Absence of Newtonian limit of General Relativity and dark matter issue in spf, speed of gravity issue
Juan R.
The thread about Newtonian limits on sci.physics.foundations reborn last
days.
It had some off-topic discussion because a well-known troll decided to
submit some nasty stuff to the group and it passed moderation.
But it seems now has returned 'on-topic'. Some of my posts were lost but
now i have recovered my news-server service i was able to submit
something.
I received today a e-mail from one of authors who i sent a copy of my
work "Chubikalo and Smirnov-Rueda dualism: Foundation and
generalizations".
He has returned from giving talks in Perimeter Institute. He has talked
about violation of Einstein theory in particle decays, generalization of
Lorentz invariance, generalization of QED to finite times, and other
interesting topics.
I have 'collaborated' with him in DPI theory of quantum gravity and
recently i have revised one interesting preprint from him on AB effect
without fields.
I may confess I waited a more detailed review of my 36 page draft, but at
least it seems he has found no serious error. I am waiting still two more
'referees'. One of them has recently worked an extension of quantum
mechanics. His work is cited here
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html
In my paper "Chubikalo and Smirnov-Rueda dualism: Foundation and
generalizations" i revised [Phys. Rev. E 1996: 53, 5373] and extended
dualism to gravitational case with next main conclusions:
- No fundamental geometric formulation of interactions is possible. The
geometric formulation is recovered after a number of approximations.
Of course the geometric approximation works inside the field of
applicability.
- All main dual results in PRE are recovered and clarified. For example
the status of the hamiltonian action and radiation loses is clarified
and some minor mistakes corrected.
- The whole dual theory (\phi_0 + \phi^*) is founded in first order
mixed brackets of a Liouville space extension of mechanics.
- Particle interactions are *instantaneous*.
The retarded LW potentials for electromagnetism and gravity are
*recovered as approximation*. The approximation is valid when the field
description of interactions is valid.
This explains why field theoretic arguments give to the misguided claim
that interactions are retarded by c, which as was known in recent years
is not true. See for instance the PRE paper and several recent
experimental works.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Juanshito
Your stuff is not published by any mainstream journal so why don't you
drop your pretenses?
Albertito
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> The thread about Newtonian limits on sci.physics.foundations reborn last
> days.
>
> It had some off-topic discussion because a well-known troll decided to
> submit some nasty stuff to the group and it passed moderation.
>
Was that malicious troll an Alaskium Erica Guissa specimen?
:-)
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> The thread about Newtonian limits on sci.physics.foundations reborn last
> days.
>
> It had some off-topic discussion because a well-known troll decided to
> submit some nasty stuff to the group and it passed moderation.
I could learn /so much/ from you in the art of being passive
aggressive.
[snip]
Juan R.
>> It had some off-topic discussion because a well-known troll decided to
>> submit some nasty stuff to the group and it passed moderation.
>>
>>
> Was that malicious troll an Alaskium Erica Guissa specimen? :-)
Do i need to reply the obvious?
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
> In my paper "Chubikalo and Smirnov-Rueda dualism: Foundation and
> generalizations" i revised [Phys. Rev. E 1996: 53, 5373] and extended
> dualism to gravitational case with next main conclusions:
Since this newsgroup is basically about classical results, I forgot to
say that Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda dualism is also extended to quantum
interactions.
In this way Quantum field theory is here recovered as special case of
limited applicability. E.g. the one-photon potential obtained from
Feynman QED is here derived after a number of approximations to a more
fundamental theory.
In the classical case, the approximations yield the concepts of geometry
and of retardation in interactions. The quantum case is specially
interesting because offers a foundation to why quantum field theory needs
to treat space in a *classical* way. As noticed by several authors QFT
breaks with the quantum mechanical treatment.
Moreover, in the quantum case the approximation does not introduce
retardation in the interaction. This is reason that distance in the field
theoretic potential energy between two electrons (e.g. the Gaunt
potential) is the distance at instant t instead at some retarded time t_0.
Juan R.
> Albertito wrote on Sat, 17 May 2008 10:24:38 -0700:
>
>>> It had some off-topic discussion because a well-known troll decided to
>>> submit some nasty stuff to the group and it passed moderation.
>>>
>>>
>> Was that malicious troll an Alaskium Erica Guissa specimen? :-)
>
> Do i need to reply the obvious?
I have taken a look to spf from Google groups and i can see that he has
submitted again more nasty stuff to the group. He even looks now more
aggressive when commenting on the posts by other peoples.
One of moderators at spf said about previous nasty stuff:
(\blockquote
I might have rejected his post had I caught it but might not have caught
it.
)
Unfortunately, it seems that moderator could not caught this last
Saturday and more nasty and wrong posts were archived.
I understand that moderation is difficult and time expensive but spf
would be free of the noise of spr.
Mike
Indded, that malicius specimen must be an autistic person who never
took physics but copies and pastes statement of self-proclaimed
experts in his responses to others.
This is important: last year a poster suspected this and gave him a
simple problem to solve, the free fall Newtonian equation. The
autistic child responded that a = Gm/r^2 is an Euler
ODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and that it take slonger to pee than to solve it. See that:
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/01b8793b2b1f235b?dmode=source
He is a serious case of disturbed individual who replies to each and
every post in these ngs'
Mike
YBM
> This is important: last year a poster suspected this and gave him a
> simple problem to solve, the free fall Newtonian equation. The
> autistic child responded that a = Gm/r^2 is an Euler
> ODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what ?
Mike
What, so what?
Mike
Juan R.
What really amazing me is that someone who has been unable to get a basic
degree in some average quality university, even when he has tried for
many years, is so arrogant doing strong claims about research level stuff
where he is complete ignorant.
I ask some recognized expertise in the topic of GR equations of motion as
Eric Poisson and he agrees with my finding for weak fields.
And still that undergrad claim the contrary adds some nonsensical
misquotings of elementary textbooks and even was arrogant enough to say
that Poisson may not know the stuff!!!!!
Wow!
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> I ask some recognized expertise in the topic of GR equations of motion as
> Eric Poisson and he agrees with my finding for weak fields.
>
Juanshito,
You are fibbing, Poisson simply ignored your 36 pages of garbage.
> And still that undergrad claim the contrary adds some nonsensical
> misquotings of elementary textbooks and even was arrogant enough to say
> that Poisson may not know the stuff!!!!!
>
> Wow!
The fact that you emailed your gibberish to Eric Poisson doesn't mean
that he supports it. Stop deluding yourself, Juanshito.
Eric Gisse
If you want to discuss my education it has to go both ways - where is
_YOUR_ physics degree, Juan R? Where is _YOUR_ physics degree, Mike?
>
> I ask some recognized expertise in the topic of GR equations of motion as
> Eric Poisson and he agrees with my finding for weak fields.
Of course he does - you are correct. What you say is universally
acknowledged to be true. This is explained in Carroll, MTW, Wald.
>
> And still that undergrad claim the contrary adds some nonsensical
> misquotings of elementary textbooks and even was arrogant enough to say
> that Poisson may not know the stuff!!!!!
This is what is known as "lying". I never said that.
>
> Wow!
Juan R.
"I-studied-physics" did again!
Read his irrelevant, childish comments, here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/
msg/29925ba808c4f8ae
Read "I-studied-physics" asking for the dimensions of (V / c^2) here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f256820a0914fedd
ha ha ha ha
Juan R.
After a supermaster [#] posted a series of flamming and incorrect
messages to the thread about Newtonian limits on sci.physics.foundations
I think the whole issue has been clarified:
In a recent message i just received Poisson has confirmed my main point
it is impossible to satisfy three (there is more :-)) basic requirements
of Newtonian theory at once:
(\blocquote
And you seem to want a Newtonian limit to GR that gives you a) the
correct field equation for phi, b) the nonzero acceleration, and c) a
flat spatial metric. This simply does not happen in GR
)
For students, believers, warriors, and rest of people:
At 0th order GR satisfies only c)
This is trivial, but there is no gravity...
At 1st order GR satisfies only a)
This is not trivial and several textbooks present a nonzero acceleration
for this limit. But the computation is wrong. Moreover c) is not satisfied
At 2nd order GR satisfies a) and b). This is not detailed in textbooks
because is technically complex.
However c) is not satisfied and the field equation has not the correct
functional dependence (does not give correct many-body solutions).
However i have also proved that Feynman theory of gravity satisfies a),
b), and c) *at once*.
It looks Feynman was more right than Einstein...
[#] That same 'supermaster' who is studying 'physics' in a 'University'
where dimensional analysis is not taught from the first day of the first
course :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b7b49966853da7e4
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez wrote on Sat, 17 May 2008 16:49:33 +0200:
>
Juan R.
>> He is a serious case of disturbed individual who replies to each and
>> every post in these ngs'
>>
>> Mike
>
> What really amazing me is that someone who has been unable to get a
> basic degree in some average quality university, even when he has tried
> for many years, is so arrogant doing strong claims about research level
> stuff where he is complete ignorant.
Someone would explain to Eric that covariante derivative for vectors do
not apply to tensors :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/msg/
f1fa5e04c16a502c
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanR...@canonicalscience.com>
wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05...@canonicalscience.com...
> "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 17:34:44
> +0200:
>
>>> He is a serious case of disturbed individual
>>> who replies to each and every post in these
>>> ngs'
>>
>> What really amazing me is that someone who
>> has been unable to get a basic degree in
>> some average quality university, even when
>> he has tried for many years, is so arrogant
>> doing strong claims about research level
>> stuff where he is complete ignorant.
>
> Someone would explain to Eric that
> covariante derivative for vectors do not apply
> to tensors :-)
Interesting how you talk to yourself about a third person, in
apparent violation of the "guidelines" you tout, in a relativity
newsgroup that is archived for years.
Do you think your personal opinions about Eric Gisse are somehow
"news"?
David A. Smith
Juan R.
> Dear Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez:
>> Someone would explain to Eric that
>> covariante derivative for vectors do not apply to tensors :-)
>
> Interesting how you talk to yourself about a third person, in apparent
> violation of the "guidelines" you tout
Take a look to my new signature :-)
> Do you think your personal opinions about Eric Gisse are somehow "news"?
Personal opinion? Hum, no.
I was offering an advice to Eric friends. Some of them would explain to
Eric how to derive a tensor, I would do but am sure that Eric would not
accept :-)
> in a relativity newsgroup that
> is archived for years.
Yeah during several years people will know Eric understanding :-) of
dimensional analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6fe7633a0e8130f8
but i already thought him dimensional analysis in the past. Just he did
not learn.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 06:07:52 -0700:
>
> > Dear Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez:
> >> Someone would explain to Eric that
> >> covariante derivative for vectors do not apply to tensors :-)
>
> > Interesting how you talk to yourself about a third person, in apparent
> > violation of the "guidelines" you tout
>
> Take a look to my new signature :-)
>
> > Do you think your personal opinions about Eric Gisse are somehow "news"?
>
> Personal opinion? Hum, no.
>
> I was offering an advice to Eric friends. Some of them would explain to
> Eric how to derive a tensor, I would do but am sure that Eric would not
> accept :-)
What's the half life on my mistakes, Juan?
I know I didn't take the covariant derivative properly - the correct
divergence is:
div.T = @_a T^av + Gamma^u_ua T^av + Gamma^v_ua T^ au.
My point was that the Gamma * T^ij term(s) are quadratic in order and
need to be dropped.
>
> > in a relativity newsgroup that
> > is archived for years.
>
> Yeah during several years people will know Eric understanding :-) of
> dimensional analysis
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6fe7633a0e8...
>
> but i already thought him dimensional analysis in the past. Just he did
> not learn.
My fuckups are mine. I acknowledge them when they happen, and then I
correct them.
>
> --
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)http://canonicalscience.org
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> but i already thought him dimensional analysis in the past.
Yes, you "thought" him. Cretin.
Albertito
Juan, me gustaria leer al puto Dono este escribiendo en
español, para ver que tal lo hace, jajajaa :-)
Dono
AlbetShito,Albertshito
..little syphilitic whore....how do you like eating shit?
Juan R.
> What's the half life on my mistakes, Juan?
Enough to stop you from getting some degree for many years, no?
> I know I didn't take the covariant derivative properly - the correct
> divergence is:
>
> div.T = @_a T^av + Gamma^u_ua T^av + Gamma^v_ua T^ au.
I like those indices :-)
> My point was that the Gamma * T^ij term(s) are quadratic in order and
> need to be dropped.
But you did learn that from i already said 20 days ago (with other
notation)
(\blockquote
Another way to see this is deriving motion from D{T_ab} = 0.
In the linear regime, it reduces to \partial{T_ab} = 0
)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/msg/
b219b0e80c3ef10b?dmode=source
> My fuckups are mine. I acknowledge them when they happen, and then I
> correct them.
Then using your *own* language:
"Bravo. You have transformed making fuckups into an art."
Juan R.
Pero que va a hacer ese, si aun salió ayer de la cueva :-)
Dono
<juanShito...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Tom Roberts
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> (\blocquote
> And you seem to want a Newtonian limit to GR that gives you a) the
> correct field equation for phi, b) the nonzero acceleration, and c) a
> flat spatial metric. This simply does not happen in GR
> )
Sure. No surprise.
> At 0th order GR satisfies only c)
I'm not sure what you mean by "0th order", but I guess Minkowski
spacetime does only (c). Of course in such a world devoid of matter or
energy, (a) and (b) don't really apply.
> This is trivial, but there is no gravity...
Sure, there's no gravity in Minkowski spacetime.
> At 1st order GR satisfies only a)
> This is not trivial and several textbooks present a nonzero acceleration
> for this limit.
Hmmm. You have made claims similar to this, tantamount to claiming that
all GR textbooks are wrong. While that is not impossible, it does
require a solid, well-supported argument. So far you have nothing -- all
you have done is made unsubstantiated claims, alluded to some "paper"
you are writing, and mentioned some conference(s) you apparently are not
going to attend.
Rather than attempting to discuss your smoke and mirrors, let me take
issue with your claim that in the linear approximation to GR all test
particles follow straight lines (I've lost track of where you made that
claim).
This is discussed in section 18 of MTW. The approximation is:
g_ij = \eta_ij + h_ij
where the {g_ij} are the metric components projected onto "background"
Minkowski coordinates, the {\eta_ij} are the Minkowski metric components
in those coordinates, and the {h_ij} are the new dynamical variables,
with |h_ij|<<1. The field equations are then written in terms of the
{h_ij}, to first order in them. Note that this is in general NOT a
spatially-flat metric.
In this approximation, test particles follow geodesics of g, not of
\eta. So they need not be straight lines. They are, of course,
APPROXIMATELY straight lines [#].
[#] Consider the moon orbiting the earth, ignoring all other
objects, using coordinates in which the earth is at rest.
The moon follows a straight line to within one part per
million or so. To those who are surprised, let me remind you
that during one orbit with radius 1.3 light-second, it
translates 2.5 million light-seconds along the time axis,
so its path in spacetime is a helix with radius less than a
millionth of its period -- quite close to a straight line.
Tom Roberts
Albertito
Is MTW the holy Bible of every GR's fundamentalist?
The Gospel according to St. MTW 18:
Who Is the Greatest?
"In that hour the disciples came near to Einstein and said:
Who really is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?
So, calling a young child to him, he set it in their midst
and said: Truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU turn around
and become as young children, YOU will by no means
enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Therefore, whoever
will humble himself like this young child is the
one that is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens;
and whoever receives one such young child on the basis
of my name receives me [also]. But whoever stumbles one
of these little ones who put faith in me, it is more beneficial
for him to have hung around his neck a millstone such as
is turned by an ass and to be sunk in the wide, open sea."
Amen!
Eric Gisse
Albertito wrote:
> On May 27, 2:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > [I have finally found time to look at this]
> >
MTW is to gravitation as Jackson is to electromagnetism as Goldstein
is to classical mechanics.
[snip stupidity]
Albertito
GR (the kingdom of the heavens) is hard,
here is the hammer:
Exp( - V/c^2)
Do you already know dimensional analysis?
Eric Gisse
What does this have to do with GR? Hint: Nothing, it is something you
pulled out of your ass.
Juan R.
> [I have finally found time to look at this]
Thanks!
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> (\blocquote
>> And you seem to want a Newtonian limit to GR that gives you a) the
>> correct field equation for phi, b) the nonzero acceleration, and c) a
>> flat spatial metric. This simply does not happen in GR
>> )
>
> Sure. No surprise.
However, i have proved the non-trivial result that a) b) and c) are
satisfied at once in the *field* formulation.
This was a surprise even for an expertise as Poisson.
because MTW and other references did the wrong claim that the field and
the geometric formulation were completely equivalent for weak fields.
>> At 0th order GR satisfies only c)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "0th order",
h_ab = 0
> but I guess Minkowski
> spacetime does only (c). Of course in such a world devoid of matter or
> energy, (a) and (b) don't really apply.
The field equation
\square^2 h_ab = T_ab
is identically zero and the geodesic equation is the usual but with zero
connection coefficients.
>> This is trivial, but there is no gravity...
>
> Sure, there's no gravity in Minkowski spacetime.
>
>
>> At 1st order GR satisfies only a)
>> This is not trivial and several textbooks present a nonzero
>> acceleration for this limit.
>
> Hmmm. You have made claims similar to this, tantamount to claiming that
> all GR textbooks are wrong. Not all!
Wald is more rigorous than usual and adds
(\blockquote
if one stay consistently within the linear approximation, one predicts
that test bodies are unaffected by gravity.
)
That has been my finding also. And expertise on equations of motion
Poisson has confirmed that in the linear regime one cannot obtain a
nonzero acceleration.
> Rather than attempting to discuss your smoke and mirrors, let me take
> issue with your claim that in the linear approximation to GR all test
> particles follow straight lines (I've lost track of where you made that
> claim).
>
> This is discussed in section 18 of MTW. The approximation is:
> g_ij = \eta_ij + h_ij
> where the {g_ij} are the metric components projected onto "background"
> Minkowski coordinates, the {\eta_ij} are the Minkowski metric components
> in those coordinates, and the {h_ij} are the new dynamical variables,
> with |h_ij|<<1. The field equations are then written in terms of the
> {h_ij}, to first order in them. Note that this is in general NOT a
> spatially-flat metric.
I already know that. In the message you are replying i wrote
(\blockquote
At 1st order GR satisfies only a) [...] Moreover c) is not satisfied
[...]
At 2nd order GR satisfies a) and b) [...] However c) is not satisfied
)
It is trivial that same result for c) holds for orders greater than
second, but any case thanks by confirming because this may save me from
weeks of replying misunderstandings by other people :-)
> In this approximation, test particles follow geodesics of g, not of
> \eta. So they need not be straight lines.
You are making a mistake is revised in Wald page 78. Where he also makes
the remark
(\blockquote
if one stay consistently within the linear approximation, one predicts
that test bodies are unaffected by gravity.
)
You are considering that the geodesic equation of motion is an additional
equation one imposes over the spacetime structure. But it is not true.
It is one of characteristics of *geometrical* approach that geodesic
equation of motion *follows* from the 'conservation' in the field
equations.
In the linear regime this is \partial^a T_ab = 0, and implies test body
accelerations are zero.
This part of my work was already confirmed by both Wald and Eric Poisson.
Eric wrote to me:
(\blockquote
Since the energy-momentum tensor is already of first-order, in the
linearized theory the conservation equations must be written down with
the Minkowski metric, and this implies that the matter cannot have
gravitational interactions. Or as you point out, particles would have to
move on straight lines. To get the correct motion [...] one must go
beyond the linearized theory
)
As already explained in spf i think I do not need more assistance at this
point of linearized GR since in my opinion appears to be solid enough,
specially after of being confirmed by expertises on geodesic equations.
A more interesting part of my work is when i show that at second order
one obtains a) and b) but *not* c). This difficulty is not remarked in
literature dealing with second order corrections because this violation
of c) is not so obvious when working in the \partial h_ab = t_ab method
(Poisson uses this one). However this is obvious in the perturbative
technique i used because the term correspond to flat space is identified
with special bracketed notation.
At second order one also obtain inadequate Lagrangians with terms
quadratic on \phi.
I have proved that none limit of GR, zero, linear, quadratic, or more
higher the three constraints:
a) the correct field equation for phi
b) the nonzero acceleration, and
c) a flat spatial metric.
are satisfied at once.
This was also confirmed by Eric Poisson when he confirmed me that a limit
to GR that gives you a) b) and c) does not happen in GR.
However, i proved the nontrivial result that a), b), and c) are satisfied
at once in the field formulation of GR. As said even an recognized
expertise on geometrical equations of motion as Poisson was perplexed by
this new result.
The more interesting part of my work is a second part when i introduce a
gravitational version of electromagnetic dualism recently introduced in
Physical Review paper by Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda
h_ab(r,t) --> h_ab(r,t) + h_ab(R(t))
the new tensor h_ab(R(t)) is *absent* in General Relativity.
I show
i)
how field and DPI theories of gravity may be generalized in the new dual
framework.
ii)
How the geometric formulation of GR is broken in the new dual framework
iii)
How the dual potentials solve long-standing problems with GR: i consider
the issue of the unphysical cosmological boundaries used in GR in some
detail, and also point how the new dual structure has the correct many-
body formal structure giving the correct many-body potential (this is
confirmed by expertise Prof. Schieve and its theory).
The paper is more general than just finding some mistake in Caroll and
others. Next is the index of current version of "Newtonian limit
difficulties of General Relativity":
summary and conclusions
background, objectives, and plan of the paper
body of the report
motion on fixed and dynamical backgrounds.
conventional newtonian limit of general relativity
limit of the equation of motion
limit of the lagrangian
newtonian limit on perturbation approach.
perturbation geometrical approach.
perturbation nongeometrical approach.
comparison of geometrical and nongeometrical approaches
testing general relativity or its alternatives?.
time implicit vs time explicit gravitation, the case against geometry
the geometric description is broken
unphysical boundaries for general relativity
many body phenomena
a conjecture regarding quantum gravity
criticism and perspectives for future research.
acknowledgments and dedicatory
disclaimer.
notes.
references and online search keys.
list of objects
Juan R.
> On May 27, 11:18 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you already know dimensional analysis?
That was fine, but also was when Eric tried to derive EMT tensor applying
the rule for vectors :-)
Juan R.
> MTW is to gravitation as Jackson is to electromagnetism as Goldstein is
> to classical mechanics.
We take them as they really are: books.
You take them as gospel.
Tom Roberts
> MTW is to gravitation as Jackson is to electromagnetism as Goldstein
> is to classical mechanics.
Well put! Except that remarkably, MTW even mentions those other
sub-fields and has basic descriptions of them and their theoretical
formalisms. MTW is not a bad textbook on SR, for example.
And note you did not mention either QM or QFT. AFAIK there are no
canonical textbooks for them (though perhaps Peskin and Schroeder is
becoming one). And there's also thermodynamics, solid state, particle
physics, ....
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
> I have proved that none limit of GR, zero, linear, quadratic, or more
> higher the three constraints:
>
> a) the correct field equation for phi b) the nonzero acceleration, and
> c) a flat spatial metric.
>
> are satisfied at once.
Anyone understand this :-)
I have proved that none limit of GR (zero, linear, quadratic, or more
higher in perturbation h) satisfies at once the three constraints:
a) the correct field equation for phi
b) the nonzero acceleration, and
c) a flat spatial metric.
> The more interesting part of my work is a second part when i introduce a
> gravitational version of electromagnetic dualism recently introduced in
> Physical Review paper by Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda
They did the generalization of electrodynamics [#]
A_b(r,t) --> A_b(r,t) + A_b(R(t))
with A_b(r,t) being the Lienard-Wiechert potentials
> h_ab(r,t) --> h_ab(r,t) + h_ab(R(t))
>
> the new tensor h_ab(R(t)) is *absent* in General Relativity.
>
[#] Eric i know you are reading this. Do not make the beginner mistake of
searching this in Jackson :-)
Albertito
Revisiting Weyl's calculation of the gravitational pull in Bach's
two-body solution:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104035
I'd given you a beautiful two-body problem solution for a
gravitational
redshift in a field composed by two nearby Schwarzschild bodies,
remember?, it is
z = (1/sqrt((1 - g_1^2)(1 - g_2^2)) ) - 1,
with
g_1^2 = 2GM_1/r_1c^2, and
g_2^2 = 2GM_2/r_2c^2.
With the help of Weyl, prove that gravitational redshift z is
correct.
Hint: I've used this hammer
Exp( - (1/2) ln(1 - 2V/c^2)).
Need any dimensional analysis help?
Eric Gisse
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > MTW is to gravitation as Jackson is to electromagnetism as Goldstein
> > is to classical mechanics.
>
> Well put! Except that remarkably, MTW even mentions those other
> sub-fields and has basic descriptions of them and their theoretical
> formalisms. MTW is not a bad textbook on SR, for example.
You can fit a lot of physics into 1300 pages.
There is a reason I haven't studied SR specifically from its' own
textbook. A good treatment of GR should be able to teach SR as well,
especially considering how fundamental SR is to GR.
What I find to be even more remarkable is how _current_ MTW is even
after being written 35 years ago.
Even though it was written with the astronomical knowledge of the
early 1970s, the cosmological results still hold pretty true. I'd like
to see a second edition if only to bring it into 21st century
cosmology.
>
> And note you did not mention either QM or QFT. AFAIK there are no
> canonical textbooks for them (though perhaps Peskin and Schroeder is
> becoming one). And there's also thermodynamics, solid state, particle
> physics, ....
Rief and Kittel seem to have thermodynamics and solid state physics
under their respective thumbs. Which reminds me, I need to get my Rief
back..
What is a good modern QFT textbook? I don't specifically require new,
I just have the expectation that modern treatments will emphasize
symmetries and such more than older treatments. I have a specific
interest in how quantum mechanics gets made relativistic - I already
know the shorthand version, but I want to study it a little more
seriously.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Albertito
A second edition of MTW will be called "Quantum Gravitation",
and GR, along with SR, will be trashed,
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/5440f275f0.jpg
Eric Gisse
Albertito wrote:
[snip]
> Need any dimensional analysis help?
For someone who knows so little, you are remarkably sure of yourself.
Eric Gisse
Albertito wrote:
[snip]
Do you own even one physics textbook?
Albertito
Yes, I'm remarkably sure of myself, because I know more
than you ever could imagine!
Juan R.
Unlike you, he did know the dimension for (V / c^2)
Eric Gisse
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 08:28:34 -0700:
>
> > Albertito wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >> Need any dimensional analysis help?
> >
> > For someone who knows so little, you are remarkably sure of yourself.
>
> Unlike you, he did know the dimension for (V / c^2)
>
> :-)
On the other hand, he continues to not understand physics at any
level. Somewhat trumps the occasional mistake, don't you think?
Does it bother you that such an obvious imbecile thinks you have good
ideas?
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 08:28:34 -0700:
>>
>> > Albertito wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >> Need any dimensional analysis help?
>> >
>> > For someone who knows so little, you are remarkably sure of yourself.
>>
>> Unlike you, he did know the dimension for (V / c^2)
>>
>> :-)
>
> On the other hand, he continues to not understand physics at any level.
Unlike you, he did know the dimension for (V / c^2)
:-)
> Does it bother you that such an obvious imbecile thinks you have good
> ideas?
Probably someone as you who do not know what are the dimensions for
(V / c^2)
and who derive tensors T^ab using the law for vector t^a may be not the
best person to decide about that :-)
Eric Gisse
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[snip]
If only you were as diligent in monitoring his errors as you are of
mine.
Albertito
Waht erros? Me do'nt comitt errosr :-)
Tom Roberts
> What is a good modern QFT textbook? I don't specifically require new,
> I just have the expectation that modern treatments will emphasize
> symmetries and such more than older treatments.
I have Weinberg's Volume I, and also Psekin and Schroeder. They take
rather different approaches. I cannot say I recommend either of them
highly, but both seem OK to me (but then, I am starting from a Ph.D. in
experimental physics :-).
> I have a specific
> interest in how quantum mechanics gets made relativistic
It doesn't really "get made relativistic", but rather one must start
over from first principles.... But understanding non-rel QM and its
Hilbert space(s) will help. But the real intellectual prerequisite is
that intangible quantity known as "mathematical maturity".
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
Everyone makes mistakes. I make many mistakes :-)
However, he does not repeat to be studying "physics" in alaska.
I think it is safe other people to know that either dimensional physics
and derivatives of tensors T^ab are not taught in Alaska or you are not
studying.
Eric Gisse
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 11:56:26 -0700:
>
> > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > If only you were as diligent in monitoring his errors as you are of
> > mine.
>
> Everyone makes mistakes. I make many mistakes :-)
>
> However, he does not repeat to be studying "physics" in alaska.
That's right - he doesn't study physics at all.
Juan R.
>> However, he does not repeat to be studying "physics" in alaska.
>
> That's right - he doesn't study physics at all.
Uff imagine that!
He knew what are the dimensions for (V/c^2) and you (studying physics)
did not :-)
Albertito
Thanks for your support, Juan, but I can defend
myself from the attacks of those trolls, albeit
Alaskium Erica Guisa specimens are pretty malicious! :-)
BTW, in your "Newtonian limit difficulties of General Relativity"
paper, you claim that the geometrical formulation of GR doesn't
yield Newtonian gravity in the weak limit, whereas either a field
formulation (FTG) or the direct particle formulation (DPI) do
yield Newtonian gravity. Why? I think any formulation, interpretation
of a theory, if it is correctly done, should yield the same
predictions.
For example, a Schwardzschild solution can be interpreted as
a 3-d spatial flow (a river model, where the flow is identified as a
Newtonian escape velocity), instead of spacetime curvature.
Both models (interpretations) yield the same Schwardzschild
metric.
Regards
Juan R.
> On May 28, 12:51 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 04:47:21 -0700:
>>
>> >> However, he does not repeat to be studying "physics" in alaska.
>>
>> > That's right - he doesn't study physics at all.
>>
>> Uff imagine that!
>>
>> He knew what are the dimensions for (V/c^2) and you (studying physics)
>> did not :-)
>>
>> --
>> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org
>
> Thanks for your support, Juan, but I can defend myself from the attacks
> of those trolls, albeit Alaskium Erica Guisa specimens are pretty
> malicious! :-)
I believe he is not really bad. Simply he is very hungry because it took
6 years to him to understand some stuff you did in a few months :-)
> BTW, in your "Newtonian limit difficulties of General Relativity" paper,
> you claim that the geometrical formulation of GR doesn't yield Newtonian
> gravity in the weak limit, whereas either a field formulation (FTG) or
> the direct particle formulation (DPI) do yield Newtonian gravity. Why? I
> think any formulation, interpretation of a theory, if it is correctly
> done, should yield the same predictions.
FTG and DPI are not different interpretations but different theories than
GR. That is reason that former satisfy /at once/ three requirements:
field equations, spatial metric, and nonzero acceleration.
> For example, a Schwardzschild solution can be interpreted as a 3-d
> spatial flow (a river model, where the flow is identified as a Newtonian
> escape velocity), instead of spacetime curvature. Both models
> (interpretations) yield the same Schwardzschild metric.
In rigor, there is not Schwardzschild metrics in the nongeometrical
formulations.
This is a common confusion in relativistic literature. E.g. MTW confuses
the GR and the FTG formulation because does not notice the generic non-
Riemanian structure of g_ab for FTG.
In FTG g_ab has Riemannian structure only in a well defined limit. In
that limit, and only in that limit, the coefficients g_ab can be
interpreted as either a metric for curved spacetime (GR) or the sum of a
flat background more a gravitational field (FTG).
The Newtonian regime does not verify the limit where g is purely metric
and this explains why FTG and GR give different results. With FTG being
favored over the geometrical formulation (GR).
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 20:22:02 -0500:
> I have proved that none limit of GR, zero, linear, quadratic, or more
> higher the three constraints:
> a) the correct field equation for phi
> b) the nonzero acceleration, and
> c) a flat spatial metric.
> are satisfied at once.
I believe that. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that (c) is not possible in GR
for any finite region of any manifold that contains some localized mass
or energy.
But that is NOT what one needs for the Newtonian approximation. What one
needs are:
a) the correct field equation for phi
b') the correct acceleration for test particles
c') a spatial metric that is flat within measurement accuracy
(a) and (b') are not at issue here, but (c') is a major difference:
while (c) is impossible, (c') is EASY to do here on Earth -- just use
Cartesian coordinates defined by meter sticks (PRECISELY what Newtonian
physicists would do). For instance, in a lab on earth of spatial extent
no larger than L (on the order of tens of meters), in such coordinates
the spatial curvature components are at least second order in L/R_earth
multiplied by a constant K on the order of 1e-6 -- such deviations from
flat are unmeasurably small by many orders of magnitude (for a
measurement accuracy of a micron or so, which is better than usually
obtained).
Similar relationships also hold for astronomical phenomena,
where L is much larger, but measurement accuracy is comparably
larger. At base this works because the gravitational fields
near earth are very small (which is why the Newtonian
approximation to GR is relevant at all). The trajectories of
both the moon and of a thrown stone deviate from a straight
line through spaceTIME [%] by less than 1 part per million.
[%] Referenced to the obvious background Minkowski coordinates
in which the earth is at rest.
Remember that the Newtonian approximation to GR is determined not only
by the appropriate limit of the fields and equations, but also by
selecting a suitable "Newtonian" coordinate system (as above). For
instance, it is this latter that constrains the metric components to
differ from Minkowski only in g_tt.
> However, i proved the nontrivial result that a), b), and c) are satisfied
> at once in the field formulation of GR.
I bet you either made a mistake, or mean something nonstandard by "field
formulation of GR". Just look above to your earlier statement that this
is impossible in GR -- you are being self-inconsistent unless there's a
mistake or nonstandard meaning of terms. In particular, your claim of
achieving (c) is HIGHLY suspect as I'm pretty sure that simply is not
possible.
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 20:22:02 -0500: [... much
>> agreement]
>> I have proved that none limit of GR, zero, linear, quadratic, or more
>> higher the three constraints:
>> a) the correct field equation for phi b) the nonzero acceleration, and
>> c) a flat spatial metric.
>> are satisfied at once.
>
> I believe that. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that (c) is not possible in GR
> for any finite region of any manifold that contains some localized mass
> or energy.
>
> But that is NOT what one needs for the Newtonian approximation. What one
> needs are:
> a) the correct field equation for phi b') the correct acceleration for
> test particles c') a spatial metric that is flat within measurement
> accuracy
>
> (a) and (b') are not at issue here,
It is impossible to obtain (a) from GR. A similar problem arises in
electromagnetism, where was proved it is impossible obtain the Coulomb
Poisson equation from Maxwell equations. Textbooks are wrong.
This problem of electromagnetism has been recently corrected with the
generalization of fields equations
1996: Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.
1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda,
Roman.
1998: Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.
I have worked a similar generalization for GR
h^ab(r,t) --> h^ab(r,t) + h^ab(R(t))
The gravitational field equations obtain a generalization similar to that
in the PRE papers.
It is impossible to obtain (b) in the linear regime. One may go to second
order, but up to second order Lagrangian and other quantities do not
agree with Newtonian result. This is why textbook take the linear regime
approach :-) But in rigor linear regime predicts (a = 0)
> but (c') is a major difference:
> while (c) is impossible, (c') is EASY to do here on Earth -- just use
> Cartesian coordinates defined by meter sticks (PRECISELY what Newtonian
> physicists would do). For instance, in a lab on earth of spatial extent
> no larger than L (on the order of tens of meters), in such coordinates
> the spatial curvature components are at least second order in L/R_earth
> multiplied by a constant K on the order of 1e-6 -- such deviations from
> flat are unmeasurably small by many orders of magnitude (for a
> measurement accuracy of a micron or so, which is better than usually
> obtained).
That is all is needed for an experimentalist who has only working in
testing simple matter, but complexity is different :-)
We know from chaos theory that small infinitesimal differences has huge
importance in nonlinear regimes :-)
If you consider one-body motion, probably difference between flat and non-
flat metric was unnoticeable, but in a many-body system, small deviation
in one body trajectory generate exponential deviations in others
trajectories and whole system makes unstable. Indeed the change on the
many body state is
\rho(t) = U \rho(0)
U = exp(Lt) where L = {K, } and K is the Hamiltonian in the new theory.
No really strange that senior author of
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/mtrump/manybody/
was regarded as one of the world experts in the field of relativistic
chaos:
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/mtrump/manybody/
Of course in that theory the spatial metric is *flat* and gravity is
introduced via *relativistic force* for the sake of synchronization of
multi-particle correlations.
Another place where small deviation from real flatness is dramatic is on
quantum theory. This is the reason that particle and string theorists
work in the field perturbation over flat background whereas *rejecting*
the geometric approach. It is not strange that Weinberg and Feynman
avoided the geometrical approach to gravity.
Another difficulty with GR is the unphysical cosmological boundaries:
i.e. the island assumption.
>> However, i proved the nontrivial result that a), b), and c) are
>> satisfied at once in the field formulation of GR.
>
> I bet you either made a mistake, or mean something nonstandard by "field
> formulation of GR". Just look above to your earlier statement that this
> is impossible in GR -- you are being self-inconsistent unless there's a
> mistake or nonstandard meaning of terms. In particular, your claim of
> achieving (c) is HIGHLY suspect as I'm pretty sure that simply is not
> possible.
But here you are just repeating your traditional misunderstandings about
field theory (remember Tom you are even unable to write the expression
for the force :-)).
This part was revised by a current expert on field theory (with several
publications on the topic), exactly in this one *standard*
http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345
Juan R.
> If you consider one-body motion, probably difference between flat and
> non- flat metric was unnoticeable, but in a many-body system, small
> deviation in one body trajectory generate exponential deviations in
> others trajectories and whole system makes unstable. Indeed the change
> on the many body state is
>
> \rho(t) = U \rho(0)
>
> U = exp(Lt) where L = {K, } and K is the Hamiltonian in the new theory.
Using monograph notation, i would rewrite like
\rho(\tau) = U \rho(0)
U = exp(L \tau) where L = {K, } for 8-N brackets and K is the Hamiltonian
in the new theory. See Hamiltonian K on
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations_20.html
The theory developed at the Center is more complex than that.