Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
Juan R.
It may be nice to correct some serious misunderstandings on recent
postings where I am being directly alluded. My time is very limited
now, therefore I will submit by pieces and will not reply neither to
new misunderstandings nor to questions I already asked before, my
apologies.
####
####
#### About potential energies once again (and the latter) ####
####
On Jul 13, 6:39 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> I feel obliged for Juan's sake to confirm that he knows what he's saying.
> Avoid reading anything by Bilge or you're destined to get it all mixed up.
I very much agree with this advice by Pmb but I would extend it to
other folks.
In his last posting on the thread about potential energies, Bilge
seems to unnotice basic differences between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian
formulations of dynamics and seems to confound now U with V or maybe
directly with H, who knows?
Bilge also appears to be unaware that zero component of four momentum
leads to interactions energies of type U as in the Lagrangian
formulation. It seems he never wrote P^0, expanded the term containing
the vector potential A and reorganized the full Hamiltonian into free
(usually denoted by H_0) and interaction components. This is done with
detail in many textbooks, and for both classical and quantum level of
theory.
Any basic course in QFT shows that interaction energy in quantum
electrodynamics is a product involving four vectors. For instance I
remember Weinberg likes to write the interaction energy density for
field QED (Weinberg uses notation H = H_0 + V) like
V = {J^0 * A^0} - {J * A}
Others authors like to _rewrite_ the above interaction in full
covariant form,
{J^a * A_a}.
This is Landau prefered way (Landau also uses greek notation and
matter current four density instead charge current four density: "e*j
= J").
Therefore, Bilge last comment about energy being not product of two
four-vectors has really no sense.
Now I will reply the recurrent misunderstandings by Gisse, Hobba,
Bilge, and Karandash2. The thread about relativistic potential
energies is too large, full of insults to several people, and contains
several off-topic comments, therefore, I summarize here most of it,
add some new references (I do not copy all references I used in the
other thread), and last comments.
Goldstein calls to U(x,v) a "generalized potential" for
differentiating from the 'ordinary' potential energies U(x) of the non-
relativistic theory. See his well-known textbook on mechanics.
Goldstein does not write the word energy when naming the U. Goldstein
writtes
{BLOCKQUOTE
We shall preferably use the name "generalized potential,"
including within this designation also the ordinary potential
energy,
a function of position only.
}
Also Goldstein writes "ordinary potential energy" not just "potential
energy" and this may be another source of confusion for beginners.
>From dimensional analysis it is very easy to see that "U" in {L = T -
U} has units of energy, because "T" has units of energy. Otherwise the
difference (T - U) has no meaning. However, Bilge still maintain in
his last posting that U cannot be an energy.
Authors of other textbooks do not asume their readers can complete a
dimensional calculus test. An example is textbook on mechanics [1],
where U(x,v) in {L = T - U} is explicitely called the "generalized
potential energy". That avoids confusion.
Just compare with Hobba thoughts:
{BLOCKQUOTE [Bill Hobba]
Otherwise it can not be interpreted as potential energy.
}
The term "generalized" in generalized potential energy [1] is usually
droped in modern literature and you can call to U simply the
"potential energy". It is trivial that a generalized potential energy
is a potential energy. This is a usual convention in several physics
and chemistry disciplines. This is also a popular convention used in
mathematics. From Mathpages:
{BLOCKQUOTE [5]
We might hypothesize that the potential energy is a
function not only of position but also of velocity.
}
Now compare with
{BLOCKQUOTE [Bill Hobba]
Now, the question is, how can a function containing
velocity be only a function of position as required
by a term that is potential enrergy?
}
What is the problem? The problem is that Bill Hobba, Gisse, Bilge and
Karandash2 never studied physics (they claim the contrary). Then they
got the definition of potential energy from some non-relativistic
basic textbook as the Landau (i.e. the definition of non-relativistic
potential energy) and next misreaded and mixed up all.
Of course, Lagrangians containing a relativistic potential energy
U(x,v) are relativistic *invariant*. This is valid for both classical
and quantum level of theory.
Since Hobba, Karandash2, Eric Gisse, and Bilge will try to mix every
again I reproduce one of most clear quotes about the role of potential
energy in relativity I have found in literature. It is extracted from
"the ABC of relativity" and read as follows,
{BLOCKQUOTE [2]
The Newtonian ideas of kinetic and potential energy can without
much difficulty be adapted to the special theory of relativity.
}
It is interesting to compare [2, 1, 5] with next misunderstandings
{BLOCKQUOTE [Bill Hobba]
Potential energy is a classical concept not applicable
to relativity because the potential function depends
on spatial coordinates
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [karandash2]
What in the explanation that you received earlier about
the inaplicability of potential energy in relativity
is that you don't understand?
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [Bill Hobba]
Sine there is no such thing as relativistic potential energy
what you wrote above is obviously nonsense.
}
And a large collection of similar wrong statements.
Compare is being said by them with an online preprint on gr-qc
{BLOCKQUOTE [18]
The total energy is thus the familiar rest energy mc2 plus
the relativistic potential energy.
}
In the Physical Review D (one of more respected and rigorous journals
of physics), authors write,
{BLOCKQUOTE [19]
If the energy levels are kept fixed, the relativistic potential
energy
must then exceed the nonrelativistic potential energy.
}
Therefore, notice the irony. The authors of [19] write about
relativistic potential energies and compute its magnitude. They submit
the paper to Physical Review, the referres aprove the paper and the
editor decides to publish it. The paper is published and none
physicist writtes a rebutal paper; I mean nobody wrote a hangry letter
to the journal writing stuff like
{BLOCKQUOTE [karandash2]
There is no potential energy in
relativity, cretin.
}
The irony is that Hobba, Karandash2, Eric Gisse, and Bilge claiming to
know relativistic physics decided to insult me and others. They would
go to university and learn a bit of physics before posting nonsense
and insults at this newsgroup.
I also said that the concept of relativistic potential energy is used
in another meaning in chemical physics and physical chemistry.
Chemists and physicists also use the term "relativistic potential
energy" for relativistic generalizations of molecular PES.
Once more again just compare
{BLOCKQUOTE [Bill Hobba]
Sine there is no such thing as relativistic potential energy
what you wrote above is obviously nonsense.
}
with the title of the published paper [21]: "Relativistic potential
energy surfaces of XH_2 (X=C, Si, Ge, Sn, and Pb) molecules: Coupling
of 1A_1 and 3B_1 states".
Funny, true?
I also cited a sci.physics.research trend. They decided do not read,
and continued to insult people and countries and to submit more
nonsense about potential energies and relativity. The more interesting
thing is that they claim here often they know physics, and Eric Gisse
fantasizes about him studying physics in the University!!!!
I reproduce parts of the messages (the original queries and two
replies from two diferent epople) on the sci.physics.research
newsgroup [20]. Messages are so obvious...
{BLOCKQUOTE [Query]
How do we deal with potential energy and forces
in special relativity?
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [reply]
Same way as in classical mechanics except that now
you can't assume that the force is independant of
velocity as you usually could in classical mechanics.
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [Query]
Is the concept of potential energy still useful in relativity?
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [reply]
Yes, it is useful. The energy still exists in relativity,
it continues to be conserved, and it has various
contributions just like in classical mechanics.
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [reply2]
It's as useful in relativity as it was in Newtonian mechanics,
i.e. it's a constant of motion for a given frame of referance
when the system is conservative in that frame.
}
Now you can compare above replies in sci.physics.research (moderated
newsgroup) with next messages in sci.physics.relativity (no moderated)
{BLOCKQUOTE [Bill Hobba]
Potential energy is a classical concept not applicable
to relativity because the potential function depends
on spatial coordinates
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [karandash2]
What in the explanation that you received earlier about
the inaplicability of potential energy in relativity
is that you don't understand?
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [karandash2]
There is no potential energy in
relativity, cretin.
}
{BLOCKQUOTE [karandash2]
NO, they are NOT.
They are _components_ of the Lagrangian but
they are not energies. It was also already pointed
out to you that L = T - V is not true in
relativity. Which was the whole goddamn point.
}
Of course, they will never aceppt they have no idea of physics. They
will insult again. They think that they are completely right and that
the people who replied in sci.physics.research is wrong. They will
also insult the moderators on sci.physics.research. For instance,
karandash2 (who never studied physics) want to write a mail to
moderators kevin (at Caltech) and helbig saying them
{BLOCKQUOTE [karandash2]
There is no potential energy in
relativity, cretin.
}
Ups!
I have been kindly informed that now Eric Gisse is adding a new
misunderstanding to the large list. The warning is as follows,
> Juan - Before I begin Eric Gisse is now claiming that what Bilge is doing is
> proving that Potential energy is not invariant.
Well, Gisse already proved his difficulties to understand invariances
in the thread about temperatures. And we know both have difficulties
with dimensional analysis. They continue to claim that U in
relativistic L = T - U has not units of energy.
The authors of the monograph on relativistic dynamics [4] already
predicted puzzled folks never studied physics would get confussion
about invariances. Therefore for avoiding any ambiguity or misreading
they wrote an entire section on that, the "4.2.4 The invariant
potential".
{BLOCKQUOTE [4]
identifiable like the invariant kinetic energy T
and the invariant potential energy V.
}
By invariance they explicitely mean "Lorentz-invariant terms".
Of course the relativistically *invariant* V on equations (4.36),
(4.37), (4.38), and (4.39) of monograph [4] is not simply the non-
relativistic potential V that you can find in textbooks on non-
relativistic mechanics.
The invariance of U is also proven with detail in many textbooks.
I will not comment adittional misunderstandings about this issue.
Karandash2 was also very confused about Einstein original papers.
Einstein uses electromagnetic potential energy concept in 1905.
Einstein also discusses about gravitational potential energies in
posterior works on relativity,
{BLOCKQUOTE [3]
It thus proves that for the fulfilment of the principle of energy
we have to ascribe to the energy E, before its emision in S_2,
a potential energy due to gravity, which correspond to the
gravitational mass E/c^2. Our assumption of the equivalence of K
and K' thus removes the difficulty mentioned at the beginning of
this paragraph which is left unsolved by the ordinary theory of
relativity.
}
However, today it is accepted that Einstein discussion about gravity
was naïve. The famous problem of energy in *general* relativity
remains unsolved.
In the other thread i received only 4 1-stars (imagine what four folks
voted against me). Since this thread will be of no interest to many
'relativists' because says stuff they do not like, I wait this time to
receive at least 80 1-stars. Thanks by votes!
Bill Hobba
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:1185025705.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:1185025705.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> The term "generalized" in generalized potential energy [1] is usually
> droped
Care to give a reference to its definition? I own quite a few physics
textbooks that define gerneralised momenta, forces etc - but not generalised
pectineal energy. Or is this another of your advanced concepts the basic
texts I have don't cover?
> The problem is that Bill Hobba, Gisse, Bilge and
> Karandash2 never studied physics (they claim the contrary).
Hmmmm. Bilge is a professionally qualified physicist, and I aspect
Karandash is as well, so by definition have studied physics. Gisse is doing
a masters in physics and I am doing a masters in math including mathematical
physics. Care to try again?
Bill
karand...@yahoo.com
<long list of Juanshito's RECURRING imbecilities snipped>
Juanshito,
After all these months, you still haven't been able to solve the
simple exercise I gave you, to derive the relativistic Lagrangian.
All you do is write "literature", you couldn't write an equation if
your life delended on it. So, you went away for a few months and the
best you could do was to find the wiki page where they show you a form
of the Lagrangian. But yoy cannot derive it, are you still looking for
the derivation, Juanshito? If you COULD (but you can't) you would see
no potential energy in the formula.
But you can't do it, Juanshito......
karand...@yahoo.com
> "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
We'll have to wait until Juanshito can show us his derivation of the
relativistic Lagrangian/Hamiltonian. After all, according to his
claims, this is what they specialise in at his "research center" (that
runs out of his own kitchen). It will be a loooong, loong wait since
Juamshito has never derived anything, the best he could do is an
occasional copy and paste :-)
Eric Gisse
> "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185025705.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The term "generalized" in generalized potential energy [1] is usually
> > droped
>
> Care to give a reference to its definition? I own quite a few physics
> textbooks that define gerneralised momenta, forces etc - but not generalised
> pectineal energy. Or is this another of your advanced concepts the basic
> texts I have don't cover?
He is either misunderstanding or lying. Wouldn't be the first time,
and most definitely won't be the last.
Quick review on a recent topic. If you have been reading subject
headers, you would know that recently I made the claim that
temperature is not a tensor by virtue of the fact tensors are
invariant and temperature is not an invariant in relativistic
thermodynamics. The argument went back and forth, with varying people
offering increasingly inane and stupid counter-arguments without ever
addressing the proof.
Then our buddy here decides that I am wrong because he found a few
articles on arXiv in which a quantity _called_ four-temperature, which
is the scalar temperature multiplied against the four-velocity.
Despite me pointing that out many times, he persisted until he got
tired of arguing the losing side. It didn't matter to him, at all,
that he was arguing from a *giant* red herring.
>
> > The problem is that Bill Hobba, Gisse, Bilge and
> > Karandash2 never studied physics (they claim the contrary).
>
> Hmmmm. Bilge is a professionally qualified physicist, and I aspect
> Karandash is as well, so by definition have studied physics. Gisse is doing
> a masters in physics and I am doing a masters in math including mathematical
> physics. Care to try again?
No, I'm not. But I effectively am through what I am officially
studying and what my interests are. I'll be wandering off to graduate
school next fall most likely, assuming I find one that a) I like and
b) would let me in.
This is the last year for my physics program. I have three lab classes
left, and no more theoretical work. Since I'll be bored to tears this
fall and spring, I'm throwing in a few graduate courses to keep things
interesting. Space physics and classical mechanics [Goldstein cover to
cover, barring one of the end chapters]. I also figure a few grad
classes under my belt with decent grades would be a + on an
application.
At any rate, I am continually baffled to see that this discussion will
not die the death it deserves.
Special relativity has no potential energies. Period. By itself, SR is
a free particle theory. The Lagrangian is rather specific - L = -
sqrt(1-v^2/^2)*mc^2. I look at it akin to the metric - everything you
need to know for equations of motion is stuffed into the metric. I can
_define_ special relativity through its' Lagrangian or metric, and
anything else will _not_ be special relativity.
Now, addressing what Juan is doing...
Taking the step to toss in a four-vector potential is perfectly fine,
but that turns what you are working with from "special relativity" to,
in the case of E&M, relativistic electrodynamics. It is
*fantastically* intelligently dishonest to claim that the SR
Lagrangian plus the electrodynamic Lagrangian is special relativity.
It is even _MORE_ dishonest [it is like making water more wet] to
claim that the relativistic electrodynamic Lagrangian has "potential
energy" because he thinks he can play the L = T - U game.
Think back to _how_ Lagrangian mechanics is started. Flip back to the
verrrrrry beginning of your classical mechanics textbook. Everything
is defined with F = ma. EVERYTHING. Now think about SR. Since you are
acquainted with the theory, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch for
you to understand me when I say "F=ma is wrong in SR".
Of course, you could [maybe, possibly] sidestep that by working
through the Hamiltonian formalism where momentum is the variable of
choice. But my point is that L = T - U isn't valid in relativistic
formalisms.
Or it could simply be pointed out that L needs to be a Lorentz scalar,
and that potential energies that are arbitrary functions of position,
velocity, and time do not satisfy that condition.
>
> Bill
Eric Gisse
[....]
Why is it that a lot of your posts are followed with folks voting it
up 24 times?
Juan R.
candidates and the decision is difficult one: their recurrent
misunderstandings about relativistic potential energies, ignoring
published literature and the sci.physics.research thread; the
distraction techniques to hide mistakes done in the past; etc.
Finally, I think that more funny part may be next
I saying the obvious,
> > The problem is that Bill Hobba, Gisse, Bilge and
> > Karandash2 never studied physics (they claim the contrary).
And Hobba replying,
> Hmmmm. Bilge is a professionally qualified physicist, and I aspect
> Karandash is as well, so by definition have studied physics. Gisse is doing
> a masters in physics and I am doing a masters in math including mathematical
> physics. Care to try again?
And then Gisse correcting Hobba
> No, I'm not. But I effectively am through what I am officially
> studying and what my interests are. I'll be wandering off to graduate
> school next fall most likely, assuming I find one that a) I like and
> b) would let me in.
Well, from the initial 4 self-proclaimed physists now remain only two
in the table.
Now it will be funny to see like they explain how Bilge "a
professionally qualified physicist" does not know dimensional analysis
and Karandash the other "professionally qualified physicist" is again
unable to write the *general* lagrangian and the *full* equation of
motion, which I asked him many times but he cannot write because does
not know the answer (he only know the easy part, the first
approximation appears in undergrad textbooks).
This is an open forum. Bilge ("a professionally qualified physicist")
is invited to explain which are the units of U, Energy? Length?
Temperature?
Karandash2 ("a professionally qualified physicist") is again asked to
write the full Lagrangian and the full equation of motion for an
charged particle. Both at the classical level of theory.
P.S: Above was the winner, but the second funny posting in the ranking
was when they ask me for giving the reference [1]. What part of
"multipart message" failed to grasp. It is a mistery...
Next the second part of the message
####
####
#### About Landau textbook and potential energies ####
####
Bill Hobba and others cited Landau as 'supporting' (they believed) the
idea of no existence of potential energies in relativity. I was
directed to read page 8, where they said me Landau proved that
potential energy was not applicable to relativity.
{BLOCKQUOTE [Bill Hobba]
Yep - I wrote that and it is virtually exactly what Lev Landau says
in
Mechanics; where it is carefully explained in his admittedly terse
style. I
suggest you get a copy and study it.
}
My copy of Landau is Spanish one and pagination varies. I asked Hobba
for a quoting of relevant parts on Landau english version for further
discussion but Hobba never provided one.
Fortunately, I got a English copy of Landau and I know now that page 8
of English version really says. How I already suspected then Landau
textbook is *not* saying that Gisse, Hobba, and others said about
nonexistence of potential energies or Lagrangians on relativity!
To summarize, in page 8 of english version of Mechanics, Landau and
Lifshitz write the Lagrangian L = T - U where U is the potential
energy. Next, they explain why *that* explicit expression for U (with
implies instantaneous interactions) is compatible with _Galileo_
relativity. They also explain otherwise the Lagrangian would be
incompatible with the principle of relativity. But wait a moment they
are speaking about -I cite from page 8- "Galileo's principle of
relativity".
In a footnote in the same page they state that the textbook will
restrict to the non-relativistic theory. They also state in the same
footnote that expresion U for potential energy (equation 5.1 in the
same page) is _only_ valid for the non-relativistic regime of motion.
Or said otherwise, the U in Landau (5.1) is a non-relativistic
potential energy.
More comments about other misunderstandings being made by Hobba,
Gisse, Bilge, and Karandash2:
[i]
In none part the page 8 says that the concept of potential energy was
incompatible with special relativity. In fact, in no part of the page
8 the authors speak about special relativity (except in the footnote
to say that they will ignore special relativity!). In page 8 they
write about Galilean relativity.
[ii]
In the footnote they state that expression for the potential energy U
on equation 5.1 is only valid in Newtonian mechanics. They are
carefull enough to write the functional dependence as U = U(r1,
r2, ...) where r are *spatial* coordinates. They also remark that they
take a potential energy U being a function only of spatial coordinates
in the text before (5.1).
That is, Landau and Lifschitz are limiting their discussion to
potential energies of kind U = U(r1, r2, ...). They do *not* discuss
more general potential energies.
[iii]
There exist several ways to write relativistic potential energies U.
A popular way is adding velocity components. This is done in
electromagnetism (see Goldstein or [1]). Then the potential energy is
not just U = U(r) like in Landau non-relativist treatise but a more
complex expression U = U(r, v).
In the non-relativistic regime (c--> infinity)
U(r, v) --> U(r).
See also extra remarks about velocity dependent potential energies in
[5].
The use of velocity-dependent potential energies is very common in
nuclear and atomic physics. The Darwin potential energy (valid up to
c^2 aprox.) is a popular choice in relativistic quantum chemistry
(higher order terms are too expensive computationally).
Velocity-dependent potential energies are also sometimes used in
gravity. E.g. using a relativistic potential energy, Assis got the
perihelion anomaly of Mercury. From modifications of that potential
energy other authors derived other gravitational tests like the light
bending around Sun. More recent work by Assis on unified
gravitoelectromagnetism has received some endorsement from Penrose.
Erwing Schrödinger also worked in relativistic potential energies for
gravity, as explained in paper [15] published in the journal General
Relativity and Gravitation; I would add Schrödinger had little sucess
because his potential energy was not good.
A latest example is that of Eugene V. Stefanovich [16] who recovers
classical tests of relativistic gravity.
The interesting question is not if those potentials are exact or if
they would be generalized or modified (I think they may be admended).
The question is that using relativistic potential energies you can
reproduce experimental results traditionally interpreted as resulting
from curved spacetimes.
That are bad news for relativists because they thought everyone that
gravity is curvature of spacetime, whereas ignoring alternative
formulations (they dislike).
Another way to generalize non-relativistic potential energies is via a
direct covariant generalization U = U(x^b) with b = 0,1,2,3. This
leads to the covariant relativistic theory discussed with detail in
[4], where the relativistic potential energy plays a fundamental role
in the study of multi-body dynamics, including chaotic regimes. The
theory defined in [4] can be used for modelling phenomena where other
relativistic theories fail. From page 268 of monograph [4]:
{BLOCKQUOTE
Of course, the most interesting results derivable from the
many-body theory are for systems for which field theory is not
capable of producing the equations of motion.
}
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> I am not sure what on above replies is more funny. There are several
> candidates and the decision is difficult one: their recurrent
> misunderstandings about relativistic potential energies, ignoring
> published literature and the sci.physics.research thread; the
> distraction techniques to hide mistakes done in the past; etc.
> Finally, I think that more funny part may be next
Well, you could either address what I say or whine in a most passively
aggressive fashion.
I see you chose the latter option.
[...]
>
> Well, from the initial 4 self-proclaimed physists now remain only two
> in the table.
...and your qualifications in physics are what, exactly?
PhD? Masters? Bachelors? "Learned via osmosis"? Devry?
>
> Now it will be funny to see like they explain how Bilge "a
> professionally qualified physicist" does not know dimensional analysis
> and Karandash the other "professionally qualified physicist" is again
> unable to write the *general* lagrangian and the *full* equation of
> motion, which I asked him many times but he cannot write because does
> not know the answer (he only know the easy part, the first
> approximation appears in undergrad textbooks).
This is amusing considering how many times you have simply copied and
pasted from other textbooks - like Goldstein for example.
[...]
> To summarize, in page 8 of english version of Mechanics, Landau and
> Lifshitz write the Lagrangian L = T - U where U is the potential
> energy. Next, they explain why *that* explicit expression for U (with
> implies instantaneous interactions) is compatible with _Galileo_
> relativity. They also explain otherwise the Lagrangian would be
> incompatible with the principle of relativity. But wait a moment they
> are speaking about -I cite from page 8- "Galileo's principle of
> relativity".
Try to pay attention. Special relativity is the topic under
discussion, not Galilean relativity.
[galilean..galilean...yet more galilean...who the fuck cares]
>
> That is, Landau and Lifschitz are limiting their discussion to
> potential energies of kind U = U(r1, r2, ...). They do *not* discuss
> more general potential energies.
>
> [iii]
> There exist several ways to write relativistic potential energies U.
Finally. Back on special relativity.
>
> A popular way is adding velocity components. This is done in
> electromagnetism (see Goldstein or [1]). Then the potential energy is
> not just U = U(r) like in Landau non-relativist treatise but a more
> complex expression U = U(r, v).
That's because the Lagrangian has to be Lorentz invariant. Potential
energies that are only functions of position, in general, do not
qualify.
>
> In the non-relativistic regime (c--> infinity)
>
> U(r, v) --> U(r).
I would LOVE to see you try to prove this statement.
>
> See also extra remarks about velocity dependent potential energies in
> [5].
>
> The use of velocity-dependent potential energies is very common in
> nuclear and atomic physics. The Darwin potential energy (valid up to
> c^2 aprox.) is a popular choice in relativistic quantum chemistry
> (higher order terms are too expensive computationally).
You are drifting - yet more irrelevant verbiage about a subject that
is completely off-topic.
[yawn, irrelevant crap snipped]
>
> That are bad news for relativists because they thought everyone that
> gravity is curvature of spacetime, whereas ignoring alternative
> formulations (they dislike).
That's right - alternative formulations are universally crap or are
theories in which general relativity is a direct mathematical subset.
Physicists [don't try to frame the debate via language by saying
'relativists'] have no use for theories that make either untestable or
incorrect predictions.
>
> Another way to generalize non-relativistic potential energies is via a
> direct covariant generalization U = U(x^b) with b = 0,1,2,3. This
> leads to the covariant relativistic theory discussed with detail in
> [4], where the relativistic potential energy plays a fundamental role
> in the study of multi-body dynamics, including chaotic regimes. The
> theory defined in [4] can be used for modelling phenomena where other
> relativistic theories fail. From page 268 of monograph [4]:
Really, where do any relativistic theories fail?
Do you actually have a reference, or are you bullshitting as usual?
Yua...@gmail.com
Chronic masturbation?
Love,
Jenny
Juan R.
Dishonest tactics?
Juan R.
It is funny to read above replies. Eric Gisse using more liar
techniques, modifying I am really saying, parroting I wrote before for
simulating he knows, and all those well-known tactics. And to Bilge
and Karandash2 replying to questions I asked. Upps wait, no they did
not reply still!
Karandash2 (a supposed physicist) still cannot write the general
lagrangian not the full equation of motion for classical EM. I have
asked him many times. I am doing it once again, but since the answer
is not in the undergrad level textbook on the library, he cannot
reply. End.
Bilge (the other supposed physicist) still has not explained what are
the units of U. He has huge difficulties to apply dimensional calculus
to U and to get its units. Since in their own words U = [e * phi] - [j
* A] is not an energy:
>> Look, moron... That expression is not a potential energy. An energy
>> is the time component of a four-vector, not the scalar product of two
>> four-vectors. jeeezzzz...
Bilge, since you claim U is not an energy, please show us what are the
units of U? Length? Temperature?
####
####
#### Steve Carlip misconceptions and misreading ####
####
In a reply to Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato, Tim Shuba decided to submit
next post:
On Jul 13, 11:11 pm, shuba <tim.sh...@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote:
> Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > We share same opinion about Juan.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/22bf366b013f1d39?dmode...
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
It links to an old reply by Steve Carlip about Newtonian limits I had
not replied in detail.
I had prepared a complete post with several references but I have
though better and finally I will not post here. Since Carlip has
adquired an international fame by his attacks to several scientists
with ideas and research different from he likes, he truly deserves
more attention from my part. I prefer to reply him in a more formal
way in a published letter.
The letter has a threefold aim:
i]
I want to correct certain technical mistakes that Carlip is spreading
both offline (e.g. in recent publications about the speed of gravity
issue) and online in this and other newsgroups.
ii]
Steve Carlip attributes to me many assertions actually were not made,
and I want to correct that also. For instance i said, in a clear and
simple way, that the Newtonian potential IS a solution of the Poisson
equation and Carlip, accusse me from saying the contrary! That
distraction tactic is well-know. Whereas he avoid to reply to
thecnical questions i ask him. I am still waiting from him to explain
us how functions f(r,t) magically convert to f(R(t))
iii]
It has an educative and sociological orientation, since you can
analyse Carlip behavior and diferent techniques used during debate:
directly insulting, attempts to trivialize some technical question
deserving further study, direct manipulation I am really saying, and
some others.
Juan R.
####
####
#### The references ####
####
I have eliminated the references corresponding to the Carlip message.
[1] F. E. Udwaida; R. E. Kalaba. Analytical dynamics: a new approach.
Page 160.
[2] Bertrand Russell. The ABC of relativity. Page. 108.
[3] A. Einstein. Gravitation and light.
[4] M. A. Trump; W. C. Schieve. Classical relativistic many-body
dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
[5] http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
[15] J. J. Caluzi; A. K. T. Assis. General Relativity and Gravitation,
Vol. 27, pp. 429-437 (1995).
[16] http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019
[18] http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0209025
[19] Phys. Rev. D 1986, 33, 3338
[20] http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2004-01/msg0057839.html;
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2004-01/msg0057852.html;
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2004-01/msg0057858.html.
[21] J. of Chem. Phys. 1996. 104(20). 7988-7996.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[...]
You could always, you know, respond to what is said instead of whining
in an extremely passive aggressive manner.
Juan R.
> On Jul 21, 8:55 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>
> > "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1185025705.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The term "generalized" in generalized potential energy [1] is usually
> > > droped
>
> > Care to give a reference to its definition? I own quite a few physics
> > textbooks that define gerneralised momenta, forces etc - but not generalised
> > pectineal energy. Or is this another of your advanced concepts the basic
> > texts I have don't cover?
>
> He is either misunderstanding or lying. Wouldn't be the first time,
> and most definitely won't be the last.
But there is a third posibility you never consider (and is the
posibility always holds) and is that contrary to your recurrent claims
you (like Bilge, Karandash2 or Hobba) did never (never) study physics.
Hobba can continue to remain perplexed about so elementary stuff like
"generalized potential energy".
And you can continue to agree with him whereas dreaming you are
studying physics.
Rest of people can take a look to "dreams", a snapshot of the page 160
of the textbook i cited in reference [1].
The name Dreams for the image is in your truly honor, since you
continue to dream that you know physics.
But, of course, Eric Gisse will cry again that is studying physics,
that he took 3 millions of courses on physics and math and then he
will claim that book I am citing is completely wrong (because Gisse
cannot accept he is a fraud).
Then Gisse will insult the book and blame authors have no idea of
mechanics or physics and he has idea (he dreams).
And then he will try to argue that the rest of 300 people choosing [1]
like one of best textbooks on the topic are, of course, liars or
ignorants.
You also can misread, can manipulate, can do everything you want.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_I-n4UWp0ZqM/RqSM4Efw78I/AAAAAAAAAAM/D1yD3wc8qF0/s1600-h/dreams.gif
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521482178
{{ Rest of your misreadings, liars, new and old mistakes simply
ignored }}
Yua...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think he just needs a girlfriend.
Notice that Eric couldn't figure out that karandash2 was voting for
himself!
Notice also that karandash2 couldn't resist voting me one star on my
two posts.
Neither of them are the sharpest tool in the shed.
They're just young kids, not worth your time.
Jenny
bz
@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> I think he just needs a girlfriend.
>
> Notice that Eric couldn't figure out that karandash2 was voting for
> himself!
>
> Notice also that karandash2 couldn't resist voting me one star on my
> two posts.
>
> Neither of them are the sharpest tool in the shed.
>
> They're just young kids, not worth your time.
Notice that many [most?] people do NOT use google groups to view usenet
postings and could care less about 'stars'. Usenet has been around for many
years and the google interface to it is very new.
For example, I use Xnews to read and post to usenet, have never voted for or
against anyone[if it can even be done], and could not care less about the
number of 'stars' anyone has or gets.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
Yua...@gmail.com
> Yuan...@gmail.com wrote
> > They're just young kids, not worth your time.
>
> Notice that many [most?] people do NOT use google groups to view usenet
> postings and could care less about 'stars'. Usenet has been around for many
> years and the google interface to it is very new.
>
Yes, karandash2's obessesion with awarding himself stars is puerile.
> For example, I use Xnews to read and post to usenet, have never voted for or
> against anyone[if it can even be done], and could not care less about the
> number of 'stars' anyone has or gets.
>
I guess that the obsession comes from being awarded stars by his
teachers.
It demonstrates a need for approval.
Eric was wondering why he doesn't get 5 stars for his posts. Life is
so unfair.
Love,
Jenny
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 23, 4:49 am, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 8:41 pm, Yuan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 22, 1:24 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 21, 10:05 pm, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > [....]
>
> > > > Why is it that a lot of your posts are followed with folks voting it
> > > > up 24 times?
>
> > > Chronic masturbation?
>
> > > Love,
> > > Jenny
>
> > Dishonest tactics?
>
> I think he just needs a girlfriend.
;)
>
> Notice that Eric couldn't figure out that karandash2 was voting for
> himself!
Of course he is. I just want to know why.
[...]
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On Jul 22, 8:23 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 8:55 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1185025705.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > The term "generalized" in generalized potential energy [1] is usually
> > > > droped
>
> > > Care to give a reference to its definition? I own quite a few physics
> > > textbooks that define gerneralised momenta, forces etc - but not generalised
> > > pectineal energy. Or is this another of your advanced concepts the basic
> > > texts I have don't cover?
>
> > He is either misunderstanding or lying. Wouldn't be the first time,
> > and most definitely won't be the last.
>
> But there is a third posibility you never consider (and is the
> posibility always holds) and is that contrary to your recurrent claims
> you (like Bilge, Karandash2 or Hobba) did never (never) study physics.
What about you? What are your qualifications?
You have the stones to assert that we never studied physics, yet you
don't tell us about your education.
Bilge has his doctorate, and has been doing physics for longer than I
have been alive. I am 6 classes - 3 of them worthless humanities
courses - away from having a BSc in Physics. I see no reason to lie
about my education. More often than not I have to explain that I'm not
as educated as I appear to be, because I have knowledge of subjects of
my official education.
>
> Hobba can continue to remain perplexed about so elementary stuff like
> "generalized potential energy".
He is confused because nobody uses "generalized potential energy". The
proper term for the quantity you are describing is "generalized
forces".
[...]
> {{ Rest of your misreadings, liars, new and old mistakes simply
> ignored }}
Here, I'll condense my argument for you because you seem to have a
reading disability.
The quantity L = T - U cannot be a Lagrangian in relativistic systems
because U is an arbitrary function of position, velocity, and time.
Such a quantity is not a Lorentz scalar.
For reference about what a Lorentz scalar is, refer to the many
discussions about how temperature is not a Lorentz scalar. I explained
it at least 10 times.
Bill Hobba
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185085398.7...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
For some reason I thought you were already doing your masters. Thanks for
the clarification.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> This is last part of the message.
>
> It is funny to read above replies.
Still avoiding deriving the relativistic lagrnagian. Its derivation is one
of the most beautiful in all of physics - so beautiful Zwienbach in his
First Course in String Theory devotes a whole chapter to it. Landau - in
his usual terse style - one page in Classical Theory of Fields. Jesus I
have even posted it before. You have the sources so it should be a snap -
care to post it?
Bill
Juan R.
> On Jul 23, 4:49 am, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 8:41 pm, Yuan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 22, 1:24 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 21, 10:05 pm, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > [....]
>
> > > > Why is it that a lot of your posts are followed with folks voting it
> > > > up 24 times?
>
> > > Chronic masturbation?
>
> > > Love,
> > > Jenny
>
> > Dishonest tactics?
>
> I think he just needs a girlfriend.
I cannot imagine a reason which she would receive such one punishment.
> Notice that Eric couldn't figure out that karandash2 was voting for
> himself!
Why am I not surprised karandash2 was voting for himself 20 or more
times?
And yes, Eric continues dreaming in GisseLand.
> Notice also that karandash2 couldn't resist voting me one star on my
> two posts.
It seems he continues without resist the temptation.
Karandash2 also considers that the message containing an useful list
of references to standard printed literature, two ArXiv preprints, and
one sci.physics.research thread also deserves one-star.
> Neither of them are the sharpest tool in the shed.
Notice how they are still lying about knowing physics.
Notice also after being shown multiple published references, including
one of best textbooks on mechanics today aclaimed by hundred of
physicists (I provided both the reference and an Amazon link to the
reviews of the textbook) they continue lying.
E.g. Eric excusing now Hobba "He is confused because nobody uses
generalized potential energy."
But Hobba himself lying now again. Now he find a introductory book on
string theory and next will claim he know string theory!
> They're just young kids, not worth your time.
100% agree.
> Jenny
Cheers.