IF NOT THEN WHY? 4. CLOSED TIMELIKE WORLD LINES AND THE ST. JOAN PROBLEM

 

B. Lukács

 

CRIP RMKI, H-1525 Bp. 114. pf. 49, Budapest, Hungary

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

 

ABSTRACT

The (amply documented) curriculum vitae of Jeanne d’Arc aka Joan of Arc aka La Pucelle de France cannot be made causally ordered, except after very heavy, historically poorly supported and rather ambiguous excisions resulting in a great variance in the “Histories” surviving the excisions. The anomalies may or may not be related to Closed Timelike Worldlines. Of course, physicist would not consider the anomalies preserved by historians serious indications for the existence of CTL’s.

 

1. ON FUTURE, PRESENT AND PAST

            My language is not Indo-European. In Europe now I am in an almost negligible minority: of the c. 600 million population less than 25 million (+ some immigrants) are outside the Indo-European family. There verbs almost always have 3 and only 3 tenses: past, present and future. The narrator is telling a story in present, but during that he mentions some earlier events in past, and also he makes predictions in future tense.

            This triality of tenses might have not been the original way of organizing speech even for Indo-Europeans. While modern European descriptive grammars developed under heavy classical Latin, suggesting the 3 tenses, classical Greek has the aorist as well, showing similarities to both future and past. And even in Latin the uses of present perfect vs. past imperfect is not as in Modern English and Mathematical Logic. Praesens perfectum may be used in a story about the past without any connection with present.

            But now Indo-Europeans of Europe do believe that they have 3 tenses, so they think in this paradigm. Even Magyar grammars tell that the Magyar verb has 3 tenses; and indeed, if I have to, I can give a nice agglutinative 3-tense paradigm. Let us take the verb "see", which is "lát". The object may be Determined/Indetermined; let us take Indet., because that is valid for intransitive verbs as well. As for person, the simplest is Sg3, not having any ending. So:

 

Past

Láta

Present

Lát

Future

Látand

 

            However the Past form is just dying out, while the Future was always artificial, frequented by orators under heavy Latin influence. Indeed, the agglutinative Magyar ending –and/-end comes clearly from the ending of the Latin Gerund ending -andus. Just now a Budapest Magyar would translate "He saw" as "Látott", and "He will see" as "Látni fog", if not simply with the Present Tense. Now, "látott" is "seen", so this is almost exactly the English Present Perfect “has seen”, used as Present Perfect and Past Imperfect, while "látni fog" is cca. "he starts to see"; compare this with the English “he will see”≈”his will is to see”, also the Roumanian Future is similar. In Modern Magyar tenses have secondary role; so we can speak in a very sloppy manner about tenses, but if we want to be strict, we insert words of meaning about temporal relations as e.g. "most = now", "után = after", "tegnap = yesterday", "legutóbb = last time" and so on, ad infinitum.

            Now, if a language clearly distinguishes Past, Present and Future, and no other tenses, then it wires an idea into the society that the Past fundamentally differs from Future, and Present forms their common border. In a society whose language has no tenses the distinction is expected to be more obscure; and in one where the tense system is quite different, the distinction may be different too. As for a fictitious but very clear example see [1], where H. Beam Piper speaks about the language of an alien civilisation which marks "tenses" on nouns, not on verbs, "...spatial-temporal present, things here-and-now; spatial present and temporal remote, things which were here at some other time; spatial remote and temporal present, things existing now somewhere else; and spatial-temporal remote, things somewhere else some other time". Then these aliens learn easily Einsteinian Relativity from arriving humans.

            As for a language with "unusual tenses", see Nenets. Nenets is the biggest Samoiedic language in Northernmost Russia, 25,000. They are reindeer nomads. Samoiedic languages form the sister group of Finno-Ugrians within the Uralic family, so Nenets is a relative to Magyar, and the etymologies are clear. However both the counting words and system and the tense system are quite different.

            A possible explanation is that such a "terminus technicus" is formalized only when the society needs it to become terminus technicus. Indeed, exact timetables are necessary in a Neolithic village, but much less in Palaeolithe. Now, speakers of Nenets never were in the Neolith Proper (no agriculture and very rudimentary domestication of animals; the reindeer is almost wild). As for Nenets tenses, [2] tells as follows (my translation from Magyar): "In Nenets the Past of ending -ś is opposed by an indeterminate Aorist, without temporal ending. The temporal meaning of the verbs in Aorist depends on the quality of action." Maybe in Palaeolithe the expressions used to speak about events, real or planned, were circumscriptions; maybe they concentrated on “aspects” as it is so in modern Slavic languages, especially in Russian.

            In societies arriving first to Urban and then to Technical Revolutions a long social experience has been accumulated about Causality. This terminus technicus means at least 3 different observations:

            C1) The Events have Causes.

            C2) The Causes determine the Events.

            C3) The Causes precede the Events.

            The first observation is quite old, and sometimes it is believed that in Europe only Basque has preserved an older grammar (the Ergative one), but even now languages can express the personal opinion about Causeless events ("accidentally", "stochastic", &c.; especially in Quantum Physical context "stochastic" generally means "of no cause"). As for Observation 2 Greco-Roman Antiquity generally believed that the Causes very much determine the event, but it was discussed again and again whether or not totally: and still it is. As for Observation 3, see Aristotle [3]. There he distinguishes 4 kinds of Causes, but the fourth is later than the event ("walking for health"). And note that Aristotle does not rule out Divination (so Prediction, Precognition & such) [4], although he is rather uncertain about.

            In the next 2000 years Society forced the people to accept the above 3 points. People trying to live without timetables and causality are generally unsuccessful, so this strategy is rarer and rarer, via Socialisation. The success of Modern Industrial societies proves that the above 3 points of Causality are indeed quite strong; but such an argumentation cannot prove that they are absolute. Now let us see what is told by post-Aristotlean Physics.

 

2. THE PHYSICS OF NEWTON & AL.

            In the period roughly bw. 1687 & 1905 in Physics (excepting Thermodynamics, which is even now mainly Aristotelian, see [5]) the dominant view was as follows. Space is 3 dimensional, Cartesian. Time goes universally and homogeneously everywhere. The governing equations are mainly differential ones, generally until second derivatives. Retardations, relaxations, "memories" and such may also occur, and then we have integral equations, but there are no known cases for advancement (future states on the rhs), neither seriously suggested mechanisms for it. So: if we shall be successful enough, we shall have the complete equations to describe the Future from Past; but for that of course the complete knowledge of Past will also be necessary. The ideal was most approached by Celestial Mechanics.

            The evolution of Physics forked in 1905: on one side Quantum Physics appeared, on the other Relativity.

 

3. STOCHASTIC BEHAVIOUR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

            Quantum Physics is not necessarily stochastic; but it may be, more or less. Even before the Schrödinger Equation argumentations started if, e.g., Conservation Laws are true for individual events or only in statistical sense. In some cases there were good reasons for doubt, but e.g. in the case of beta decay the neutrino was found more than 30 years after the doubt and the balance of energy, momentum and angular momentum has been restored. Now it seems that in Quantum Mechanics the picture is fully deterministic until Measurement; but the Measurement is inherently stochastic. In a unification of Quantization & Gravity it seems that a second stochastic phenomenon would appear as well [6], [7]. We cannot know what will be "the final word of Physics" about such stochastic characters. However there is no place for Backward Action of Future in any known Quantum Formalism.

 

4. THE WORLD OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY

            In 1905 Einstein, mainly from the negative result of the Michelson experiment, deduced that each inertial observer has his own space and time, which can be got from the space and time of any other via the so called Lorentz transform. 3 years later Minkowski showed how to unify space and time into a 4 dimensional objective entity, which remains unchanged.

            On this manifold the history of a point or an ideal observer is a 1-dimensional world-line. On it the Present is an event, i.e. a 4-dimensional point, all event "below" it belong to Past, all ones "above" to the Future; but there is no "objective Present" valid for all worldlines. In (Special) Relativity, being the manifold of 4-dimensional, in some sense "the Future already exists", being on the map. This may be in controversy with Quantum Physics; anyways it keeps the determinism of most Newtonian disciplines.

            It is very easy to make a Postulate for C3. There is a double lightcone of each event, the sum of world-lines of inertial trajectories arriving at and departing from the Event (the event's lightcones). Then you may require that all "real history" be worldlines remaining inside the lightcone and going Futureward. Then the Past → Future sequence of a worldline of a permitted motion looks like Past → Future sequences for all the other permitted worldlines.

            If the Postulate expresses physical laws, then no real motion above light velocity is possible. The result is at least self-consistent because the inertial masses of mass points go to ∞ as v→c. So asymptotically the motion may touch the lightcone, but cannot intersect it; even less could it turn Pastward. This is just Causality property C3.

            In Special Relativity if somebody has well-founded data about Influence from Future, then he may conjecture tachyons, particles always superluminal since t=-∞. However until the well-founded data we may accept the Postulate. Then the consequence is: No influence of Future.

 

5. MATTER GOVERNS GEOMETRY

            In 1913 Albert Einstein (born at Ulm, Württenberg, Germany, 1879) starts a new research about describing processes in any coordinate system. But he discusses the problem not with his wife and colleague and co-student Mileva Marity (born at Titel, Bács-Bodrog County, Hungary, 1875), but his friend, colleague and co-student Marcel Grossmann (born in Budapest, Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun County, Hungary, 1878). According to the wife's first biographer Desanka Trbuhovic'-Djuric' [4], this is not nice; and indeed Mileva was hurt in 1913-14 and divorced in 1919, but we are not sure, why (formally the cause of the divorce was stated as Elsa, second cousin and later wife of Albert).

            In 1913 General Relativity (verallgemeinerte Relativitätstheorie) is ready [5]. There is a metric tensor gik(x) in spacetime. The infinitesimal distance is written as

              ds2 = gikdxidxk                                                                                                            (1)

(with automatic summation in all indices occurring twice, above & below, which is the Einstein convention). If you uses another coordinates, gik changes in a prescribed way. There is a metric tensor even for an observer in the whirlpool Maelstrom.

However, clearly gravitation influences gik. Grossmann is not interested in this last equation which Einstein finds alone. (Priority to Hilbert is not clear.) Einstein's Equation is

            Gik = -(8πG/c4)Tik                                                                                                        (2)

where Gik is a definite expression formed from gik, linear in second derivatives, Tik is the material energy-momentum tensor, and G is the Cavendish constant. So if you know the matter distribution, you can calculate the geometry of the spacetime. However the matter moves just in this geometry, so after you calculated the geometry, you must calculate the matter distribution for the next moment, and then again. So it is not easy to get exact solutions for spacetimes.

            Still some people find some spacetimes; this is a profession. And then a substantial part of them is acausal. So far I found cca. half a dozen acausal solutions of the Einstein Equation.

            Acausal means the following. We require (3), and also (2). (Local causality.) So there are lightcones. And still there are Closed Timelike Loops, i.e. you can go into your Past by going always Forward to Future. (You can go to the East in Western direction; the surface of the sphere is not simply connected.)

            We do not like such solutions, and generally throw them away after publishing them. However there are signals that maybe we are too rigorous; and we cannot formulate a clear  and strict mechanism forbidding the formations of such spacetimes. Anyways, they are solutions of the Gravitational Equations!

            So now in all other disciplines of Physics backward processes in time are ruled out; but in General Relativity they are not. Not yet? Maybe. We do not like acausal processes. But still we cannot rule them out. See the book [6]; and, of course, definitely my contribution in it.

 

6. CLOSED TIMELIKE LOOPS AROUND US?

            If the spacetime is such that CTL's can reach us, then C3) cannot be generally true. The question in principle could be investigated both empirically and theoretically. In a previous study [11] I discussed the data about the so-called Malachy Prophecy. Obviously a significantly too good prophecy would indicate CTL's; but nobody can be much surprised that my result was equivocal. Of course, if the Antichrist appeared in the next few years that would be almost decisive, but then we would not be too curious about CTL's anymore...

            Now let us take a purely theoretical General Relativity approach for a while. CTL's can appear at least on 3 ways, so the questions are:

            Q1) Are somewhere "eternal" CTL's?

            Q2) Are CTL-generating geometries formed in gravitational collapses?

            Q3) Can CTL-generating domains be formed without gravitational collapse?

 

Answer to Q1)

            According to the present state of art, topological "defects", wormholes, strings &c. probably did appear in Big Bang (meaning that at cca. Planck time when General Relativity decoupled from Quantum Physics). Obviously such regions of Planck scale are rather unimportant. If these domains have expanded, they may be macroscopic, but we did not yet observe e.g. light propagation anomalies in the neighbourhood of the Solar System, and even in the galaxy dust and gases disturb conclusive survey farther than c. 5,000 ly. In principle the distance is unimportant, but in practice the most CTL would avoid us if the "anomalous" region is far away.

Answer to Q2)

            There are some theoretical indications that gravitational collapses may indeed generate CTL's. We investigated somewhat this question earlier [12], [13], [14]; here I repeat only the Schlagwörte of the analysis, very loosely.

            A gravitational collapse goes until singularity ("black hole") only if the initial mass of the collapsing star is "well" above the Schwartzschild limit, 1.2 solar mass for Fe56 (some mass ejection is expected). Putting the limit for the initial mass to 2 solar mass, roughly 1 gravitational collapse is expected yearly, maybe as an SN.

            We know an exact stationary, axisymmetric external solution, the Kerr one; and unicity theorems tell us that the other possible stationary axisymmetric external solutions are even more strange [15]. So we may hope that the Kerr solution is relevant for answering Q2); indeed Tipler told (true, in 1974) that "...Kerr black holes probably exist somewhere, possibly in the center of our galaxy".

            Now, the Kerr solution does have a ring singularity (infinite curvature) in the plane of rotation, at the distance a from the center

              a = L/Mc                                                                                                                                (3)

and a strongly curved toruslike region of width m around

              m = GM/c2                                                                                                                                                                      (4)        

If a<m, the singularity is covered by 2 horizons, if a>m, then the singularity is naked.

            A combination of careful astronomical observations about stellar masses, radii and rotational velocities and hand-waving arguments about ejection in the collapse lead to the result that for the majority of collapses not stopping as neutron stars end in a>m. So (although the unicity is formally questionable then) let us take the case of naked singularity; in the opposite case the CTL would still be present but the argumentation would be more complicated.

            The line element is

            ds2 = (1-2mr/A)dt2 – 4marA-1sin2θdφdt – (r2+2ma2rA-1sin2θ+a2)sin2θdφ2 – Adθ2

- A(r2-2mr+a2)-1dr2

A ≡ r2+a2cos2θ                                                                                                                         (5)

where the two angular coordinates are cyclic. Now, first take a "motion"

              dr = = dt = 0

Then ds2 = gφφ2, and

              gφφ = -(r2+2ma2rA-1sin2θ+a2)sin2θ                                                                                           (6)

is positive in the neighbourhood of the ring at small enough negative r’s. (In the plane of the ring θ=π/2.) After 2π travel in φ we are at the startpoint, so travels around the ring near the singularity can build up CTL's. Of course, it would be nice to be able to prove that indeed the external solution approaches Kerr as time goes by (but what else, being Kerr the unique stationary axisymmetric solution), that the Kerr solution is stable (nothing is exactly sure in the presence of acausal orbits) & so on; research is going even now. But even at the present state of art, the acausality of the Kerr solution is at least an indication.

Answer to Q3)

            Let us start from something at least illustrating a finite CTL-forming domain. In 1924 Cornelius Lánczos found an exact solution inside an infinitely long rotating dust cylinder [17]. (From the name you can see that he started from Hungary, as Marcel Grossman (from Budapest) and Mileva Marity, Frau Einstein (from Titel); for the variety, Lánczos from Székesfehérvár.) Then the solution had been forgotten and van Stockum rediscovered it [18], but he was able to match the external solution as well. CTL's arise if the rotational velocity at the surface is >c/2.

            While the dust interior is strange (but possibly not too important) and the infinite length is rather an idealisation, the c/2 rotational velocity is viable. If we could argue that in the middle region the CTL would remain with a finite but very long cylinder, we would be ready.

            Tipler's opinion was more or less this in 1974 [16]: "This suggests that a finite rotating cylinder would also act as a time machine.". In 1976, however, he himself showed that the limiting behaviour is more complicated [19]. As far as one can interpret the rather mathematical Theorems, maybe there is something "anomalous" at the two ends which cannot be constructed, except if "exotic matter" is applied too, where now matter is exotic if the dominant energy positivity condition is violated. For a fluid the dominant energy positivity condition [20] would be

              ε ≥ 0                                                                                                                                      (7)

              p ≤ ε ≤ -p

but now probably the proper matter is not a fluid.

            Research is going. Obviously in this moment we cannot make a blueprint for a time machine, but if we found some exotic matter... Note that violating weak, dominant or strong energy positivity may be strange and exotic, but we do not know a proof that it would be impossible. Lobo & Crawford [21] refers to the Casimir effect. Others [22], [23] claim that energy positivity conditions can be violated for nonquantum relativistic matter. And so on.

 

7. THE PRESENT IS THE PAST OF THE FUTURE

            Time machines are either possible for the future science or not; we cannot yet prove any of the two. But if they will be built in the future, we may meet the travellers now; or might have met them in our past. So until the theoretical work is not sufficiently deep, we may hope in observation, just as in astronomy.

            As an interdisciplinary study on the borderline of History and General Relativity, we can review Historical Mysteries/Paradoxes. If a strange historical event is strange because it was influenced from Future, then indeed  Past Causes are insufficient to understand it. Of course, anybody may say (and many physicists would) that we do not yet understand History well enough; then it is premature This is quite possibly true; nevertheless let us try. Maybe we learn something.

           

            Of course, in the following Chronology a Fact is a fact in historical sense: namely a Source mentions it, unless the Source was written by a madman or a collector of folk-tales, or the Source is a documented falsification. Obviously some items in the Chronology will contradict each other; but this is not unheard in History. The sheer mass of Contradictions will be a signal that Something Is Wrong; and since I do not try to prove anything, only Nontriviality, we may then remain with this Chaos.

            The Chronology is the chronology of the St. Joan Event. A surprising young girl enters History in 1429, performs really unexpected and very improbable deeds, then exits. After some time somebody again enters who claims to be the same and is accepted as the same by close relatives, friends, war comrades & such. The old and the new actresses may or may not be the same; both solutions need forceful distortion of Common Sense. And again…

            I do not presuppose anything; so I will not distinguish the heroines as Joan1, Joan2 &c., but here I express the necessity of Caution. If a woman calls herself Joan the Maid and the contrary has not been proven then I call her Joan the Maid (or Maid of Orleans, or such), but I do not want to indicate that there were no other Maid Joans. That step belongs to historians.

            I included each important event for which I found one or more Sources. Some of these are mistakes & such, of course.

 

            I must state that my special technical language about the historical events may be unusual: perhaps Will Shakespeare, The Bard, could sympathise with it. But the situation in the first third of the XVth century was very, very different from the present one. Looking back from Modern Times we are burdened with some postconceptions. E.g. France is Catholic, England is Protestant. Before Reformation, however, England was as Catholic as France, maybe a better one because the French Kings stole the Pope at the beginning of the XIVth century (the 70 year Avignon Captivity), the Western Schism ended in c. 1415, and not the French won. The Holy See still remembered and was cautious. Similarly, from the Age of Nation-States the Hundred Years War looks like English against French, but this was not so for many people in 1430. Here I take the objective viewpoint.

Namely, the Troyes Agreement, from 1420, was valid. The Agreement, signed by the English and French Kings (Henry V & Charles VI), the French Queen (Isabel of Bavaria) and a number of French Dukes stated very important things. E.g. that the Dauphin (Charles) is a bastard, so of course he must not inherit. (Of course, he is a very august bastard, maybe the son of Louis of Orléans and the Queen, so he will get some provinces at the end; his behaviour will determine which and how much.) In order to solve the French Problem, the English King takes the responsibility, hard work &c., and marry the daughter of the French King, Catherine. So after the inevitable but hopefully far death of Charles VI Henry V will be crowned as French King after him the son of him & Catherine, so uniting the Two Dynasties, and then so in aeternum.

In France the two strongest vassals were the Duke of Burgundy and the Count of Armagnac (Louis, the Duke of Orléans was assassinated a few years ago), the defender of the minor Orleans sons. The Dauphin behaves boldly; he hesitates to accept the Agreement, and sympathizes with the Armagnac party.

So from 1420 he was not Heir Apparent, as we saw, the Troyes Agreement explicitly excluded him from inheriting the Throne. He is, more or less, a Pretender. The final stage of the Hundred Years War, after the death of Charles VI, from legal viewpoint can be summarized as follows:

            The King of France is Henry, the son-in-law of the deceased (and mad) Charles VI. (After his untimely death his minor son, also Henry.) But in France there is some unrest; e.g. the Armagnacs do not honour the Agreement, and Charles the ex-Dauphin is more or less under their bad influence. Of course the Burgunds take the responsibility to maintain Order & Peace, but they are not always strong enough. Then they ask for English help.

            So in 1429 an Armagnac vs. Burgund & English civil war is going, and Charles the ex-Dauphin enters at the Armagnac side. As the Chronology below will show, the earliest date when Charles can be called Charles VII of France is the Arras Peace, 20 Sep, 1435. Then the Burgunds become his subjects, and the war becomes a war between the French and English Kings, where of course the latter is still Duke of Normandy, Count of Aquitane &c., provinces of France.

            As for name forms, I shall generally use Modern English forms. So Jeanne d’Arc, national saint of Modern France is Joan of Arc; because this study is written in English. Sometimes I write rather Jeanne for style; but the two forms are synonymes.

            As for citations, my French is very weak, so I weighted the sources. For any statement there is at least one source which I used in full depth, but there are, indeed, French texts included mainly for the sake of French readers. At any definite item the leftmost citation is which I used in maximal extent; either because it is English, or the most detailed about the particular event or both.

            The Chronology amply refers 2 Trials. Trial 1 is the 1431 trial, led by P. Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvois, in Rouen, Normandy. This was surely not an English trial; the clerics were French and the Duchy of Normandy was a part of France. True, the Duke was the same person as the English King (because England was conquered from Normandy by William I in 1066). So there was a Henry of England, who was also the Duke of Normandy, but in his latter aspect the vassal of the French King; do not forget however that due to the Troyes Agreement the French King was the same Henry (numberings vary…). In addition in all his 3 aspects Henry was a minor, so practically the Duke of Bedford governed. Trial 1 was guarded by the English troops defending Rouen.

            The Trial 2 was held in 1455/6 in Paris; it was dominated by the French, mostly but not exclusively ex-Armagnacs.

 

8. THE CHRONOLOGY

            And now let us see the Extended Joan Chronology. For us it starts c.1412; and at the present state of History it fades away in 1457…

            The period is more than half a millennium in the past, but the age (in Western Europe) is already literate enough, lots of writs, chronicles &c. have been preserved for us.

 

 

First Stage (D'Arc):

 

01  c. 1412:

Birth of Joan (Jeanne, Jehane &c.) D'Arc in Domrémy at the border of Lotharingy & France.

            At the Rouen examination Joan tells to be cca. 17 year old [25], [26]. Various historians try to bring down the birthdate as far as 1407. Hauviette's statement at Trial 2 would support this [25], but many other ones do not.

 

02  c. 1425:

The Voices start.

            According to Joan's statement on Trial 1 [25], [26], she was then 13. Some rather prefer 12 [27].

 

03  May 1428:

Joan at R. de Baudrincourt, Vaucoulours, first time.

            He refuses to send her to Charles, the Pretender [25], [27], [26].

 

04  Feb. 1429:

As above, second time.

            De Baudricourt first refuses, but later agrees. ("The miracle of egg-laying"?) Joan gets male attire, a horse, a sword and, with a few companions, starts to Chignon, where the Pretender keeps his court [25], [27], [26].

 

05  Bw. 12th and 23rd Febr., 1429:

On the way to Chignon.

            Marguerite de Touroulde states on Trial 2 that companions Bertrand de Poulengy & Jean de Metz felt carnal desire for Jeanne; however they both deny it [25], [27], [26].

 

06  c. 25th Feb., 1429:

Joan meets the Pretender.

            Joan recognises the Pretender. (It is not clear if that was difficult or not.) She speaks with him without third party, and may or may not reveal secrets. There are witnesses that she urges him to permit her to lead him to Rheims for coronation. Joan participates in a spear-throwing match [25], [27], [26].

 

07  Just after 25th Feb., 1429:

The Poitiers Examination and the Fierbois Sword.

            Priests examine Joan to decide if she is good Catholic. Rumours are extant about a Poitiers Record, but it is not extant. Joan gets arms, but she is not content with the sword and wants another. She tells that the Voices (one of them is St. Catherine) told her about a sword buried behind the altar of the temple of St. Catherine of Fierbois; indeed there the local swordsmith finds an old sword "with 5 crosses". Joan will use this sword. Clairvoyance? On Trial 1 Joan is asked about the meaning of the five crosses; she tells she does not know [25], [27], [26].

 

08  27th Apr., 1429:

Start to Orléans.

            One of the companions is Marshal Gilles de Rais, later Bluebeard [25], [27], [26].

 

09  29th Apr., 1429:

Joan enters Orléans.

            She rides a white horse; on her left the Bastard of Orléans [27].

 

10  4th May, 1429:

The prophecy.

            Sir John Falstaff arrives at the walls. Joan states that Orléans will be free in 5 days. Success at Saint-Loup [25], [27], [26].

 

11  8th May, 1429:

Victory of Joan.

            After several clashes, where the Orléans forces are victorious and Joan bravely fights, the Anglo-Burgundian forces leave Orléans' neighbourhood. The Armagnacs have kept the bridgehead N. of the Loire [25], [27], [26].

 

12  10th-18th June, 1429:

Victories towards Gien

            The Armagnac army wins a sequence of battles, with the active role of Joan; at last, at Patay, Commander Sir John Talbot is captured. Sir John Falstaff flees. It is told that the dead is 2,000 on the English side and only 3 on the Armagnac one [25], [27], [26].

 

13  25th June, 1429:

Start to Rheims.

            On the way the Armagnacs capture Troyes & Châlons. The brothers of Joan, Peter & John, accompany the army at Troyes [25], [26]. Charles the Pretender tells Joan to choose a protector; she chooses Gilles de Rais [28].

 

14  17th July, 1429:

Coronation.

            Rheims capitulates on 16th; Joan's flag goes into the cathedral with the Pretender. Great psychologic victory of the Armagnacs [25], [27], [26].

 

15  21st July - 7th Sep., 1429:

On the way to Paris.

            Several Armagnac victories. Bedford gives Paris into Burgund hands [25], [27], [26].

 

16  7th-9th Sep., 1429:

Unsuccessful siege of Paris.

            The Burgunds defend Paris. Joan gets a minor wound. On the third day the Armagnacs leave. On 21st the Armagnac army is again in Gien. The army is dissolved [25], [27], [26].

 

17  Dec., 1429:

D'Arc family ennobled.

            It can be inherited both on male and on female sides [25], [27], [26].

 

18  8th Jan., 1430:

Burgundia ascendans.

            Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, marries Isobel of Portugal. The Burgunds occupy several Armagnac cities, according to earlier peace agreements. Compičgne does not take the Burgund troops, so Philip the Good initiates the siege [25].

 

19  Apr., 1430:

The resurrection of the Lagny Baby.

            Joan starts to help Compičgne. On the way, in Lagny, Joan prays for a baby who "was dead for 3 days". The baby makes some noises, is baptized, and then dies "again" [25], [27], [26]

 

20  23rd May, 1430:

The Compičgne failure.

            On 22 Joan secretly enters the city under siege. Then she leads a sally, and is captured, together with her brother, Peter [25], [27], [26].

 

21  Summer of 1430:

The Beaurevoir Tower.

            Joan is kept in the said tower, in a forest. The tower is 60-70 feet high. On Trial 1 Joan states that she almost fled once. Aimond de Macy tries to catch her tits, but she pushes away his hand. Finally the Burgunds sell Joan to the English [25], [27], [26]

 

22  c. 8th Nov., 1430:

The Jump.

            When taking airs on the top of the tower, Joan jumps. She cannot get away, but she is completely unhurt. On Trial 1 she states that the Voices were against a jump [27], [25], [26].

 

23  Dec., 1430:

Arrival at Rouen.

            The English troops take Joan to Rouen, Duchy of Normandy [25], [27], [26]. Note that the English King is the rightful Duke of Normandy, since William the Conqueror, who, as Duke of Normandy, occupied England; even if the French Kings took the dukedom by force in John Lackland’s time.

 

24  3rd Jan., 1431:

Start of Heresy Examination.

            The Duke of Normandy/King of England nominates Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, as head of a Clerical Court to examine Joan because of conjecture of heresy [25], [27], [26].

 

25  9th Jan.-24th May, 1431:

The First Trial

            The Special Church Court decides if Joan is heretic or not. At the end Joan confesses divers sins (as shedding blood, blaspheme God & saints, simulating Voices and wearing male dress). Verdict: Life imprisonment [25], [27], [26].

 

26  3rd March, 1431:

Papal Succession

            Since Pope Martin V died (on 20th Feb.), there is a convention in Rome, and on 3rd March the Bishop of Siena, Gabriel Condilmaro, is elected, who rules as Eugenius IV [25].

 

27  27th May, 1431:

The Relapse

            Joan again takes male dress. So she relapsed to heresy. The Court transfers her to the city magistrate [25], [27], [26].

 

28  30th May, 1431:

The Stake

            The executioner burns the sinning Armagnac at the Old Market Square. According to Trial 2 (fully dominated by the followers of Charles the Armagnac Pretender/Charles VII, King of France), lots of witnesses state the Perfidy, Superstition & Cowardice of Albion [25], [27], [26]. In the next days lots of letters, diaries &c. speak about the burning of Joan.

 

            So the First Stage ended with the burning of Joan; the ashes go into the Seine.

 

Second stage (Claude)

 

29  Second half of 1431:

The Normand Chronicle

            Various rumours start. "...Finally she, or a similar woman, was burnt on the stake; opinions vary..." [25], [29], [30], [26], [31], [32].

 

30  13th Dec., 1431:

Armistice

            Burgund-Armagnac negotiations; 6 year armistice [25]

 

31  June 1433:

Armagnac troubles

            High position people in the Armagnac court (including the Queen and her mother) conspire against the minion of Charles, de la Trémoille. The minion is wounded and Charles sends him away [25].

 

32  16th Jan., 1435:

Burgund-Armagnac Negotiations.

            The negotiations start in Nevers; Rene of Angevin is mediator. The English protest [25].

 

33  26th July, 1435:

Postumus Letter?

            The city of Orléans pays 2 livres to a messenger for bringing a letter from Joan the Maid (Jeanne le Pucelle) [30], [33]. (Maybe a mistype instead of 1436?)

 

34  14th Sep., 1435:

One Warlord Exits.

            Death of Duke Bedford, Governor of King Henry VI in France [25].

 

35  20th Sep., 1435:

French Peace.

            The Arras Peace between Armagnacs and Burgunds. Charles is Charles VII, King of France, while Burgund is the biggest vassal duchy [25].

 

36  1436:

The Festivities of Joan.

            Gilles de Rais, the Bluebeard, finishes the passion-play Fčtes of Yeanne d'Arc [28].

 

37  13th Apr., 1436:

Paris Is Pacified.

            Arthur de Richemont, Connétable of France, enters Paris. Lower Normandy takes French troops [25].

 

38  20th May, 1436:

The Maid Reappears.

            From the Chronicle of St. Thibaud of Metz [25], [30], [33], [26], [34] (in Delepierre’s translation):"...on the 20th day of  May of the aforementioned year came the maid Jeanne who had been in France, to La Grange of Ormes, near St. Prive, and was taken there to confer with any one of the sieurs of Metz, and she called herself Claude; and on the same day there came to see her there her two brothers, one of whom was a knight, and was called Messire Pierre, and the other ‘petit Jehan,’ a squire, and they thought that she had been burnt, but as soon as they saw her they recognised her and she them. And on Monday, the 21st day of the said month, they took their sister with them to Boquelon, and the sieur Nicole, being a knight, gave her a stout stallion of the value of thirty francs, and a pair of saddle-cloths; the sieur Aubert Boulle, a riding-hood; the sieur Nicole Grouget, a sword; and the said maiden mounted the said horse nimbly, and said several things to the sieur Nicole by which he well understood that it was she who had been in France; and she was recognized by many tokens to be the maid Jeanne of France who escorted King Charles to Rheims, and several declared that she had been burnt in Normandy, and she spoke mostly in parables.” Anatole France believes that the “token” or "signature" was a little red mark beneath the ear, and identifies the first Nicole as Nicole Louve [35].

 

39  31st July, 1436:

Orléans Restores the Contact.

            Coeur-de-Lys, Herold of Orléans, is sent to Arlon to the Maid of Orléans. He gets 6 livres of Paris on 28th October for the travel [25], [26]. Joan's annual funeral services in Orléans are discontinued [29], [35], [26].

 

40  Early Summer of 1436:

Internecine Struggle.

            In the Diocese of Treves two candidates are contending for the see, the candidate of the chapter, and the nominee of the Pope. The Maid supports the Chapter. Therefore the Inquisitor General of Cologne is afraid of heresy &c., the Maid wears unseemly apparel, eats too much &c. He tries to make an examination, but the Maid does not appear and the Count of Württemberg hides her. The Inquisitor excommunicates her [35], [36], [30]; she goes to Arlon (or Erlon [30]), to the Duchess of Luxembourg [35].

 

41  5th Aug., 1436:

Good News.

            Little John, brother of the Maid (Jean de Lys), arrives at Orléans, [25], where, for the news, gets 10 pints of wine, 12 hens, 2 goslings and 2 leverets [35]; thence he goes to Loches, to the King [25].

 

42  End of October, 1436

The Marriage of the Maid.

            The Maid marries Sir Robert des Armoises in Arlon [25], [30], [26]; the Cologne Inquisitor believes that this happened to thwart him [35]. [25] dates the marriage to 7th Nov., but the more detailed [35] tells that 7th Nov. is the date of a contract of estate: the young couple sells one quarter of the lordship of Haraucourt to Collard de Failly and his wife [33], [26]. Lots of signatures and seals [35], definitely the signatures of both des Armoiseses.

 

43  1437-1439:

Two Children.

            The Armoises couple produces two children [26], [35], [34]. Nider believes that the marriage was not too successful [35], [36].

 

44  Second half of July, 1439:

Banquet in Orléans.

            Jeanne des Armoises, ex-Maid of Orléans, arrives at Orléans, spends there two weeks, a great dinner is given for her honours; data are in the account books of the city [35], [30], [33], [26], [37]. She leaves before the banquet (see however [28], goes to Tours, and thence to Poitou, where she takes the service of Marshal of France, Sieur Gilles de Rais [35], [38]. She is the captain of men-of-arms [25], [35], [39]. As we saw, in 1429-30 de Rais was a close comrade of the Maid in Orléans, in the campaign of the coronation and at the unsuccessful siege of Paris. Note that Murray in [28] states that Jeanne des Armoises left on 4th Sep., and her stay overlapped with that of Isabelle, Mother of the Maid.

 

45  Summer of 1440:

Witchcraft; Confession.

            Jeanne de Armoises is followed by Jean de Siquemville as Captain of Gilles de Rais [35], [39]; Gilles de Rais will be arrested soon for witchcraft, pedophily &c; the trial starts in September [28]. Jeanne des Armoises is the neighbourhood of Paris.

 

46  August 1440:

Discord.

            Disturbances are threatening in Paris because of Jeanne des Armoises [35]. She enters the city but the Parlament and the University send men-of-arms to arrest her [35], [40]. There is a public examination; in the presence of the city people she is put onto a pedestal, and public confession is demanded [35], [40]. She is asked if she is the Maid. Answer: she is not a maid, she has two children from his husband, a knight [25]. (Of course; Robert des Armoises; but this is not a too direct answer to the question if she is/was the Maid of Orléans.) Then interesting statements follow; see [35] and [40]. In older times once somebody told something dirty about her, so she wanted to hit her; but her mother restrained her. She was so angry that hit her mother. (Obviously this happened still in Domrémy.) But this is mortal sin; only the Pope may absolve her. So she had to go to Rome. She went, in male attire, became a soldier of Eugenius IV, killed enemy in war. So this happened in the years 1431-33, because Eugenius IV became Pope in March 1431, and fled to Florence in 1433. The University does not take further action; A. France's opinion is that the confession was complete, so the woman was not obstinate [35].

 

47  October 1440:

Is God Again Dead?

            Gilles de Rais confesses his crimes and sins, including the killing of 800 (!) children. After 5 years Charles VII annuls his debts and issues a document where no crimes are mentioned but military honours After 5 more years his daughter gets back the estates. At the place of the execution a fountain is erected, visited by pregnant women. Murray believes that both Joan and Gilles de Rais were the Avatars of God (the Dying God, God on Earth) of the Old Religion (more or less Wicca), where the God is killed after a prescribed time, and Gilles de Rais followed immediately Joan of Arc [28].

 

48  1443:

Donation.

            Peter, brother of the Maid, gets the land of Ile-aux-Boeufs for the time of two generations, on the Loire, from Duke Charles [35], [29], [30], [33], [41], [42]. There he erects a big house. the supervisor of the erection is the carpenter Perinet de Voulton (or Vouthon), from Sermaise (near  Domrémy), his maternal cousin.

 

49  1449:

Again a Death.

            Jeanne des/Joan of Armoises dies and is buried in Pulligny, Lotharingy, within the local church [43]. On the inner wall a plaque showed the place of the grave until 1890; in that year the beatification process started so the plaque “was needlessly removed” [43].

 

            The Second Stage again ended with the death of the heroine; but now there was a proper burial.

 

Third stage (Sermaise)

 

50  1449:

The Maid in Sermaise.

            Sermaise is near to Domrémy, and a brother of the mother of the Maid (Isabelle, but originally not Romée, but Vouthon) lived there. He died in 1476, and then a legal process was made for the heritage [29], [44]. Witness Jehan le Montigueue, born c. 1406, states that in 1449 a woman arrived, in male attire, and called herself Jeanne le Pucelle. She feasted with the Vouthons, as she did too with the Maid's brother, Jean du Lys.

 

51  10th Nov., 1449

Normandy Becomes French.

            Charles VII of France occupies the capitol of Normandy, Rouen. The Channel Islands remain with the rightful Duke of Normandy (namely, the King of England).

 

 

52  1449-1452:

Merry Sermaise.

            Perinet (Henri) de Vouthon, the carpenter, born in 1424, states in 1476 that in his adult age he often feasted at his father's table with Jean & Pierre du Lys and their sister, the Maid. Jehan Guillaume, born in 1400, states that he saw at the Vouthons the two du Lys brothers with a woman who called herself the Maid (La Pucelle), but he does not know if she was the true Maid [29], [44].

 

53  March 1450:

Rehabilitation?

            King Charles VII had a strong ally in 1429, who, however, is a condemned heretic, which is no good for the royal house. So he intends to ask the Church to revisit Joan's trial. Preliminary inquiry starts [25].

 

54  1450:

Troubles in England.

Cashiered men-at-arms make troubles. The Jack Cade revolt in Kent & London.

 

55  1451:

Aquitane is French.

            The Bastard of Orléans, now Count of Dunois, takes first Blaye, then Bordeaux and Bayonne [25].

 

56  1452:

Tennis at Sermaise.

            Simon Fauchard, cure of Notre Dame de Sermaise, meets a woman dressed as a youth, who tells that she would like to play a tennis party. They do it, and afterwards the woman tells: “Say boldly that you have played tennis with the Maid." Simon Fauchard is happy; the woman goes to the house of the Vouthons [35], [29], [44].

 

57  2nd May, 1452:

To Correct the Errors.

            Guillaume d'Estoteville, the nuntio of the Pope in France, who tried to mediate for an English-French peace, but now the war is practically over, meets Jean Bréhal, Dominican, General Inquisitor, and they start an examination about the problems of the Rouen trial of the Maid (in 1431). It soon turns out that the First Trial was irregular, unfair &c. [25].

 

58  1452:

A Richard of York.

Richard of York is Pretender albeit Henry VI still lives (even if mad).

 

59  1454:

Justice for the D'Arcs!

            Bréhal, General Inquisitor, discusses a second Trial in Rome. Common opinion is that the ideal solution would be if the revision were asked by not the King but the family [25].

 

60  1455:

Reds & Whites.

            The War of Roses starts in England.

 

61  11th June, 1455:

Roma Locuta.

            The new Pope, Callixt III, issues a permission to the du Lys family to ask for a Second Trial.

 

62  7th Nov., 1455

The Tears of a Mother.

            Isabelle Vouthon/Romée/d'Arc and her two sons, Pierre & Jean du Lys (without their beloved sister, continuous companion until 1452) in the Notre Dame (of Paris, not of Sermaise) appeal to the good feelings of France. The Second Trial starts soon. Lots of witnesses state the immaculate nature of Joan, the Maid, the good guys are good, the bad guys do not remember anything; and the Trial finds some formal defects as well. 30th May, 1456 is the last possibility to appeal, but nobody is found. On 7th July, 1456 the Second Trial is finished: Joan of Arc is innocent in all points [25].

 

            We see that the Maid vanished from the Sermaise Stage in 1452; no burial, however. Obviously the du Lys family was prudent enough not to advertise a living Maid when the nuntio and the Inquisitor General just started to discuss the rehabilitation of their murdered sister, the Maid [28]. True, there seems to be a rudimentary

 

 

Fourth Stage (Provence)

 

63  1457:

Good King René Is Merciful.

            In 1457 Good King René of Provence is confronted with the case of a "Jeanne des Sermaises", "at present the wife of Jean Douillet", in male costume. She is put into prison, then gets a 5 year suspension of the sentence if she brings herself "honestly in dress" and in general as a good woman does [25], [35], [29], [45]. She promises everything and seems to evaporate.

 

            This is the raw material for us. Obviously historians may know some other details as well; for me and for other physicists this is more than enough.

 

9. AN ANALOGY: ON THE DIMENSIONALITY OF SPACE

            Lots of physicists are more or less convinced that the physical space is of 3 dimensions (space-time is of 4). What does such a statement mean?

            This was a favourite problem of the late L. Jánossy; stepson and probably natural son of philosopher Gy. Lukács. It is interesting that, while he did know that the dimensionality and the metric structure are something to be determined from observations, he was quite sure that the dimensionality is 3 and the geometry is Cartesian. I believe the certainty came from something he called Political Conviction but really it was Superstition.

            Maybe the problem was most professionally formulated in [46] & [47]; but that degree of abstraction will not be needed here. Consider a space of N dimensions, with a Cartesian metric. First assume that you can measure spatial distances without any error. Take m points. There are m(m-1)/2 independent distances between the points. On the other hand, the m points have mN coordinate values. If m>2N+1, then the equations for the distances are overdetermined. If still there are solutions, then the smallest such N is the dimensionality of the space.

            Now come the technical problems. E.g. maybe we are not quite sure about the same units in different directions. An example is the British nautical units. Along the surface the nautical mile is the distance unit: 1 arcminute along a latitude half-circle. But vertically the unit is the fathom = 6 feet, or a multiple, say the cable-length. But this means N extra independent scale factors. Then there is the fact that we measure all the distances with some errors, say, all of them with the same error Σ. Then we take points much farther apart than Σ, take a few more points and then instead of the algebraic equations we arrive at a statistical problem of χ2 type. So then we get an answer that it is sure for 99.99765 % that the number of dimensions is not higher than 5; and incorporating 7 more points the certainty is improved to 99.9999938 %. And so on.

            The analogy with the observational check of causality of History is clear even if not yet fully operational. We should be able to causally order the historical events; the errors are the errors of the historical records, the falsifications of the records and maybe our erroneous ideas how History works. Very probably the dimensionality of Time is 1 (see however [10]).

            Now: can the Chronology of the previous Chapter be causally ordered? The answer is obviously: No, unless the errors (errors of records, deliberate falsifications & such) are very frequent and/or very large. Obviously, History’s duty would be to filter out the errors; She works, but I am not satisfied.

            In the next Chapter I am going to discuss some choices to causally order the Chronology. Obviously we cannot discuss all the possible corrections, since here Stage 1 has 28 events, Stage 2 21, Stage 3 13, and Stage 4 1. So the simplest assumption that there is a single event falsified from thin air has 63 different realization, and if we assume 2 such nonexistent events amongst the 63 ones, the number of different possibilities go up to 1953. However the problems will be quite explicit even in a partial discussion.

 

10. SOME ATTEMPTS FOR CAUSAL ORDERING

            The roughest problem comes from the identities of the heroines of the different Stages. Henceforth I assume No Miracles. While this rigid viewpoint is not always trivial for Saints, in our case it is not in discord with the opinion of the Catholic Church. Namely in the beatification and canonization processes of St. Joan of Arc only XXth century miracles were used (disappearances of illnesses after prayers to Joan & such) and our Chronology is confined to the [1412,1457] AD interval. So the Church has not yet declared any opinion about such “miracles” as the Vaucoulours Egglaying, the Sword of Fierbois, the Lagny Baby or the Beaurevoir Jump. The No Miracles standpoint is necessary, because you could not well distinguish an Influence of Closed Timelike Loop and a Miracle.

            The majority of historians (but not all!) chop away Stages 2-4, and tell that in the later stages impostors/adventuresses personified Joan. This is quite possible, and such personifications amply happened concerning other worthies of History. However this will not be simple now.

            Let us, however, note first, that Stage 4 is easily removable. From the scant information about its Jeanne des Sermaises no extra problem appears if we assume that this Jeanne in 1457 is really an impostor; except that: why Good King René was so merciful?

            After neglecting Stage 4 we have 5 different logical possibilities. We may try to deal with the same heroine in Stages 1, 2 & 3, the same in 1 & 2, 1 & 3 or 2 & 3 and another in the third stage, or 3 different ones for the 3 stages. Of course, by definition, the “true Joan” must appear in Stage 1. In itself still any of the Stages may contain a moderate number of errors. Now let us see the 5 possible scenarios.

            1=2=3 posits insurmountable problems for first view, namely 2 deaths which is generally irreversible, in 1431 & 1449, so let us proceed backwards.

            1≠2≠3≠1 is not easy either. Namely at 20th May, 1436, when the young Claude appears in Metz and claims to be Joan, the Maid, the brothers of Joan are informed. They arrive and the 2 brothers and Claude/Joan exeunt together. Afterwards the brothers accept Joan. And similarly, the Joan, who is seen for 3 years in Sermaise at various times, does not visit the Vouthons, nephews of the “true Joan” (the old Vouthon is the younger brother of Isabelle Romée/Vouthon, the mother of the Maid of Orléans) alone, but sometimes with her one or both brothers. So the Joan of the latter stages cannot be an impostor without the active help of the du Lys brothers who are the brothers of the “true Joan”.

            The rather lame answer is that the brothers “wanted something”, say extra money from the King, so they accepted the impostor, and shared the money. However all the 3 children of the d’Arc family were made nobles in 1429, so further social ascent was ruled out. Of course, the brothers may have made debts; but such a personification may have been rather dangerous. If the King becomes informed that the heroine of his coronation returned from her grave, he will investigate it, and he finds out the personification, and then…

            Interestingly enough the King had been informed but in first approximation he did not do anything at all. I do not know why. Of course, there would be a possibility that the King participates in the hoax, from some political reason which we do not understand. But, apart from the fact that an unexplained and unproven hoax is a poor explanation, we saw that at the end the King organised the Second Trial, with lots of witnesses about the outstanding nature and martyrdom of Joan (back in 1431).

            And the same problem arises if we believe that only one of the stages contained an impostor. The du Lys brothers accepted Joan in both Stage 2 and Stage 3.

            Then we really remain with 1=2=3. But there are two deaths in 1431 & 1449!

            As I told already once, I do not want and cannot prove anything, only to demonstrate that the causal ordering of the Joan Chronology is a nontrivial task. Now, the remaining 1=2=3 identification needs one of two unorthodox assumptions: either Closed Timelike Loops reaching Earth (by which Future can form Past, for any reason the far Future may have, by personifying shepherdesses & such; namely Joan, who, according to numerous witnesses, was born and raised in Domrémy, but when got a stallion, and arms, immediately was able to use it almost as well as a knight), or a sequence of very clever and very complicated tricks. While the first possibility is something we could not fully understand, so I will spend only a few sentences with it, later, in Chap. 12. The second possibility is quite familiar for everybody, from detective stories, history lessons & so.

            Independently of the problem of Stage 2 after death, Stage 1 in itself contains lots of serious problems. I mention only a few.

            The heavy cavalry service in Middle Ages was something which needed years of practice first. The rider was encased in metal, plus had a heavy shield. While surely Joan got arms as light as was possible, she had no previous possibility to practice. The usual (again lame) explanation assumes that she rode some horses in the meadows besides Domrémy. While this is quite possible, the difference is big enough to sit arbitrarily on an old mare and to ride a military stallion in full arms. Sackville-West detects this problem of solving par excellence military problems without military experience [27].

            In the army Joan exhibits surprising military inclinations and abilities. At the beginning of her military career she is seen to participate in a spear-throwing match with captains; something she could not practice in Domrémy (Feb. 25, 1429). I am curious which peasant girl could have produced a passable spearthrow for first trial. On Trial 2 Marguerite de Touroulde tells that Joan practically did not know anything, excepting military activity [25], [27]. It seems as if she had got military teaching; but when and where? According to lots of witnesses on Trial 2 she lived continuously in Domrémy!

            With a young peasant girl living always Domrémy the story of the Fierbois Sword (just after Feb. 25, 1429) has no rational explanation as well. Joan sends a message where should be looked for a proper sword in the St. Catherine Church of the unknown town Fierbois; and they find a sword! Joan is asked on Trial 1: what was this? Answer: she does not know.

            Obviously Joan had knowledge about things which she should not have had. I leave the problem at this stage, and turn to the less unorthodox but also not too easy explanation: a sequence of clever tricks. Do not have too high hopes, however.

            Lots of authors tried with the hypothesis that Joan was not the daughter of Jacques d’Arc and Isabelle Romée/Vouthon, but came from royalty. The simplest explanation is that a highborn bastard from Louis d’Orléans & Isabelle de Bavaria, so a Duke and the Queen. We know more or less about a baby in 1407 who immediately died [25], and it is easy to believe that it was a girl and did not die. The 5 year difference in age may or may not be a big problem. On this ground lots of books have been written in which Joan was a princess (the first seems to be [48]) and had a project to be fulfilled. (See e.g. [49].) But the problem is that heavy cavalry riding, cannon positioning and such are not genetically determined abilities. Joan may have been a princess; still if raised by a peasant family, she did not acquire them. Of course, the Count of Armagnac could have taught her, but that would have been observed by the inhabitants of Domrémy.

            Let us then continue. Say, an Armagnac planning group recognizes the possibilities in the girl. Of course, these are mainly propaganda possibilities, because, as shown in the previous paragraph, a girl raised in Domrémy cannot be a good captain. However there are prophecies that a maid will save France and the soldiers may fight better if a young girl observes them. So it is possible to drill rapidly the girl: look at some officers, mimic them &c. Then, of course, several records of Stage 1 must have been falsified from thin air, but we may just arrive at the Beaurevoir Jump. Its outcome is rather unexplained. Then there is the Rouen Trial, and, because we are in the only surviving scenario, the 1=2=3 one, Joan must remain alive, in spite of the burning and the ashes in the Seine.

            Now, this problem was handled repeatedly in Joan stories for more than half a millennium. The general pattern is that the Rouen authorities exchanged Joan with another woman, and with some trick (veil, placards &c.) blocked the recognition. While the story is improbable and [25] strongly criticizes it even on grammatical grounds, it is not utterly impossible. However, then we must ask: why?

            Namely, Rouen had English troops. The clerical court was heavily against Joan (and the Armagnacs). The English troops were obviously against Joan. The city authorities at least had to be loyal to the Duke of Normandy (=Henry VI, King of England). Why to save Joan, and how?

            Now the situation is hopeless enough but Delepierre at least can invent an explanation [30]. He believes that Bishop Cauchon worked for both parties; and indeed, after 1435, when Charles VII occupied the place where Cauchon lived, the Bishop was leaved unharmed. True, [43] explains this courteous behaviour with the truly Christian soul of Charles VII, but some previous service is a more probable explanation.

            Still, the saving of Joan would not be possible without some English participation, and indeed Joan is absent until at least Bedford’s death (except for the Paris statement in 1440 that she was in Rome [35]). I cannot imagine a reason of Bedford to hide and save Joan, but I am not a historian. Delepierre is satisfied his construct, and then there is no serious further problem during Stage 2; there are however smaller ones. In 1439 Joan starts wandering. What did happen with Robert des Armoises? Some authors tell that the pair lived in Metz & Pulligny (see e.g. [43] and citations therein), some believe that Robert des Armoises was already dead. And what is behind the short employment of Joan at Bluebeard? They were close comrades at Orléans, so it is rather impossible that an impostor could mislead the Bluebeard; but then why did he fire Joan in one year?

            After 1440 practically nothing is heard about Joan; maybe she is at home, in matrimonial satisfaction. And then death and burial in Pulligny in 1449 [43].

            In our only surviving 1=2=3 causal scenario of course this death must also be faked; and this is not a real problem compared to the 1431 one. There hundreds of witnesses observed the stake, now maximally a handful of servants. But the question is: why? Let us assume that sieur Robert des Armoises is dead. (The authors generally believe so.) Then why does the widow not remain at the estate?

            We do not know. Maybe the heroine likes new adventures. For any case the “death” is more or less synchronised with the French occupation of Rouen, and the transition to Stage 3 (Sermoise)  is smooth. But something is obscure about Stage 3.

            During Stage 2 Joan was a wife of a knight. Now it seems as if she had no income, no company except brothers & nephews, and no home!

            This Stage 3 again ends in a proper time, when Guillaume d'Estoteville, the nuntio, and Jean Bréhal,  General Inquisitor, start an examination about the problems of the Rouen trial of the Maid. Obviously there is no more a place in France for a living Maid. There is no burial; Joan simply vanishes.

            As for completeness' sake, I mention the theory that the Sounds, whom Joan identified as Sts. Catherine & Marguerite were in fact "spirits" in the spiritist sense, so spirits of dead or spirits "from another plane of existence" or such. Maybe the most detailed work is [51], but [27] also likes the idea. The interaction with an Otherworld might explain some problems as e.g. the information about the Fierbois Sword; but this would be only formally a No Miracles standpoint what I promised above.

            As we have seen, this was the surviving causal scenario. But full with holes, not too satisfactory, and we do not really understand the story.

            The next Chapter discusses a practical difficulty about selecting the "really true" Joan story.

 

11. JOAN OF ARC AND MODERN POLITICS

            Joan of Arc's action (at least until the Rheims coronation) was crucial for the rule of the Capetings. If we do not distinguish side branches, from 922 AD the same dynasty ruled except for interregnums of some years until 1848. During the centralisation process in the 1600's the dynasty had no alternative. So the intelligentsia living on serving the stronger and stronger central power wrote always the apology of the Capet dynasty. Language minorities still would have been strong (Basques, Gascons, Prevençals, Bretons &c.), but their local aristocracy happily built into the central court. The last serious secessionist movement was the Burgund Cause, until 1435. So, at least until Enlightenment, the Cause of Charles VII was the only possible Good Cause for anybody French, and His Captain & Servant Girl, Jeanne la Pucelle was the Embodiment of Absolute Good. Of course, then History must be conformist, and will not pose Mysteries.

            However if all the intellectuels were for the Une & Indivisible France, they had to find other points to fight on. So in 1762 Voltaire published La Pucelle d'Orléans [52]. The comic epics is bawdy and Joan is not heroic at all, but something other.

            Now, obviously, Voltaire's general intellectual activity against Authority, and especially ecclesialistic authority made for him Joan a target. Observe that his Mahomet could not be published anywhere today without the danger of assassinations. So: he doubted her miracles, the Church was for Joan, so he wrote something against Joan.

            Then came the Revolution. Obviously the Capetings were hated; it was possible that Joan had been a good girl (she fought against Perfidious Albion), but what if not? But the Consulate changed the situation: obviously Consul (later First Consul) Bonaparte will not be angry except if a book is Anglophile or is written against him. This is the time when Caze formulates his idea of Princess Joan first as a drama; but the idea is quite conform with the Bourbon Restauration too.

In 1830 a revolution ousts the main branch of the Bourbons, but the Orleans side branch takes the throne. I think, during an Orleans King the Maid of Orleans gets some extra popularity; but on the other hand there will be more and more Republicans too. During the Empire of Napoleon III there are practically no taboos (see e.g. Offenbach's operettas) until one does not write directly against the Emperor (or his wife); but the Empire ends in a tragicomic collapse. In 1871 the Republic seems to be a temporary compromise; in the next decades the pendulum moves to and fro. In 1887 the Royalist coup d'état of General Boulanger is unsuccessful, but the general does not even flee until 1889. The Royalist vs. Republican race does not end until the First World War. Royalist popular actions are frequent and strong; Republican ones as well. In such situations political enemies generally accept anybody who agrees about the Main Cause.

            Let us see three examples about Joan the Maid as the Cause in French Party Politics between 1871 & 1914 very briefly.

            Royalists agitate for more and more Joan of Arc statues; and if a new statue has been erected, then they organise thither processions with bouquets, banners &c.; because Joan died for France & the King. Then obviously Republicans need another rally point, so they erect a statue for Dolet. He was a printer, executed in 1546 maybe because he denied the immortality of Soul. Also he printed Calvin &c. (Of course Royalists claimed that he had been executed for murdering Guilleaume Compaing. Maybe; but the murder happened 10 years earlier.) So he had been the victim of Church & Intolerance, and Republicans made their meetings at his statue. [53] summarizes the popular actions of the 2 sides against each other. Observe that Joan's beatification process started in 1890 [43]; she was finally beatified in 1909, but canonization continued.

            A. France, outstanding novelist and Republican, wrote an extensive history book (not novel) about the Maid [35]. For me it does not seem anti-Johannist (not even anti-Royalist), but I am not French. Royalists claimed that he denigrated the Maid. Then he wrote the Island of Penguins, a historical parody, and in it he invented St. Orberose, a penguin female who had her career with female tools and much later had been canonized; an obvious echo of Voltaire's La Pucelle.

            The third example is the Thalamas Affair, which lasted 5 years. Thalamas was Republican; a history teacher of the Condorcet Lyceum. There he gave the students the duty of composing a historical essay. One student claimed in his essay that Joan's "crusade" was divinely inspired. Thalamas opposed this view, and later the teacher and the student remembered somewhat differently who was said what about the Maid. But obviously Thalamas did not regard the student's essay as a historical one; and he was rather sceptical about the Maid's visions. Surely he would not have said such things if he had been Royalist. As the scandal went on, he published a brochure of the price of 60 centimes [54] about his opinia about the Maid, and according to some rumours in his lectures he went so far that he denied the sanctity of the Maid on the grounds that surely the English raped her in the prison and then how to canonize her [55], [56]? While the argument is completely laughable in the knowledge of Canon Law, Thalamas was more moderate than Voltaire & France but the scandal became bigger and bigger. Pro- and anti-Thalamists happily fought on the streets of Paris for weeks. Then the Action Française formed her youth organisation Camelots of Roi (The Newsboys of the King), and Camelots and other students fought as well. The Sorbonne wanted to take Thalamas' side, so they invited him in 1908 to give some lectures on pedagogy. However remember that Sorbonne was on the Burgundian side, against Joan in 1430-31, so now the Camelots started an anti-Thalamas and anti-Sorbonne campaign. Again, people fought for weeks on the streets of the capitol of La Grande Republique.

            So sources found and published first bw. 1871 & 1914 need some caution. I very much sympathize with Thalamas' Sorbonne lecture in 1909 about teaching history where he emphasized [57] that the duty of the teacher is to remain at Absolute Truth, and to tell about myths that they are myths. Also, he seems to be correct when he states that there are incorrect statements in Joan's curriculum vitae. I think, my Chronology in Chapter 8 is a demonstration that indeed there is some problem with the Joan biographies. However, when I. Maléter supports Thalamas in the opinion that Joan was not a good captain and her visions were "the hallucinations of a hysteric female" [57], I must note that all the witnesses seem to confirm that Joan was a competent captain, and mere hysterics generally are not successful in hopeless situations of countries. The problem is just: how was this possible? I do not know, and I am sure that lots of "facts" are falsified; but the solution of a problem cannot be found if, from intellectual laziness, we deny the existence of the problem. However one cannot expect anything else from party-determined historians.

 

12. ON FUTURE'S AIMS IN CTL-INFECTED ENVIRONMENTS

            Let me emphasize once more: I do not claim that Closed Timelike World Lines would exist in Earth's neighbourhood. However: what if?

            A technically advanced far Future could use these CTL's for visiting Past, and in principle could change it. Then of course the future of the past would change too, so the startpoint of the process too. This seems to lead to paradoxes which is advisable to be avoided.

            However this do not necessarily holds for stabilizing history. And according to our present historical knowledge France and England were near to get at an alternate history in 1429. Maybe this is not true; but we do not yet have such a Theory of History which would explain to us, how our history emerged.

            Assume that Charles the Pretender is not crowned in the Rheims Cathedral. Then the Armagnac Cause (and especially Charles) gets less followers; maybe Charles remains docile and gets a nice County. Henry VI (minor) is the French King, and Great Lords, as e.g. the Duke of Bedford govern France. The Duke of Burgundy, who has lands in the Holy Roman Empire as well, becomes practically independent and the estates of the Armagnacs will be confiscated because of treason against the minor King of France. France (minus Burgundy) and England will be governed together, but England is smaller and poorer. Some English Lords get French estates and become rich and mighty.

            Therefore the Industrial Revolution is delayed. Now, this is not the Past of the hypothesized time-travelling highly technical Future. So if such a Future exists, it is obviously interested in a past intervention of roughly Joan-type at c. 1429. Of course then the Joan Chronology of Chapter 8 would not seem causally ordered, and indeed it does not.

            I did not want to prove anything at all; only to demonstrate some problems. They surely exist. But of course Amadée Thalamas and Maurice Pujo would have made scenes at the Sorbonne even if the chronology had been trivially causal; they were strongly influenced by politics.

 

EPILOGUE

            As Einstein told: Common Sense is the sum of our experience up to age 18. Now, General Relativity is taught at Universities; in Hungary in the 3rd year. So in 2009 General Relativity is necessarily contrary to Common Sense. Still, in some cases GR has been proven, in spite of Common Sense.

            General Relativity does not claim the existence of CTL's in our neighbourhood. What I tell is simply that in general sense they seem to be permitted by GR, and their nonexistence has not been proven up to now. So in General Relativity context it is quite physical to discuss if any trace of them is or is not detected. I did this. If somebody claims that my discussion is contrary to Common Sense, I repeat that presently General Relativity in general is contrary to common sense.

            What was not against common sense was on one hand Amadée Thalamas' opinion that Maurice Pujo was under the influence of the Church and on the other Maurice Pujo's note that Amadée Thalamas was a free-mason. However none of them gave a key for the solution of the ordering problem of the Joan Chronology based on their true observations.

           

REFERENCES

 [1]       H. Beam Piper: Uller Uprising. Ace Books, New York, 1983

 [2]       P. Hajdú: Chrestomathia Samoiedica. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, 1968

 [3]       Aristotle of Stageira: Posterior Analytics. (At Bekker N°'s 94a24-b27.)

 [4]       Aristotle of Stageira: On Divination in Sleep. (At Bekker N°'s 462b13 - 464b19.)

 [5]       K. Martinás: Aristotelian Thermodynamics. In: K. Martinás, L. Ropolyi &. P. Szegedi: Thermodynamics: History and Philosophy. World Scientific, Singapore, 1991, p. 285

 [6]       L. Diósi & B. Lukács: On the Minimum Uncertainty of Space-Time Geodesics. Phys. Lett. A142, 331 (1989)

 [7]       Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: Is the Anomalous Brownian Motion Seen in Emulsions? Acta Phys. Hung. 70, 121 (1991)

 [8]       Desanka Trbuhović-Djurić: U senci Alberta Ajnstajna. Bagdala, Krushevac, 1969

 [9]       A. Einstein & M. Grossmann: Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation. Z. Math. Phys. 62, 225 (1913)

[10]      B. Lukács: Acausality and Retrocausality in Four- and Higher-Dimensional General Relativity. In: R. Buccheri & al. (eds.): The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003, p. 277

[11]      B. Lukács: Benedict XVI, the Malachy Prediction and Closed Timelike Worldlines. http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/WHYNOT3.htm

[12]      B. Lukács: Csillagok rotációja és a gravitációs kollapszus. Ph.D. Theses, Roland Eötvös University, Budapest, 1972

[13]      B. Lukács: Rotating Perfect Fluids in the Triad Formalism of the Three-dimensional Relativity. Relativity Today, Proc. 5th Hungarian Relativity Workshop, eds. C. A. Hoenselaers & Z. Perjés, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1997, p. 97

[14]      I. Horváth & B. Lukács: Some Notes on Stationary Kerr Generalisations in Spin Coefficients. Proc. 3rd Hungarian Relativity Workshop, ed. Z. Perjés, Nova Publ. NY, 1992, p. 205

[15]      D. C. Robinson: Uniqueness of the Kerr Black Hole. Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 905 (1975)

[16]      F. J. Tipler: Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global causality violation. Phys. Rev. D9, 2203 (1974)

[17]      C. Lanczos: Über eine stationäre Kosmologie im Sinne der Einsteinischen Gravitationstheories. Z. Phys. 21, 73 (1924)

[18]      W. J. van Stockum: The Gravitational Field of a Distribution of Particles Rotating around an Axis of Symmetry. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 57A, 135 (1937)

[19]      F. J. Tipler: Causality Violation in Asymptotically Flat Space-Times. Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 879 (1976)

[20]      S. W. Hawking & G. F. R. Ellis: The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973

[21]      F. Lobo & P. Crawford: Time, Closed Timelike Curves and Causality. In: R. Buccheri & al. (eds.): The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003, p. 289

[22]      D. N. Vollick: How to Produce Exotic Matter Using Classical Fields? Phys. Rev. D56, 4720 (1997)

[23]      M. Visser & C. Barcelo: Energy Conditions and Their Cosmological Implications. Talk at Cosmo99, Trieste, Sep/Oct. 1999

[24]      Ł. Bratek: Curious Spacetime Singularities. Acta Phys. Pol. B38, 3957 (2007)

[25]      Régine Pernoud: Jeanne d'Arc par elle-męme at par ses témoins. Éditions du Seuil, 1962 (I used a Hungarian edition: Régine Pernoud: Jeanne d'Arc. Ecclesia, Budapest, 1991)

[26]      J.-É.-J. Quicherat (ed.): Procčs de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc, dite La Pucelle, 5 Vols., J. Renouard, Paris, 1841-49; reprint: Johnson, New York, 1965

[27]      Vita Sackville-West: Saint Joan of Arc. Grove Press, New York. (However the first name is in variance amongst editions: Vera and Victoria appears as well)

[28]      Margaret A. Murray: The God of Witches. Oxford University Press, New York, 1970

[29]      A. Lang: The Valet's Tragedy and Other Studies. Longmans, London, 1903

[30]      J. O. Delepierre: Historical Difficulties and Contested Events. Murray, London, 1868

[31]      G. Save: Jehanne des Armoises, Pucelle d'Orléans. Crespin Leblond, Nancy, 1893

[32]      Ch. de Robillard de Beaurepaire (ed.): Chronique normande. Le Brument, Rouen, 1870

[33]      J. Fiske: The Unseen World and Other Essays. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1876

[34]      Chronique du doyen de Saint-Thibaud de Metz in:  Dom A. Calmet: Histoire ecclesiastique et civile de la Lorraine. Nancy, 1728

[35]      A. France: La vie de Jeanne d'Arc, Callmann-Levy, Paris, 1908. (However actually I used an English translation from Project Gutenberg and a Hungarian edition: A. France: Jeanne d'Arc élete. Gondolat, Budapest, 1972)

[36]      J. Nider: Formicarium. Douai, 1602

[37]      A. Lecoy de la Marche: Une fausse Jeanne d'Arc. Revue des questions historiques, Oct. 1871, p. 565

[38]      A. Vallet de Viriville: Notices et extraits de chartes et de manuscrits appartenant au British Museum; in Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartres, Vol. VIII, p. 116 (1846)

[39]      Abbé E. Bossard: Gilles de Rais, maréchal de France, dit Barbe-Bleue, 1404-1440. Champion, Paris, 1886

[40]      Colette Beaune (ed.): Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris de 1405 ŕ 1449. Librairie Générale Française, 1990

[41]      A. Duleau: Vidimus d'une charte de Charles VII, concedant a Pierre du Lys la possession de l' Isle-aux-Boeufs. Bull. Soc. Arch. & Hist. de l’Orléanais 35, 222 (1860)

[42]      G. Lefčvre-Pontalis: La fausse Jeanne d'Arc. Paris-Orléans, 1905

[43]      G. H. Tavard: The Spiritual Way of St. Jeanne d’Arc. The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1998

[44]      G. de Braux & E. de Bouteiller: Nouvelles recherches sur la famille de Jeanne d'Arc. Claudin, Paris, 1879

[45]      A. Lecoy de la Marche: Le Roi Rene. Firmin-Didot, Paris, 1875

[46]      L. Jánossy: Theory of Relativity Based on Physical Reality. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1971

[47]      L. Jánossy, W. Yourgrau & A. J. Van der Merwe: On the Dimensionality of Physical Space. Acta Phys. Hung. 44, 167 (1978)

[48]      P. Caze: La vérité sur Jeanne d'Arc. Rosa, Paris, 1819

[49]      P. de Sermoise: Joan of Arc and Her Secret Missions. R. Hale, London, 1973

[50]      A. de Vienne-Plancy: Jeanne d'Arc n'a point ete brulee a Rouen. Lanctin, Rouen, 1872

[51]      L. Denis: The Mystery of Joan of Arc. Dutton & Co., New York, 1925

[52]      Voltaire: Le Pucelle d'Orléans. Geneva, 1762 (subsequent editions in London & Geneva)

[53]      N. McWilliam: Conflicting Manifestations. French Historical Studies 27, 381 (2004)

[54]      A. Thalamas: Jeanne d'Arc: L'Histoire et la Légend. Paclot & Cie, Paris, 1904

[55]      Nadia Margolis: The "Joan" Phenomenon and the French Right. In: Bonnie Weeler & Ch. T. Wood (eds.): Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc. Garland, New York, 1996

[56]      Heather K. Robinson: Through a Political Lens: Joan of Arc from Myth to Modern Fragmentation. Honors Thesis, Texas State University, San Marcos, 2007

[57]      As it is referred by I. Maléter: Huszadik Század July-Aug. 1909, p. 83