dr. C. C. Lo is a
great admirer of Professor ‘t Hooft. He may recall that Dr. C. C. Lo has employed an art-
ist to plaint a portrait of Professor ‘t Hooft and sent it to him.
Professor ‘t Hooft is now editor-in-chief of your journal. Such an important position de-
mands almost perfection of a theorist, because his error would be decisive to your journal.
I sincerely hope that Professor ‘t Hooft would improve himself such that he could serve
your journal better.
Thank you for your kind attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
C. Y. Lo

References
1. Gullstrand,A. 1921. Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 16, No. 8.
2. Lo,C. Y. 1995, Astrophys. J. 455: 421-428 (Dec. 20).
3. Lo,C. Y. 2000b, Phys. Essays, 13 (4): 527-539 (December).
4. Lo,C. Y. 2006a, Astrophys. Space Sci., 306: 205-215.

Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences.Vol.27D(No.2)2008

172