Relativistic Quantum Mechanics?
Nick
dilate as particles sped up and slowed
down in space.
Anybody know the theory?
Probably just amateurs.
Al Zenner
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
In your defense I have to say you're sometimes, probably
accidentally, amusing.
Eric Gisse
macro...@internetcds.com
Eugene Stefanovich
In quantum mechanics, particle momentum is
(roughly) inversely proportional to the separation
between closest maxima of
the wave function. So, when particle moves faster,
the wave function shrinks. When particle moves slower,
the wave function expands. When particle stands still,
the wave function does not oscillate in space.
Eugene.
macro...@internetcds.com
All real matter is in motion. That is what Einstein said:
There is no absolute stillness.
It may not oscillate in relative stilness. It would be a
standing wave.
Ha!
Eugene Stefanovich
You are right, motion depends on observer. For one observer
the particle stands still, for another observer the particle is moving.
Therefore, the wave function describing the particle state depends
on the observer too. Each observer describes the same particle by a
different wave function. An observer co-moving with the
particle will see a wave function without regular oscillations in space
(for example, it could be a Gaussian shape function).
An observer moving with respect to the particle will see a wave
function that is
psi(x) = Gaussian * exp(ipx)
where p is particle's momentum.
Eugene.
macro...@internetcds.com
you can have relative stillness
of more than one thing when they
are moving together through space.
This movement though is absolute. T
hat again is a reason behind what
Einstein had to say: There is no
absolute stillness.
All matter is moving through space in
some way and this is the reason for
space-time contraction. It is
not relative in the sense that it is
not reciprocal: only fast moving
objects experience the effect.
This is a departure from Einstein
I know. He went to far. The reciprocal
appearence has nothing to do with
physics. Physics shouldn't be about
an appearence but rather universal
laws.
Mitch Raemsch
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
Nick wrote:
> Probability waves would contract and
> dilate as particles sped up and slowed
> down in space.
Joao Magueijo said the Plack Length must be absolute, not subject to
Lorentz contraction.
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
He also said it about the Planck Length, BTW.
Hell, I already spelt "Joao Magueijo" right!
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
It's bad having your spells go wrong on Halloween.
Bilge
>which is *different* from relativistic quantum MECHANICS.
Bjorken & Drell, Volume I.
>Eugene, for instance, is working an example of relativistic quantum
>mechanics, where one studies the full dynamics of *particles* not only
>scattering processes in the infinite past and infinite future for
>supposed fundamental fields -that nobody has measured-.
No, eugene only thinks that's what he's doing. In reality, he trying
trying to use quantum theory to evade quantum theory.
>
>Our own formulation of the topic is called quantum relativistic
>dynamics.
>
>http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/others/research.xml
>
>A technical explanation of this approach will appear in the research
>zone in brief.
It makes little difference, since the url above is unreadable.
>Our theory has been already generalized to gravitation -showing why
>Einstein General Relativity is not a correct approach to gravity- and I
Since you weren't able to grasp the idea of a non-relativistic
limit, I don't see how you could really claim to be doing anything
more subtle.
Gregory L. Hansen
Nick <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Probability waves would contract and
>dilate as particles sped up and slowed
>down in space.
Yes.
>
>Anybody know the theory?
>Probably just amateurs.
It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book "Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive treatment that
doesn't involve field theories.
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992
Eric Gisse
Juan R. wrote:
> which is *different* from relativistic quantum MECHANICS.
If I knew the difference I wouldn't need the book.
I have made enough assumptions about both and been told "no you mean
QM" and/or "no you mean QFT" for me to not know the difference. So, I
am just gonna buy a book and see what I can get out of it. If I can't,
it will simply sit on the shelf until I have the education to grok it.
[snip]
Eric Gisse
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <1130730225.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Nick <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Probability waves would contract and
> >dilate as particles sped up and slowed
> >down in space.
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> >Anybody know the theory?
> >Probably just amateurs.
>
> It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book "Relativistic Quantum
> Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive treatment that
> doesn't involve field theories.
I know little about either, so I ordered a book on relativistic quantum
field theory.
Bad choice?
Nick
Eric Gisse
Nick wrote:
> I can tell you where its wrong.
DIE.
Gregory L. Hansen
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> In article <1130730225.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> Nick <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Probability waves would contract and
>> >dilate as particles sped up and slowed
>> >down in space.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >
>> >Anybody know the theory?
>> >Probably just amateurs.
>>
>> It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book "Relativistic Quantum
>> Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive treatment that
>> doesn't involve field theories.
>
>I know little about either, so I ordered a book on relativistic quantum
>field theory.
>
>Bad choice?
I suppose it depends on what you were looking for. Most physics programs
send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it was a
bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new concepts
on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back and said
"What the hell just happened?"
--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet
Eugene Stefanovich
Juan R. wrote:
> I am sure. Most of is said in quantum field theory books is completely
> wrong.
I wouldn't use such strong words, after all, all these books eventually
calculate correctly the electron's magnetic moment and other goodies.
However, I agree that modern presentation of quantum field theory is
rather confusing, to put it mildly. The book that makes most sense to me
is Weinberg's "The quantum theory of fields" vol. 1. He starts from
particles described as irreducible unitary representations of the
Poincare group. Then he builds the Fock space as a direct sum of
n-particle Hilbert spaces. Then he tries to build an interacting
representation of the Poincare group in this Fock space. In this
approach, quantum fields appear as purely formal combinations of
particle creation and annihilation operator whose only role is
to simplify the construction of relativistically invariant
interactions. It makes more sense
to consider particles, rather than fields, as "the fundamental
ingredients of nature".
Eugene.
Eugene Stefanovich
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> Most physics programs
> send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it was a
> bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new concepts
> on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back and said
> "What the hell just happened?"
I had the same feeling for many years. Not anymore. I think I finally
got what QFT is about, But the answer is different from what is written
in most textbooks. So, I wrote my own textbook
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062 . Hope you like it.
Eugene.
Eric Gisse
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <1130823851....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> >> In article <1130730225.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Nick <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Probability waves would contract and
> >> >dilate as particles sped up and slowed
> >> >down in space.
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Anybody know the theory?
> >> >Probably just amateurs.
> >>
> >> It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book "Relativistic Quantum
> >> Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive treatment that
> >> doesn't involve field theories.
> >
> >I know little about either, so I ordered a book on relativistic quantum
> >field theory.
> >
> >Bad choice?
>
> I suppose it depends on what you were looking for. Most physics programs
> send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it was a
> bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new concepts
> on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back and said
> "What the hell just happened?"
I am yet to decide what I am looking for. I will know it when I find
it. But, for example, I would *love* to truly understand the Casimir
effect, at least in the context of QFT. I am sure there are more subtle
effects that I haven't been told about yet, though which amuse me
greatly to learn about.
The "new concept" bit happens so often I am used to it at this point.
"Killing vector? What the fuck is that? <few days later> ooohhh...."
FrediFizzx
news:1130890301.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Try Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum
Electrodynamics" for a few different approaches to the Casimir stuff.
And the Lamb shift, etc.
FrediFizzx
Gregory L. Hansen
Well, no single book will do it for QFT, and you have to start somewhere.
You'll probably have a better idea what the next one should be after you
spend some time in the first.
The standard evolution of learning seems to be:
1. Eager anticipation.
2. Impressed with your own knowledge of the subject.
3. Some WTF moments uncovered when you return to parts you'd blipped over.
4. Desperate search through sundry other materials to try to figure out
what the hell just happened.
6. You are wiser than other men because you know that you know nothing.
Have fun with it.
--
"Yes, I revere you much, honored ones, and wish to fart in response." --
Aristophanes, Clouds
Eric Gisse
I don't know anything about QED and it still makes my head hurt. o_O
GR has been treating me right...
>
> FrediFizzx
Gregory L. Hansen
I've been more at peace with the field as "the fundamental ingredients of
nature", and particles as an interpretation of the field. And they're an
interpretation that doesn't generalize to arbitrary spacetimes, which I
think makes them REALLY more fundamental-- if there's no natural particle
interpretation in arbitrary spacetimes then particles aren't fundamental.
Quantum field theory really is a theory of fields, and Greiner's "Field
Quantization" is an excellent book from that point of view. That is, he
starts with field theory. Plain old, non-quantum field theory, with
physical quantities defined through the stress-energy tensor the way you
would in any other field theory. And he quantizes the fields once.
But one way or the other, yes, the presentation is confusing, to put it
mildly.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
Bilge
>Bilge wrote:
>> Juan R.:
>> >Eric Gisse wrote:
>> >> Nick wrote:
>> >> > Probability waves would contract and
>> >> > dilate as particles sped up and slowed
>> >> > down in space.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anybody know the theory?
>> >> > Probably just amateurs.
>> >>
>> >> http://store.yahoo.com/doverpublications/0486442284.html
>> >
>> >Eric you have pointed to a book on relativistic quantum FIELD theory
>> >which is *different* from relativistic quantum MECHANICS.
>>
>> Bjorken & Drell, Volume I.
>
What kind of a stupid question is that? On the contrary, I'm quite
sure that bjorken & drell vol I, is NOT about non-relativistic quantum
mechanics. The title, ``Relativistic Quantum Mehanics'' printed on
the cover of the book shold be the first clue.
Congratualtions. I don't recall anyone ever asking if a reference
I provided is about something other than the subject for which
the reference was requested.
>What is the relativistic quantum wave equation for a electron?
Following your logic above, does that mean you want me to supply
a non-relativistic equation from shiff so you can object that it
isn't a field theoretic expression from a book on relativistic
quantum mechanics or what? I'll tell you what. You go figure out
what you're question is and ask yourself in all seriousness if you're
really just trolling.
[...]
>> No, eugene only thinks that's what he's doing. In reality, he trying
>> trying to use quantum theory to evade quantum theory.
>
>Metaphysical claims?
Yes - eugene's metaphysical claims.
>If you cannot distinguhes between relativistic qwuantum mechanics
>Bjorken & Drell, Volume I
WTF does that mean?
>why would i believe that you can correctly valuate Eugene own proposal?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that eugene's conclusions are
blatantly inconsistent with his assumptions, so you don't have to believe
me. Ask ayone who has the ability to connect mathematics to the physics it
represents.
I find it extremely ironic that the kooks who constantly chant their
mantra about the importance of physics over mathematics are the very
same kooks who rearrange the terms in equations until the physics
is sufficiently obscured that they think they've discovered new physics
which is only true if an equation is written in whatever quirky fashion
they can misunderstand best.
In any theory that might be called a quantum theory, things like
[p,x] = -i\hbar appear in one form or another. In a poincare invariant
theory, the observables p' and x commute if the measurements they
represent made by observers in S and S' are separated by a spacelike
interval. It simply isn't possible to claim that interactions can
propagate between those two events without contradicting either
the quantum mechanics or the poincare invariance.
He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
it's easy to not take him seriously.
[...]
>> Since you weren't able to grasp the idea of a non-relativistic
>> limit, I don't see how you could really claim to be doing anything
>> more subtle.
>
>Have you computed the nonrelativistic limit of GR. Where?
You've been given a number of references already in a previous
thread. You simply reject everything by reflex, so why should I
bother repeating what you've been told, much less assume any effort
on my part to clarify it for you would be anything but a waste
of effort?
>Interestingly Dirac wrote similar thoughts about the failure for
>obtaining the nonrelativistic limit of QED. Probably you unknown
>both...
Even more ``interestingly,'' you didn't bother to write down
an equation and point out this difficulty.
Eugene Stefanovich
Bilge wrote:
> He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
> poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
> magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
> conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
> or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
> it's easy to not take him seriously.
Thank you for this accurate but rather sketchy description of my
approach. I would like to add that above statements have proofs based
on axioms of quantum mechanics and the principle of relativity.
The details are in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062
It's easy to not take me seriously, it's a bit harder to reject
the proofs.
Eugene.
FrediFizzx
news:4369010...@synopsys.com...
It's really quite simple. If the quantum "vacuum" is not a medium, then
you are right. If the quantum "vacuum" is a medium, then you are wrong.
Grigori Volovik says you are wrong which is good enough for me.
http://ltl.tkk.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html
http://ltl.tkk.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik/book.pdf
FrediFizzx
Eric Gisse
Bilge wrote:
[snip]
> He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
> poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
> magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
> conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
> or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
> it's easy to not take him seriously.
[snip]
"Of the following, which does not belong...?"
Eric Gisse
Juan R. wrote:
[snip]
>.. I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived
> from GR.
You are wrong.
Any book that touches on linearized GR will mention this. Such as
"Spacetime and Geometry", "Gravitation", or Wald's "General
Relativity".
>
> Juan R.
>
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Bilge
>
>Bilge ha escrito:
>
>> Juan R.:
>> >> Bjorken & Drell, Volume I.
>> >
>> >Sure that those is abut nonrelativistic quantum mechanics?
>>
>> What kind of a stupid question is that? On the contrary, I'm quite
>> sure that bjorken & drell vol I, is NOT about non-relativistic quantum
>> mechanics. The title, ``Relativistic Quantum Mehanics'' printed on
>> the cover of the book shold be the first clue.
>>
>> Congratualtions. I don't recall anyone ever asking if a reference
>> I provided is about something other than the subject for which
>> the reference was requested.
>
>read "abOut Relativistic quantum mechanics" Sorry.
>
>However, you have replied just as i wait you would do.
If you mean that I didn't assume anything about what you mean, then
you were right. I don't assume anything once it becomes obvious that
someone is only going to exploit that to digress on semantics bullshit
just as you've done below:
>Since you read "Relativistic Quantum Mehanics" printed in the cover
>you think that those is correct.
Basically, your point is nothing but a semantics argument over a
definition. Tough. I'm not about to waste time trying to reconcile
your personal definition of relativistic quantum mechanics with the
definition everyone else uses. I also have no interest in arguing
over your personal semantics issues just because I assume that
relativistic quantum mechanics refers to a theory called relativistic
quantum mechanics, which just happens to be the same theory found
in bjorken & drell. If you don't like the theory, then make an
objection about something other than the words.
>But is NOT because the theory inside is incorrect as already noted Dirac,
>and Landau, and etc.
That should make it simple for you to post what you think is
incorrect. But so far, the most you've managed to do is argue
about the words.
>As an example of how wrong that book is, please, to explain to us, for
>example, with is the relativistic interaction between two electrons at
>second order in c and e. for example how did Breit studie the level
>shift in the Helium atom?
I'm sorry, but ``please, to explain to us,...'' is not an example of
anything, incorrect or not. It's a request to explain something and
what you've requested isn't even in the book, so you can't possibly
consider it to be an incorrect example from the book. Instead of
asserting something is incorrect and then telling me to go find your
example for you, post it yourself.
>You would leave serious stuff to prepared people (premier leage) and
>you would focus only in elementary stuff (undergraduate stuff and
>similar).
I guess your idea of serious stuff is a semantics argument, so that's
fine with me.
[...]
>I am not asking to you advanced stuff. I am asking elementary stuff.
In which case, it should be elementary for you to just post your
argument instead of relying on me to do it for you. You'll excuse
me if I don't waste my time trying to decipher your vaguely worded
objections. If you have some objection, post your argument, not a
road map with hints as to where I can find instrutions on mind reading.
>/What is the relativistic quantum wave equation for a electron?/
>
>If Bjorken & Drell, Volume I is about relativistic quantum mechanics,
>my question would be easily replied. No?
It is easy. In fact, you can see for yourself by reading from page
6 on in the first chapter. Then, work problem 3. So far, your entire
argument amounts to some bizarre objection to calling the content
of bjorken & drell, ``relativistic quantum mechanics,'' without even
bothering to explain your objection or why your objection is anything
but a personal objection to terminology.
[...]
>How i explained several times in spr and also here I do not support all
>of Eugene theory, but at least i recognize that he is doing intersting
>stuff. Have you a better theory?
qed
[...]
>> which is only true if an equation is written in whatever quirky fashion
>> they can misunderstand best.
>
>I find more ironic still the attitude of some guys to believe that
>'mainstraim physics' is complete or rigorous.
We aren't talking about ``those guys'', whomever ``those guys'' might be.
I suggest you talk to ``those guys,'' if you want to debate their attitude.
>> In any theory that might be called a quantum theory, things like
>> [p,x] = -i\hbar appear in one form or another. In a poincare invariant
>> theory, the observables p' and x commute if the measurements they
>> represent made by observers in S and S' are separated by a spacelike
>> interval. It simply isn't possible to claim that interactions can
>> propagate between those two events without contradicting either
>> the quantum mechanics or the poincare invariance.
>
>I do not reply this because you are incorrectly begining your
>discussion, please do not wrote nonrelativistic stuff in a thread about
>relativistic stuff.
Excuse me? Since when does relativity say momentum or position
measurements are impossible?
>[p,x] = -i\hbar is valid for nonrelativistic QM.
>
>Correct this and try again.
Oh excuse me, I thought you were talking about relativistic quantum
mechanics where the quantum replacements for E and p are given by
E = i\hbar\d/dt and p = -i\hbar\grad. I was led astray by your use
of the term ``relativsitic quantum mechanics.''
>> He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
>> poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
>> magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
>> conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
>> or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
>> it's easy to not take him seriously.
>
>Again elementary stuff? Where (2) and (3) are incompatible. Please cite
>references.
Stop playing your citation game. If you can demonstrate that (2) and
(3) are compatible, just do so. Its rather obvious to me that lorentz
invariance is required for light to propagate at a constant velocity and
by definition, spacelike events cannot be time ordered, which rules out
any causal connection between spacelike separated events. I'm not really
sure why you need a citation for that or why you think that isn't obvious.
Are you claiming that electromagnetic interactions aren't casullay
connected to the interactions of the charges interacting? If so, then the
reason for that is also obvious. You've chosen use two inconsistent
descriptions of the interaction, which is what eugene does. Feel free to
prove otherwise, just don't expect me to read your mind and waste time
trying to figure out what you are babbling about.
>> [...]
>> You've been given a number of references already in a previous
>> thread. You simply reject everything by reflex, so why should I
>> bother repeating what you've been told, much less assume any effort
>> on my part to clarify it for you would be anything but a waste
>> of effort?
>
>Curious. Yes references were cited. References i had read and pointed
>why and WHERE were wrong. Nobody replied to points i said were wrong.
Well, for one, you said you weren't interested in the ``covariant
version'' of galilean relativity. Classical physics is galilean
covariant. Whatever point you had was irrelevant as far as classical
physics and general relativity is concerned, so it's irrelevant to
your argument.
[...]
>> Even more ``interestingly,'' you didn't bother to write down
>> an equation and point out this difficulty.
>
>What?
I said, ``Even more `interestingly,' you didn't bother to write down
an equation and point out this difficulty.'' It appears you still haven't
done so.
>I know perfectly why nonrelativistic QM cannot be obtained from
>relativisitc QFT.
>I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived from GR.
No one has held a gun to your head to keep you posting your proof
of those claims. You haven't posted such a proof and I don't plan on
begging you to post it nor do I plan to play 20 questions.
Bilge
Think about what those mean physically. If X causes Y, then the
events X and Y are time ordered. So, if interactions are instantaneous,
then moving a charge at event X is causally related to the motion of a
charge at Y and X and Y are time ordered. Conversely, events which are
simultaneous cannot be time ordered. By definition, simutaneous events
happen at the same time.
If some interaction propagates a distance \delta x in a time interval
delta t, i.e., v = \delta x/(\delta t), simultaneous events must be
separated by a distance, d > v\delta t.
You have two possibilities:
If a theory is poincare invariant,(i.e., relativistic) then
the `v' above is `c', and spacelike events have separations
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx.dx < 0. Since simultaneous events are not
causally related, an interaction cannot propagate faster than
`c'. In addition, only massless particles propagate at `c'.
If the theory galilean invariant, then simultaneity is absolute and
interactions can propagate at arbitrarily large velocities, but no
object can have a frame independent velocity, otherwise its kinetic
energy would be frame independent, since E = (1/2)mv^2.
If you choose the theory to be poincare invariant, then the
following are compatible.
If light propagates at a constant velocitym then it propagtes at
`c'. Then E&M is poincare invariant and the photon is massless. The
interactions cannot propagate faster since that isn't consistent with
the definition of poincare invariance or simultaneity. In addition,
if light propagates at `c', charge is conserved.
If light doesn't propagate at `c', then obviously, the photon is
massive. As a consequence, charge isn't conserved, but the theory
can still be poincare invariant.
Eric Gisse
Bilge wrote:
> Eric Gisse:
> >
> >Bilge wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
> >> poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
> >> magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
> >> conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
> >> or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
> >> it's easy to not take him seriously.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >"Of the following, which does not belong...?"
>
> Think about what those mean physically.
[snip good argument]
I was simply thinking in terms of photons being the mediators of
electromagnetic interactions.
Bilge
>I was simply thinking in terms of photons being the mediators of
>electromagnetic interactions.
That is the easiest way to think of it and I probably would have said
something along those lines, except for the fact that a couple of others
posting in this thread try to leverage terminology by objecting to the
words to avoid dealing directly with the physics. You've probably noticed
at this point that the objection juan made to the reference you gave him
on relativistic quantum mechanics was nothing but his personal issue with
the terminology disguised to look like a deep technical subtlety, since he
also decided that bjorken & drell's textbook, ``Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics'' wasn't about relativistic quantum mechanics. Unfortunately,
the language lawyers make it impossible to discuss anything without first
trying to figure out which of the N equivalent ways to say something
is likely to draw the fewest knee-jerk objections.
Bilge
>
>Bilge wrote:
>
>> He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
>> poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
>> magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
>> conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
>> or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
>> it's easy to not take him seriously.
>
>Thank you for this accurate but rather sketchy description of my
>approach. I would like to add that above statements have proofs based
>on axioms of quantum mechanics and the principle of relativity.
prove exactly the opposite.
>The details are in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062
>It's easy to not take me seriously, it's a bit harder to reject
>the proofs.
But you have no such proofs. What you have proven is that any
inconsistent assumptions can be glossed over by a superficial argument
that asserts the existence of a physical effect due to unphysical degrees
of freedom and/or attempting to bury the inconsistency in technical jargon.
All you are doing is fooling yourself.
donsto...@hotmail.com
**************
Well, at least that's self-reference, Hofstadter's key to infinite
human advancement.
AllYou!
though I've ignored you, so because that hasn't worked, I'm gonna give you more
attention than you ever wanted.
So now, everyone, let's watch as this Guppy of mine takes the bait once again.
Let's watch as this regular poster to alt.local.village.idiot responds to this
post. As my bitch, he can't help himself.
Guppy response here--------->
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndmmj52....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Eugene Stefanovich
Bilge wrote:
> Eric Gisse:
> >
> >Bilge wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
> >> poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
> >> magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
> >> conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
> >> or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
> >> it's easy to not take him seriously.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >"Of the following, which does not belong...?"
>
> Think about what those mean physically. If X causes Y, then the
> events X and Y are time ordered.
Not necessarily. X and Y can be instantaneous and still X is a cause
of Y.
> So, if interactions are instantaneous,
> then moving a charge at event X is causally related to the motion of a
> charge at Y and X and Y are time ordered. Conversely, events which are
> simultaneous cannot be time ordered. By definition, simutaneous events
> happen at the same time.
>
> If some interaction propagates a distance \delta x in a time interval
> delta t, i.e., v = \delta x/(\delta t), simultaneous events must be
> separated by a distance, d > v\delta t.
>
> You have two possibilities:
>
> If a theory is poincare invariant,(i.e., relativistic) then
> the `v' above is `c',
Do you have a proof that in Poincare invariant theories the speed of
propagation of interactions is 'c'? or this is simply your belief?
> and spacelike events have separations
> ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx.dx < 0. Since simultaneous events are not
> causally related, an interaction cannot propagate faster than
> `c'. In addition, only massless particles propagate at `c'.
[...]
> If you choose the theory to be poincare invariant, then the
> following are compatible.
>
> If light propagates at a constant velocitym then it propagtes at
> `c'.
True.
> Then E&M is poincare invariant and the photon is massless.
True.
> The
> interactions cannot propagate faster since that isn't consistent with
> the definition of poincare invariance or simultaneity.
Not true.
> In addition,
> if light propagates at `c', charge is conserved.
I don't see a connection between charge conservation and the speed of
light. I can easily derive a relativistically invariant theory in which
charge is not conserved.
> If light doesn't propagate at `c', then obviously, the photon is
> massive.
True.
> As a consequence, charge isn't conserved,
Not related.
> but the theory
> can still be poincare invariant.
True.
Eugene.
Eugene Stefanovich
This often repeated statement can be easily disproved experimentally.
Take a van der Graaf generator with two highly charged balls in
evacuated room. There is certainly a strong electrostatic force
acting between the two balls. Now try to catch any of those
photons that supposedly mediate this interaction. You can fill the
room with photomultipliers, photographic plates, cameras, whatever,
but you will not detect a single real photon.
So, if there is something that mediates EM interaction it is not
the real observable photon. Some people call this mediator
"virtual photon" pointing to the fact that these "photons"
cannot be directly observed. This means that there exists a substance
that penetrates everywhere, effects real things, but cannot be
directly observed. This looks very much like long forgotten aether.
As history showed us, physics is doing much better if such
unobservable "substances" like aether or virtual photons are removed
from the theory and the theory is formulated in terms of directly
observable things, like real physical photons, electrons, etc.
Eugene.
Eugene Stefanovich
Bilge wrote:
> >The details are in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062
> >It's easy to not take me seriously, it's a bit harder to reject
> >the proofs.
>
> But you have no such proofs. What you have proven is that any
> inconsistent assumptions can be glossed over by a superficial argument
> that asserts the existence of a physical effect due to unphysical degrees
> of freedom and/or attempting to bury the inconsistency in technical jargon.
> All you are doing is fooling yourself.
Can you point to a specific place in the book where I do that?
Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Eugene.
Gregory L. Hansen
Eugene Stefanovich <eug...@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
>
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>> I was simply thinking in terms of photons being the mediators of
>> electromagnetic interactions.
>
>This often repeated statement can be easily disproved experimentally.
>Take a van der Graaf generator with two highly charged balls in
>evacuated room. There is certainly a strong electrostatic force
>acting between the two balls. Now try to catch any of those
>photons that supposedly mediate this interaction. You can fill the
>room with photomultipliers, photographic plates, cameras, whatever,
>but you will not detect a single real photon.
>
>So, if there is something that mediates EM interaction it is not
>the real observable photon. Some people call this mediator
>"virtual photon" pointing to the fact that these "photons"
>cannot be directly observed. This means that there exists a substance
>that penetrates everywhere, effects real things, but cannot be
>directly observed. This looks very much like long forgotten aether.
>As history showed us, physics is doing much better if such
>unobservable "substances" like aether or virtual photons are removed
>from the theory and the theory is formulated in terms of directly
>observable things, like real physical photons, electrons, etc.
And this is one reason that I think that virtual particles are a source of
all evil. It's not because there's really anything wrong with the
concept, when it's understood. But because it leads to such staggering
misunderstandings, even among the studied. When they read that particles
pop into existence for a brief time, people naturally think of particles
popping into existence for a brief time. And then they think of all kinds
of things that particles do, like transfer energy and momentum, and run
into other particles. E.g. why don't electrons in a LINAC scatter from
those vacuum particles?
Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
that have been completed.
The electrostatic field created by your Van de Graaf has virtual photons
because that's the way a field is represented in quantum field theory.
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Gregory L. Hansen
Juan R. <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>Eric Gisse ha escrito:
>
>> Juan R. wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >.. I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived
>> > from GR.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>>
>> Any book that touches on linearized GR will mention this. Such as
>> "Spacetime and Geometry", "Gravitation", or Wald's "General
>> Relativity".
>
>stuff. You would focus on undergraduate questions or at least study
>topics and bit before strong claims as "you are wrong".
>
>Almost all textbooks on GR claim that GR reduces to NG in the linear
>regime. Is this true? NO because GR-textbooks are wrong in many, many,
>many aspects.
"Why is everyone stupid except for me?"
>
>If you read carefully the Wald you discover that in the linear regime
>one CANNOT derive Newtonian equation of motion, and Wald explain why
>one may go beyond the linear regime. In fact Wald explain why in the
>linear regime one obtains a = 0.
What effect does the 00 component of the metric have on a test particle?
How does that compare with the effect of a Newtonian gravitational
potential? In the weak field limit, how large, and how important, are the
other components of the metric compared with the 00 component?
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
Eugene Stefanovich
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
> interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
> particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
> momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
> photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
> field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
> that have been completed.
>
> The electrostatic field created by your Van de Graaf has virtual photons
> because that's the way a field is represented in quantum field theory.
Then you change one unobservable entity (virtual particles) for another
unobservable entity (quantum fields). I think I have a better idea.
One can formulate quantum field theory, e.g., QED, without using fields
as basic concepts. This sounds rather controversial, but it can be done.
QED can be formulated entirely in terms of observable (not "bare", not
"virtual", but "real", "physical", or "dressed") particles - photons and
electrons and their interactions. Quantum fields are needed only as
temporary formal crutches for writing down the interparticle
interactions and proving that they are relativistically invariant.
The approach I am talking about is completely equivalent to the old
renormalized QED as far as the S-matrix is concerned. In contrast
to the old theory, it has a
well-defined finite Hamiltonian that allows one to go beyond scattering
events and consider the time evolution of interacting systems.
In this approach, the interaction between charged particles is
instantaneous (rather than retarded), but I am not aware of any
experiment that unambiguosly demonstrates the (usually presumed)
retarded character of interaction between electrons.
Eugene.
Bilge
>
>Bilge ha escrito:
>> >you think that those is correct.
>>
>> Basically, your point is nothing but a semantics argument over a
>> definition. Tough. I'm not about to waste time trying to reconcile
>> your personal definition of relativistic quantum mechanics with the
>> definition everyone else uses. I also have no interest in arguing
>> over your personal semantics issues just because I assume that
>> relativistic quantum mechanics refers to a theory called relativistic
>> quantum mechanics, which just happens to be the same theory found
>> in bjorken & drell. If you don't like the theory, then make an
>> objection about something other than the words.
>
>of one relativistic quantum mechanics. But i will not cite here since
>you are well-versed in the topic :-)
I suppose you would really be impressed if you ever got to the
point of being able to discuss the subect. I'm going to save myself
some time here. Since all you've done is repeat yourself, just reply
with the same content to this sentence recursively, so I don't have
to stay in the loop.
>
>> >As an example of how wrong that book is, please, to explain to us, for
>> >example, with is the relativistic interaction between two electrons at
>> >second order in c and e. for example how did Breit studie the level
>> >shift in the Helium atom?
>>
>> I'm sorry, but ``please, to explain to us,...'' is not an example of
>> anything, incorrect or not. It's a request to explain something and
>> what you've requested isn't even in the book, so you can't possibly
>> consider it to be an incorrect example from the book. Instead of
>> asserting something is incorrect and then telling me to go find your
>> example for you, post it yourself.
>
>It is really simple. Take the book you claim is about relativistic
>quantum mechanics (i claim is about a completely inconsistent stuff)
>and reply my question:
>
>With is the relativistic interaction between two electrons at second
>order in c and e?
>
>I also ask tou you, what is the relativisitic quantum equation for one
>electron?
>
>You have just cited a page, please to wrote down the equation or just
>write its name. (Dirac?)
>
>Sorry i do not understand. Eugere is working a relativisitic quantum
>mechanics. You arec laimed that a better theory is QED. Are you
>claiming that QED is a relativisitc quantum MECHANICS?
>
>If yes, then you have absolutely no idea of relativisitic quantum
>mechanics and relativisitic quantum field theory.
>
>> >> In any theory that might be called a quantum theory, things like
>> >> [p,x] = -i\hbar appear in one form or another. In a poincare invariant
>> >> theory, the observables p' and x commute if the measurements they
>> >> represent made by observers in S and S' are separated by a spacelike
>> >> interval. It simply isn't possible to claim that interactions can
>> >> propagate between those two events without contradicting either
>> >> the quantum mechanics or the poincare invariance.
>> >
>> >I do not reply this because you are incorrectly begining your
>> >discussion, please do not wrote nonrelativistic stuff in a thread about
>> >relativistic stuff.
>>
>> Excuse me? Since when does relativity say momentum or position
>> measurements are impossible?
>
>WHAT? Colleague have you studied something?
>
>OF COURSE, relativity claims that position is NOT an observable. This
>was proven by Landau many, many time ago. It is called relativistic
>uncertainty. THIS is the reason that x in relativistic quantum field
>theory is NOT an observable. It is a parameter because cannot be a
>dynamical variable.
>
>In fact, relativistic quantum uncertainty also claim that p is not in
>general an observable. BUT in the asymptotic regime one can apply the
>principle of decompostion of cluster and prove that p is conserved in
>free particles. This is reason that only asymptotic regimes are
>observable in relativisitc QFT. Eugene is trying to formulate a
>relativistic quantum MECHANICS.
>
>Our Center has formulated a relativistic quantum mechanics with
>relativisitc quantum field theory as an especial limited stuff valid
>only for scattering experiments.
>
>> >[p,x] = -i\hbar is valid for nonrelativistic QM.
>> >
>> >Correct this and try again.
>>
>> Oh excuse me, I thought you were talking about relativistic quantum
>> mechanics where the quantum replacements for E and p are given by
>> E = i\hbar\d/dt and p = -i\hbar\grad. I was led astray by your use
>> of the term ``relativsitic quantum mechanics.''
>
>
>[p,x] = -i\hbar is valid for nonrelativistic QM. Please to write the
>relativistic uncertainty relationships. (Trick: were obtained by Landau
>in the early 30s).
>
>Since you are proving your profound ignorance in those topics it is
>clear my initial suggestion that you cannot valuate Eugene proposal.
>You has no idea even of most elementary undergraduate stuff.
>
>> >> He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
>> >> poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
>> >> magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
>> >> conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
>> >> or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
>> >> it's easy to not take him seriously.
>> >
>> >Again elementary stuff? Where (2) and (3) are incompatible. Please cite
>> >references.
>>
>> Stop playing your citation game. If you can demonstrate that (2) and
>> (3) are compatible, just do so. Its rather obvious to me that lorentz
>> invariance is required for light to propagate at a constant velocity and
>> by definition, spacelike events cannot be time ordered, which rules out
>> any causal connection between spacelike separated events. I'm not really
>> sure why you need a citation for that or why you think that isn't obvious.
>
>Again you have absolutely idea of nothing. Idea that interactions
>propagate at c and are retarded is a completel nonsense obtained by
>guys like you who study topics superfitially. I, of course, will not
>cite useful references for a guy as you who attack people and ideas
>that does not understand. But i will ofer to you a basic work on why
>instantaneous action at a distance is NOT incompatible with light
>propagation.
>
>PRE 1996 53(5) 5373-5381.
>
>Our own formulation at the Center corrects some flaws of those work and
>generalizes on several ways (for example to gravity).
>
>> Are you claiming that electromagnetic interactions aren't casullay
>> connected to the interactions of the charges interacting? If so, then the
>> reason for that is also obvious. You've chosen use two inconsistent
>> descriptions of the interaction, which is what eugene does. Feel free to
>> prove otherwise, just don't expect me to read your mind and waste time
>> trying to figure out what you are babbling about.
>
>WRONG
>
>> >> [...]
>> >> You've been given a number of references already in a previous
>> >> thread. You simply reject everything by reflex, so why should I
>> >> bother repeating what you've been told, much less assume any effort
>> >> on my part to clarify it for you would be anything but a waste
>> >> of effort?
>> >
>> >Curious. Yes references were cited. References i had read and pointed
>> >why and WHERE were wrong. Nobody replied to points i said were wrong.
>>
>> Well, for one, you said you weren't interested in the ``covariant
>> version'' of galilean relativity. Classical physics is galilean
>> covariant. Whatever point you had was irrelevant as far as classical
>> physics and general relativity is concerned, so it's irrelevant to
>> your argument.
>
>A point: GR is also classical physics. Moreover, the best Carlip did
>was obtain a nonzero 00-connection which implies that Newtonian
>derivatives like partial v / partial t are non physical. Great!
>
>Do you know the diference between a field and a potential?
Bilge
>Large but WRONG argument. You know nothing except more elementary
>stuff. There is not problem with that -all of us are ignorant-, the
>problem is your arrogance on "all this is known", "Eugene's claim is
>imposible", etc.
Can the crap. Eugene starts with the same theory. All he does is
perform a unitary transform. Changing representations doesn't
change any physics.
>
>In FIELD theory one work with models of independent particles. for
>example asymptotic regimes on QED or local potentials in CED (for
>example, potentials in field theory are A = A (x,t) ). Then one needs a
>mediator transporting interaction: photons or waves.
>
>In Action at a distance theory, one NEWER works with models of
>independent particles. One does not work with quantum asymptotic
>unphysical regimes, one works with the full N-body problem. electrons
>are not uncorrelated and one does not need introduce a mediator
>transporting correlations from a free electron to other free electron
>as is done in QEd. At the classical level one does NOT work with local
>potentials. In fact, A = A(R(t)), etc. Then there is not need for
>waves.
>
>Your discussion is already wrong at this elementary level. You do not
>know that AAAD theory is and believe that in AAAD theory one needs a
>'mediator' like in field theory.
>
>Therefore there is no need for travelling at 'c'.
>
>Moreover as proven in the article i cited above field theory and its
>mediators travelling at 'c' are inconsistent and are not a complete and
>consistent solution of Maxwell equations.
>
>What is not correct in that article is the introduction of the dualism
>concept. Which is well founded mathematically but is not physically
>suitable. That IS solved in our Center via an advanced formulation that
>solves it and moreover explains all new recent experimental data NOT
>explained by field theory: ampere forces in mercury, longitudinal
>forces in railguns, anomalous behavior of quark-gluon plasma on
>tokamaks, etc, etc.
donsto...@hotmail.com
definition of relativistic quantum mechanics with the definition
everyone else uses. I also have no interest in arguing
over your personal semantics issues just because I assume that
relativistic quantum mechanics refers to a theory called relativistic
quantum mechanics, which just happens to be the same theory found in
************************************
"I refuse to engage in endless debates at this point in my life.
Instead, I'm seeking out happiness in my final few years."
- Douglas R. Hofstadter
Eric Gisse
Juan R. wrote:
> Eric Gisse ha escrito:
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >.. I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived
> > > from GR.
> >
> > You are wrong.
> >
> > Any book that touches on linearized GR will mention this. Such as
> > "Spacetime and Geometry", "Gravitation", or Wald's "General
> > Relativity".
>
> stuff. You would focus on undergraduate questions or at least study
> topics and bit before strong claims as "you are wrong".
Why does that feel like someone is again taking potshots at my
intelligence?
>
> Almost all textbooks on GR claim that GR reduces to NG in the linear
> regime. Is this true? NO because GR-textbooks are wrong in many, many,
> many aspects.
A bold claim.
>
> If you read carefully the Wald you discover that in the linear regime
> one CANNOT derive Newtonian equation of motion, and Wald explain why
> one may go beyond the linear regime. In fact Wald explain why in the
> linear regime one obtains a = 0.
I haven't been reading Wald much. Just "Spacetime and Geometry" with an
occasional look at MTW.
One would obtain "a=0" if one was solving the geodesic equation. But
since you didn't explain further, I can only guess as to your mening.
>
> Then does GR reduces to NG in the nonlinear regime? Again NO.
That is because I wasn't talking about the nonlinear regime. It is an
approximation for slow moving particles, "small" amounts of mass-energy
and a "weak" field which I would not expect to hold under all, most,
many, or even a few circumstances.
>
> Research on the Newtonian limit follows ways very far from textbooks.
>
> Schutz, Bernard F. The Newtonian Limit (1984) Lecture Notes in Physics,
> 205, 367-391. In his page 368 says
>
> "there are at least two reasons why the simple textbook extractions of
> the newtonian limit are not rigorous"
...because its an approximation in the 3 cases I stated above, and
second-order terms and higher are dropped because it is assumed they
are small. Or perhaps because the extractions, as he says, are simple.
>
> "At least two reasons", but one can prove that there is no posibility
> for a consistent derivation of the limit (in fact Schutz approach is
> not correct one). That was addressed here in sci.physics.relativity and
> also on sci.physics.research at one basic level. Advanced stuff is
> addressed in article i am preparing.
Why does consistancy matter?
For example: MTW, to my amusement, details 6 ways to obtain Einstein's
field equations. There is more than one route to which you desire, no
one is more "correct" than the other.
[waka waka Carlip waka waka]
All very nice, but this supposed conversation between you and Steve
Carlip does not appear on any of my searching on google groups in
sci.physics.*
I am not going to address your complaints about his interpretations
because all I have to look at is what you say he said. If history is
any indication, that is not enough.
>
>
> Why do you think that still today people continue publishing articles
> on the Newtonian limit, why question has been not solved still guy?
Probably because the universe in most cases is pretty decently served
by the Newtonian limit.
Plus the MOND people and their die-hard love with Newton needs a little
corrospondance between itself and GR.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1131139337.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Juan R. wrote:
> > Eric Gisse ha escrito:
> >
> > > Juan R. wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >.. I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived
> > > > from GR.
> > >
> > > You are wrong.
> > >
> > > Any book that touches on linearized GR will mention this. Such as
> > > "Spacetime and Geometry", "Gravitation", or Wald's "General
> > > Relativity".
> >
> > Eric, in the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) we are doing rigorous
> > stuff. You would focus on undergraduate questions or at least study
> > topics and bit before strong claims as "you are wrong".
>
> Why does that feel like someone is again taking potshots at my
> intelligence?
>
> >
> > Almost all textbooks on GR claim that GR reduces to NG in the linear
> > regime. Is this true? NO because GR-textbooks are wrong in many, many,
> > many aspects.
>
> A bold claim.
Sounds like Sirvent, don't you think?
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
Dunno.
Arrogance isn't a unique trait among those who say everything written
about GR is wrong.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Eugene Stefanovich
Bilge wrote:
> Eugene starts with the same theory. All he does is
> perform a unitary transform. Changing representations doesn't
> change any physics.
Your statements are formally correct. However they misrepresent the
idea of the dressing transformation. "Changing representation"
implies that you transform unitarily both operators of
observables and state vectors. Then, of course, physics is not
changed.
In the "dressing transformation" only the Hamiltonian is transformed.
State vectors are not touched. Then physics IS different.
Consider two Hamiltonians H and H' that are related by a unitary
transformation (U does not commute with H)
H' = U H U^{-1}
Take an arbitrary state vector |Psi> at time t=0 and consider its
time evolution described by the two Hamiltonians
|Psi(t)> = exp(iHt) |Psi>
|Psi'(t)> = exp(iH't) |Psi>
Apparently |Psi(t)> and |Psi'(t)> are different states, so unitary
transformation of the Hamiltonian DOES change physics.
That's exactly what is done in the dressing transformation approach:
A unitary transformation U is found that transforms the Hamiltonian
of QED H (with infinite counterterms) to a finite well-defined
Hamiltonian H' which can be used for time evolution calculations.
Eugene.
Eric Gisse
Juan R. wrote:
> Eric Gisse ha escrito:
> > Juan R. wrote:
> > > Almost all textbooks on GR claim that GR reduces to NG in the linear
> > > regime. Is this true? NO because GR-textbooks are wrong in many, many,
> > > many aspects.
> >
> > A bold claim.
>
> /obtained/ in the linear regime. That is, almost all textbooks on GR
> claim that in the linear regime the geodesic equation reduces to
> Newtonian law.
>
> Textbooks 'prove' that. Is this true? NO. As explained in Wald, in the
> linear regime a = 0 therefore Wald proves JUST the ***contrary*** to
> usual textbooks. Wald claim that for obtaining Newton law one may go
> beyond the linear regime.
>
> I am treating to explain is that textbooks are wrong and in the same
> manner that Wald proves just the contrary that other textbooks -i.e.
> Wald proves that in the linear regime GR does NOT reduce to Newton- i
> am saiyng that there is other incorrections on the derivations and that
> GR does NOT reduces to NG.
>
> The line of reasoning is next 'detailed'. From less rigorous to more
> ones. At each stage are corrected the errors of previous stages.
> Therefore, it is proved as 'correct' at one stage can be proven
> *incorrect* when more rigorous treatment is done.
>
> Typical textbooks: In the linear regime one obtains Newton law
>
> Wald textbook: the 'proofs' of others textbook are WRONG because in the
> linear regime there is no gravitational description: a=0. The correct
> proof is nonlinear one.
Wald obtains the correct potential and the correct definition of
acceleration (a = -del*phi) on page 77.
MTW and "Spacetime and Geometry" obtain the same metrics as Wald.
I fail to see what you are complaining about.
>
> Basic literature on Newtonian limit: textbooks 'proofs' including Wald
> are WRONG. The nonlinear Wald proof is not correct. Derivation may be
> done via NC theory and specific boundary conditions. For example,
> Ehlërs boundaries. Those kind of approaches are usually called
> 'post-Newtonian' (textbook derivation is usually called
> 'post-Minkowskian').
>
> More advanced literature: Ehërls and others spacetime approaches
> (weak-NC. strong-NC etc.) are, in rigor, wrong, theoretically flawed,
> and experimentally incorrect. Correct derivation can be done via
> aditional equations, for example using Christian restriction for
> curvature tensor.
>
> Juan R: Derivation via Christian restriction for curvature tensor and
> others similar approaches are also wrong.
>
> Etc.
>
> When one is not rigorous one claim as in John Baez webpage that "the
> theorem that GR reduces to NG is proven in any textbook", which is,
> obviously, false. You are still in the first stage. But people doing
> research is in the two last stages.
>
> > [waka waka Carlip waka waka]
> >
> > All very nice, but this supposed conversation between you and Steve
> > Carlip does not appear on any of my searching on google groups in
> > sci.physics.*
>
> Perhaps is was only in my head. but i thought was real one.
>
> > > Why do you think that still today people continue publishing articles
> > > on the Newtonian limit, why question has been not solved still guy?
> >
> > Probably because the universe in most cases is pretty decently served
> > by the Newtonian limit.
>
> Yes, good reply but i was refering to publications on OBTAIN the
> Newtonian limit instead of publications using the Newtonian limit in
> astronomy.
Bilge
>Bilge wrote:
>> Think about what those mean physically. If X causes Y, then the
>> events X and Y are time ordered.
>
>Not necessarily. X and Y can be instantaneous and still X is a cause
>of Y.
Only because you failed to think that statement through. It should
be obvious that your assertion is wrong, even for a gailiean invariant
theory, in which signals can propagate arbitrarily fast, but not
instantaneously in the sense you mean.
[...]
>
>Do you have a proof that in Poincare invariant theories the speed of
>propagation of interactions is 'c'? or this is simply your belief?
Do you have proof that will convince me that 1+1=2, if I refuse
to accept anything anyone says? Sure, I can give such a proof, but
I can't give a proof you won't reject out of hand to keep from having
to admit you're entire ``discovery'' is the result of mistaking the
ability to perform a unitary transform for two real degrees of freedom
that didn't exist until you made the unitary transform.
For example, you reject any explanation, proof or argument in which
the words lagrangian, field, phase, or gauge are used as well as some
I probably omitted because I don't recall all of your quirks. In short,
the only point in trying to explain it to you, _again_ in a different
way would be to help you add more items to your knee-jerk rejection
list. If you got in a real bind trying to reject it, I expect you
would just ``discover'' some new physics and then repeat the request,
ad infinitum.
[...]
>> The interactions cannot propagate faster since that isn't consistent with
>> the definition of poincare invariance or simultaneity.
>
>Not true.
That's like trying to say it's possible to perform a rotation on the
unit circle by more than 2\pi without going all the way around the
circle. Even in a galilean universe, simultaneous events have to be
separated in a way which in some sense is further than can be reached
by a signal propagating at an arbitrarily large velocity.
>> In addition,
>> if light propagates at `c', charge is conserved.
>
>I don't see a connection between charge conservation and the speed of
>light.
I know you don't. You've made that clear by declaring your choice
to work in the coulonb gauge, physically significant due to your
inability to understand a gauge transformation, and then calling the
unphysical result a discovery.
Wow! I never would have guessed that by choosing a non-covariant gauge,
to make a noncovariant separation of the potentials into transverse,
scalar and longitudinal compoenents, the result would be an equally
non-covariant coordinate transformation to fix it.
To phrase it in terms you really hate, you've taken the photon four-
polarization and separated the transverse part into the photon and
turned the longitudinal and scalar polariztions into a separate
phenomenon. I don't think anyone but you is surprised by the fact
that you ``dicovered'' instantaneous propagation of the interaction.
The surprise is that you attributed it to new physics rather than
attributing it to the physics you left out in the first place.
>I can easily derive a relativistically invariant theory in which
>charge is not conserved.
So can I, but the difference between your concept of relativistically
invariant and everyone else's idea of relativistically invariant,
is that yours makes a mockery of the word invariant, while the theory
everyone might end up with describes superconductors. In addition,
your idea of ``proving'' conservation of charge amounts to declaring
it to be true by fiat. I've already pointed that out more than once.
[...]
>> As a consequence, charge isn't conserved,
>
>Not related.
It's amazing how every single misconception you have can be traced
back to a single origin - your inability and/or unwillingness to try
and grasp the idea of gauge invariance and the cascade of patches you
need as a result.
Bilge
already overextended.
>Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Based on prior experience and an occasional glance at the threads
on sci.physics.research, I doubt it. I'm fairly certain that you
are immune to reason.
Bilge
>>
>> I was simply thinking in terms of photons being the mediators of
>> electromagnetic interactions.
>
>This often repeated statement can be easily disproved experimentally.
>Take a van der Graaf generator with two highly charged balls in
>evacuated room. There is certainly a strong electrostatic force
>acting between the two balls. Now try to catch any of those
>photons that supposedly mediate this interaction. You can fill the
>room with photomultipliers, photographic plates, cameras, whatever,
>but you will not detect a single real photon.
your misreprentation is wrong, try your argument again within the
context of the actual theory.
>
>So, if there is something that mediates EM interaction it is not
>the real observable photon. Some people call this mediator
>"virtual photon" pointing to the fact that these "photons"
>cannot be directly observed.
Oddly enough, the ONLY part of ``virtual photon'' that you really
have an issue with is the word virtual. If you'll recall, I asked
you to explain how you thought it was possible for the neutron to
decay, given that the mass of the W is 83 GeV, and your reply was
exactly the same as the popularized explanation of a virtual particle,
i.e., the uncertainty relations permitting the short term violation
of conservation of energy. After I pointed that out, you simply
denied that had any connection to a virtual W.
>This means that there exists a substance
>that penetrates everywhere, effects real things, but cannot be
>directly observed. This looks very much like long forgotten aether.
Only to you.
>As history showed us, physics is doing much better if such
>unobservable "substances" like aether or virtual photons are removed
>from the theory and the theory is formulated in terms of directly
>observable things, like real physical photons, electrons, etc.
Please explain precisely how to observe a real electron. Every
signal which is observed from a detector is observed through the
forces produced by virtual interactions, i.e., the motion of an
indicator on a meter, the chemical reactions in ones retina
which propagate via more chemical reactions through the visual
cortex, etc. I could claim the exact opposite with greater
veracity. Give me a single example of any observation in which
the final step in the observation involves any of the free
particles you call real.
Gregory L. Hansen
Juan R. <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
>> Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
>> interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
>> particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
>> momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
>> photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
>> field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
>> that have been completed.
>
>Weinberg does not claim that the field was fundamental as many
>textbooks incorrectly does. However, the field approach is not posible
>in bounded states and this is the reason that quantum field theory is
>defined only for isolated particles (S-matrix).
Not possible in bounded states? I'm suspicious of that claim! When you
churn the Lagrangian through the Euler-Lagrange equations you get an
equation of motion like the Dirac equation with electromagnetic
interaction. There's nothing inherently S-matrix about it until you
specialize to high energies.
--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11
Gregory L. Hansen
>> How does that compare with the effect of a Newtonian gravitational
>> potential? In the weak field limit, how large, and how important, are the
>> other components of the metric compared with the 00 component?
>
And I trust that you'd demonstrated an acceleration proportional to the
mass of the source, and inversely proportional to the square of the
distance.
--
"I fart for joy and I laugh more than if I had cast my old age, as a
serpent does its skin." -- Aristophanes, Peace, 421 BC
Bilge
>And this is one reason that I think that virtual particles are a source of
>all evil. It's not because there's really anything wrong with the
>concept, when it's understood. But because it leads to such staggering
>misunderstandings, even among the studied. When they read that particles
>pop into existence for a brief time, people naturally think of particles
>popping into existence for a brief time. And then they think of all kinds
>of things that particles do, like transfer energy and momentum, and run
>into other particles. E.g. why don't electrons in a LINAC scatter from
>those vacuum particles?
Simple. Dig up a copy of bjorken & drell, vol I and look up, disconected
graph (or diagram, I don't remember which). The reason will be obvious.
On the other hand, it's very easy to see how specific diagrams contribute
to observable effects. For example, the diagram,
\ is the first order correction to the magnetic moment.
.\ It is easily interpreted that way, too. The virtual
. \ photon which connects to the ingoing and outgoing
. /~~~~ electron lines carries momentum. That modifies the
/ momentum at the vertex in the middle. A charge which
/ scatters from the electron then sees the modified
momentum present at the middle vertex which connects
the exchanged photon.
Being concerned about whether or not virtual photons are
just mathematical artifacts is like being concerned about
whether or not a multipole expansion of a charge distribution
is an artifact, which I have yet to see ever arouse the
angst or hand wringing. I attribute such conundrums to the fact
that experiments haven't been producing enough new discoveries
to keep theorists occupied.
>Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
>interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
>particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
>momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
>photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
>field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
>that have been completed.
How about a short excursion here. What do you think happens if
you quantize the field in a curved spacetime? Specifically,
will all of the observers agree on which particles are ``real''
and which are virtual?
Gregory L. Hansen
Bilge <cra...@fghfgigtu.com> wrote:
> Gregory L. Hansen:
>
> >And this is one reason that I think that virtual particles are a source of
> >all evil. It's not because there's really anything wrong with the
> >concept, when it's understood. But because it leads to such staggering
> >misunderstandings, even among the studied. When they read that particles
> >pop into existence for a brief time, people naturally think of particles
> >popping into existence for a brief time. And then they think of all kinds
> >of things that particles do, like transfer energy and momentum, and run
> >into other particles. E.g. why don't electrons in a LINAC scatter from
> >those vacuum particles?
>
> Simple. Dig up a copy of bjorken & drell, vol I and look up, disconected
>graph (or diagram, I don't remember which). The reason will be obvious.
>On the other hand, it's very easy to see how specific diagrams contribute
>to observable effects. For example, the diagram,
I'm talking about laymen and physics students, and you're pulling out
Bjorken & Drell? Come on, Bilge...
Anecdote: During a meeting to discuss homework problems, a fellow student
asked the professor how the exchange of virtual photons can create an
attractive force. The professor said something about uncertainty in where
the photon was created. The student said "That makes sense. Wait, no it
doesn't!"
And he was right, it doesn't make sense. They both had in mind a picture
of billiard balls knocking into each other, and they were a graduate
student and a professor of physics.
>
> \ is the first order correction to the magnetic moment.
> .\ It is easily interpreted that way, too. The virtual
>. \ photon which connects to the ingoing and outgoing
> . /~~~~ electron lines carries momentum. That modifies the
> / momentum at the vertex in the middle. A charge which
> / scatters from the electron then sees the modified
> momentum present at the middle vertex which connects
> the exchanged photon.
>
> Being concerned about whether or not virtual photons are
>just mathematical artifacts is like being concerned about
>whether or not a multipole expansion of a charge distribution
>is an artifact, which I have yet to see ever arouse the
>angst or hand wringing. I attribute such conundrums to the fact
>that experiments haven't been producing enough new discoveries
>to keep theorists occupied.
And nobody is puzzled about the field creating an attractive force until
the exchange of particles is introduced. Better, I think, to make it
clear that the virtual particle does what the field does because it's a
representation of the field. I wouldn't call them a mere mathematical
artifact because momentum transfers are usually the observable
consequence of the field, and virtual particles are a lot like a listing
of the things the field could do to a particle. Especially at first
order.
>
> >Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
> >interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
> >particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
> >momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
> >photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
> >field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
> >that have been completed.
>
> How about a short excursion here. What do you think happens if
>you quantize the field in a curved spacetime? Specifically,
>will all of the observers agree on which particles are ``real''
>and which are virtual?
I have to admit I'm sort of taking Wald's word for this. I haven't gone
far into QFT on curved manifolds. But Wald was quite insistent.
--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!"
Tom Roberts
> How about a short excursion here. What do you think happens if
> you quantize the field in a curved spacetime? Specifically,
> will all of the observers agree on which particles are ``real''
> and which are virtual?
You don't need to introduce the complexity of curved spacetime to make
this point. Just introduce an accelerated observer in Minkowski
spacetime. Hint: look up Unruh radiation.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bilge
>
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
>> Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
>> interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
>> particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
>> momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
>> photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
>> field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
>> that have been completed.
>>
>> because that's the way a field is represented in quantum field theory.
>
>Then you change one unobservable entity (virtual particles) for another
>unobservable entity (quantum fields). I think I have a better idea.
Most people would disgree that a theory based on instantaneous
action at a distance is a better idea, since the instantaneous
part conflicts with observations.
>One can formulate quantum field theory, e.g., QED, without using fields
>as basic concepts. This sounds rather controversial, but it can be done.
Sure. You can rename anything and then claim you've eliminated the
concept. That doesn't make it so. It does, however, make it easier
to make the mistake of treating what is supposed to be unobservable
in field theory as observable.
>QED can be formulated entirely in terms of observable (not "bare", not
>"virtual", but "real", "physical", or "dressed") particles - photons and
>electrons and their interactions. Quantum fields are needed only as
>temporary formal crutches for writing down the interparticle
>interactions and proving that they are relativistically invariant.
>The approach I am talking about is completely equivalent to the old
>renormalized QED as far as the S-matrix is concerned. In contrast
>to the old theory, it has a
You need to distinguish between any formal results you might
have obtained and your quirky interpretation which gives physical
status to things which are unobservable. To illustrate the difference,
let's just apply your _interpretation_ of instantaneous propagation
and watch the equivalence vanish.
Consider a longlived, metastable state. Such a state could be
due to the ground and first excited states being connected by
a forbidden transition. Now, one could arrange to populate a
large number of such states such that the emitted radiation
has a fairly constant intensity. Now, at some distance away,
you set up some apparatus capable of producing a strong electric
field which may be turned on and then turned off very quickly
after being turned on. Since such an electric field will
result in level mixing in the atoms (or nuclei, or whatever),
the transition rate will change due to the pulse of the electric
field. That will change the intensity and spectral characteristics
of the emitted radiation.
According to you, an observer located at the apparatus should
observe the change in intensity in half the time that a more sane
view would allow, since according to you, the electric field
propagates everywhere instantaneously, so that the only delay
observed by the observer in question is the transit of the light,
one way.
Thhe rest of the boring nay-sayers would require the time for the
electric field to propagate to the metastable states to be included.
Since the propagation speed is no greater than c, twice the time
should be required.
>well-defined finite Hamiltonian that allows one to go beyond scattering
>events and consider the time evolution of interacting systems.
Unfortunately, what you consider to be some sort of observable
time evolution constitutes a violation of the uncertainty principle,
yet you arent willing to go out on a limb and state that.
>In this approach, the interaction between charged particles is
>instantaneous (rather than retarded), but I am not aware of any
>experiment that unambiguosly demonstrates the (usually presumed)
>retarded character of interaction between electrons.
I'm not sure you are aware of how to even do one, since the only
things you've these so-called observations might tell anyone are
things which are clearly ruled out by quantum mechanics. For example,
I believe one of your examples was the evolution of the individual
spins of two particles throught a collision. That contradicts the
fact that the coupling of the spins results in the individual spins
not being good quantum numbers.
Bilge
>Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
>> interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
>> particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
>> momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
>> photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
>> field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
>> that have been completed.
>
>Weinberg does not claim that the field was fundamental as many
>textbooks incorrectly does. However, the field approach is not posible
>in bounded states and this is the reason that quantum field theory is
>defined only for isolated particles (S-matrix).
Hurry and claim your $1,000,000.00 from the clay mathematics institute.
What you've just claimed is that you know qcd cannot give a bound state
and hence the proton cannot be explained by qcd. One of the millenium
challenge problems involves proving such a result for a yang-mills field,
so you should receive a healthy funding boost by supplying your results.
Gregory L. Hansen
Bilge <cra...@fghfgigtu.com> wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich:
> >
> >
> >Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> >
> >> Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
> >> interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
> >> particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
> >> momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
> >> photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
> >> field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
> >> that have been completed.
> >>
> >> The electrostatic field created by your Van de Graaf has virtual photons
> >> because that's the way a field is represented in quantum field theory.
> >
> >Then you change one unobservable entity (virtual particles) for another
> >unobservable entity (quantum fields). I think I have a better idea.
>
> Most people would disgree that a theory based on instantaneous
>action at a distance is a better idea, since the instantaneous
>part conflicts with observations.
What's-his-name, author of a Dover book on classical field theory written
with the purpose of being extensible to quantum field theories, wrote
about a delayed action at a distance theory. I had trouble understanding
how a theory could be both action at a distance and delayed. Just
wondering if you know anything about that and have comments on it.
--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)
Bilge
>Bilge your words sound as when D'Alemembert 'proved' that Newton was
>wrong.
>
>Or perhaps as when Feynman sure in public that parity violation
>phenomena was imposible, just after was found.
>
>I do not believe on all of Eugene theory, but he is correct in several
>ways. I unknow what kind of discussions were maintained in the past,
>but i know recent dicussion on quantum fields on sci.physics.research
>and nobody here provided serious stuff. Only i dislike...
Claiming to have some new theory is one thing. Claiming that one
obtained it by rearranging the terms to get new physics is quite
another.
>which is not a scientific argument.
>
>Seeing the couple of mistakes you have done here in just a few posts. I
>am rather skeptic you can valuate Eugene's proposal in deep.
>
>In fact, you continue to believe that instantaneous interaction, in the
>sense of AAAD, needs of a signal travelling faster than c and therefore
>violating special relativity, which is, excuseme the 'hard' words, an
>authentic absurdity.
>
>How can you accuse to Eugene of 'do not hear criticism of others' if
>you still has not replied none of questions i did to you.
>
>You have not proved that PRE article cited above is wrong.
>
>You have not write relativisitc uncertainty
>
>You have not write relativistic wave equation for an electron
>
>Etc.
Bilge
I was trying to not make the answer obvious.
Gregory L. Hansen
Juan R. <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
>
>> In article <1131213845.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> Juan R. <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
>> >> Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
>> >> interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
>> >> particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
>> >> momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
>> >> photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
>> >> field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
>> >> that have been completed.
>> >
>> >Precisely Weinberg begins from particles and then obtains the fields.
>> >Weinberg does not claim that the field was fundamental as many
>> >textbooks incorrectly does. However, the field approach is not posible
>> >in bounded states and this is the reason that quantum field theory is
>> >defined only for isolated particles (S-matrix).
>>
>> Not possible in bounded states? I'm suspicious of that claim! When you
>> churn the Lagrangian through the Euler-Lagrange equations you get an
>> equation of motion like the Dirac equation with electromagnetic
>> interaction. There's nothing inherently S-matrix about it until you
>> specialize to high energies.
>
>example?
It doesn't have to be in Weinberg manual. No single textbook is
comprehensive, or can represent work done after it was published.
>
>R-QFT clearly states that only possible observables are those derived
>from S-matrix, which is only valid for independent particles (remember
>the cluster decomposition principle). In rigor R-QFT only deal with
>free fields.
The S-matrix is a particular method of solving the equations of motion.
Specifically, it's useful when the end states are mostly the free particle
states.
Crank the Lagrangian through Euler-Lagrange equations and you'll get an
equation of motion, like the Dirac equation with electromagnetic
interaction. Solve it any way you like. The S-matrix is one way.
The different is that the single-particle theory has an equation of motion
like
(expression) |psi> = 0
where |psi> is the wavefunction. The field theory has an equation of
motion like
(expression) PSI |f> = 0
where PSI is a field operator and |f> is a wave function in Fock space.
|f> is an accounting of momentum eigenstates, and any wavefunction that
can be expressed in position space can be expressed in momentum space by a
Fourier transform.
So I haven't specifically seen bound state problems solved in QFT, but I'm
suspicious of claims that they can't be.
...
>Bethe-Salpeter and others are incorrect. At one hand, one claims that
>two body state is a 16 component wavefunction. At the other hand in the
>interaction regime one uses propagators derived from formals series of
>QED which clearly state that there is not two body wavefunction for the
>two electrons.
The propagators themselves are arbitrary. Greiner makes that clear in his
book "Field Quantization" by delaying the choice of a basis for as long as
possible. Eventually he chooses a basis of momentum eigenstates, like
everyone else does. But I've wondered what you could do with, for
instance, a basis of hydrogen orbitals. I know from condensed matter,
another study where quantum field theory is usefully applied, that the
choice of a basis can make the difference between a practical solution and
a mess, although theoretically the choice of a basis makes no difference.
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
Eugene Stefanovich
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndmscmr....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Most people would disgree that a theory based on instantaneous
> action at a distance is a better idea, since the instantaneous
> part conflicts with observations.
What observations?
That's a great idea for an experiment. Have anybody done it already?
Have they observed double propagation time?
What makes you so confident about the outcome of this experiment?
Eugene.
Eric Gisse
Juan R. wrote:
> Eric Gisse ha escrito:
>
> > acceleration (a = -del*phi) on page 77.
> >
> > MTW and "Spacetime and Geometry" obtain the same metrics as Wald.
> >
> > I fail to see what you are complaining about.
> >
>
> Wald is Newtonian law".
I should have qualified that by explaining what phi was. My mistake.
The phi obtained is GM/r.
>
> But it is NOT.
>
> I already detailed just some of most basic points on why is NOT
> Newtonian gravity law in both sci.physics.relativity and
> sci.physics.research.
>
> Since you appear unable to find the posts -including discussion with
> Carlip- i detail some of post next.
Found it.
2nd times the charm? *shrug*
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/c6a3df4638443206?dmode=source
>
> The derivation is incorrect as i will prove AGAIN.
>
> 1) Derivation in the linear regime is WRONG.
>
> In the linear regime a=0; newer (repeat NEWER) a=-grad (Phi). In fact,
> you see Wald derivation and you believe because you have not revised
> details -see below- that derivation is correct -just as you cite the
> MTW- but derivation is INCORRECT. The linear regime predicts a=0 and
> Newtonian gravity predicts a = - grad(Phi).
["NEWER" ?]
That isn't a proof, that is a statement unsupported by fact.
>
> ***Therefore GR does not reduce to NG in the linear regime***. Usual
> textbooks are wrong.
>
> Then if you cannot understand an elementary derivation WHY are you
> doing wrong claims? Note i would be not as hard with you if you had
> claimed "Hey Juan R. I think that you are not correct by this and
> this". But you categorically claimed "you wrong" even without the most
> basic understanding of the topic!
>
> Again, I remember you that we are doing serious stuff, this is not
> string theory or general relativity, this is canonical science.
*snicker*
>
> If you have time you would read pag 78 of Wald:
>
> "If one stays consistently within the linear approximation, one
> predicts that test bodies are unaffected by gravity. Thus, in obtaining
> equation (4.4.21) we actualy have gone beyond the linear
> approximation".
>
> That is the reason why i said that Wald derivation is NON-linear, since
> in the strict rigorous linear regime a=0. All textbooks claiming that
> in the linear regime a is different from zero are wrong and simply are
> modifing *reality* for consistency with Newtonian law. Ok, then next
> Wald claims that in the non-linear regime, the derivation is already
> correct, but, again, that is not true.
How you extend a=0 from just test bodies to ALL bodies is a mystery
beyond my understanding.
I guess it is easier to assume that everyone is wrong and you are
right, I suppose.
>
> 2) Wald (4.4.21) is not Newton equation. The 'Phi' in (4.4.21) is not
> Newtonian potential it is a retarded LW potential. The 'a' in (4.4.21)
> is not Newton aceleration because 'x' is not Newtonian 'x'. Moreover
> 't' in (4.4.21) is not Newtonian time.
I am not going to argue about this when it is all explained on the very
same page which you are referencing.
If you think a = -del*phi isn't the Newtonian potential, your
understanding of Newton is suspect.
>
> What is more, (4.4.21) is not a nonrelativistic equation because it
> contains c in both terms left and right and this is an authentic
> absurdity. Non relativistic equations do not contain c. Moreover, the
> metric used by Wald also contains c and does not correspond with
> Newtonian physics.
It is close enough. If you want authentic Newton, use Newton. I really
don't understand why you are complaining about this...
>
> 3) Moreover functional dependence is wrong. In (4.4.21), phy = phi(x,
> t). In Newtonian physics, phi = phi(R(t)). Wald simply writes 'phy',
> without details, and then it appears that one has derived Newtonian
> law.
The details you seek are between 4.4.20 and 4.4.21. Wald simply writes
"phi" because he DID explain it not but a moment before.
But since you have a bit of difficulty reading, I will explain.
phi is dependant on x^i, i=1,2,3. It is explained, as I said, on the
very same page of which you reference. phi is not dependant on time -
it is explained, as I said, on the page of which you reference.
When I said your understanding of Newton is suspect, I was correct. In
Newtonian gravity, phi is dependant on r, not t.
>
> 4) The fixing of the gauge of the GR phi is done via asymptotic regime.
> This regime is called 'island universe asumption' and it is wrong,
> because it is not verified by experimental data. In Christian's own
> words:
>
> "However, physical evidence clearly suggests that we are not living in
> an 'island
> universe' "
>
> In Penrose's own words:
>
> "universe is not 'an island of matter surrounded by emptiness'"
I would hope Penrose, of all people, understands the utility of an
approximation.
>
> Etc.
>
> Wald derivation is a complete nonsense. If GR is consistent, the
> Newtonian limit may BE the c--> infinite limit of GR. But Wald did NOT
> the c--> infinite limt. Wald only took the slow motion weak field
> limit.
Which is close enough.
>
> I repeat again that people doing research does not follow textbook
> wrong derivation.
>
> If you take the c--> infinite limit you discover that gravity breaks
> down and cannot explain Newtonian gravity. This is not so difficult to
> understand in the c-->infinite limit there is no curvature. The metric
> is
What is the curvature scalar for the Newtonian limit if you allow c to
go to infinity?
>
> (1 -1 -1 -1)
That isn't the metric that results if c is infinite. Steve Carlip
explained this to you before.
The metric for flat space, with c restored, is diag(-c^2,1,1,1)
assuming the -+++ sign convention.
Now, what is lim -c^2 --> oo? It certaintly isn't -1.
>
> Therefore if GR was a consistent theory would have no gravity.
That is stupid. Seriously, it is.
>
> Carlip has done an attempt to derive Newtonian limit on both
> sci.physics.resesarch and sci.physics.relativity but:
>
> i) He uses a wrong metric that forces to us to rewritte all relativity.
> For example, in his nonstandard approach there is no four currents and
> there is not four space. The EM four 'current' is a strange mixture of
> densities and true currents in Carlip nonstandard approach.
Where did your nitpickery go? In Newton there is no 4-anything.
>
> My metric is standard, verifies all experimental data and is consistent
> with particle physics, special relativity and Maxwell EM. Moreover my
> chossing of metric is recommended by Astronomical societies.
Ooooh.
It all makes sense now. Actually learning and changing your opinions is
impossible for you because you have a vested interest in how you
currently have your theory written - no matter how absurd it is.
I stopped taking you seriously at all right about....here.
>
> ii) Carlip takes the wrong spacetime (t, x) which looks like (t, x) in
> the nonrelativisitc limit. That is, Carlip think that in Newtonian
> physics time is a dimension which violates the most basic understanding
> of Newtonian physics!!!
God, stop whining.
GR isn't Newton because they are fundamentally different. To expect
otherwise is foolish.
>
> In my own spacetime (ct, x), the limit is the correct (infinite, x).
> The zeroth dimension of spacetime collapse, doing time as dimension a
> wrong concept, and this is good. One recovers time as an evolution
> parameter (x^0 collapses by t does NOT collapse), WHICH is the correct
> Newtonian concept of time. In any elementary textbook of mechanics one
> can verify that the state of the system is (p,q) parametrized for one
> single evolution parameter t called absolute Newtonian time.
Sounds like you are one of those MOND people, except with 100% more
crank.
Your usage of "collapse" is completely unmotivated and confusing.
>
> iii) By taking the wrong spacetime and wrong limit, Carlip obtains the
> functional dependence Phi(x,t) when the correct dependence in
> Newtonian physics is Phi(R(t)) because time is NOT a dimension in
> Newtonian physics and interactions are not field-theoretic ones.
> Moreover, there are difficulties with the use of Phi(x,t) for example
> violation of causality in the transition to stationary regimes, etc.
Get the functional dependance of phi correct and try again.
>
> My work on gravity corrects this and one obtains the correct functional
> dependence without lack of continuity, etc.
Your "work" on gravitation is based on Newton and GR's Newtonian limit?
Are you kidding?
>
> iv) Carlip choosing of wrong spacetime and wrong metric does that he
> obtains a nonzero 00-connection. This is wrong. In GR, the covariant
> derivatives are physical derivatives, therefore in Carlip approach the
> only measured (physical) derivatives are
What the hell is a "physical" derivative? It sounds like you are
inventing new terminology as you go along.
The reason the 00 connections are nonzero is because of the metric. If
you wish to argue about that, you will have to dig a little deeper and
complain about how the metric was derived.
>
> covariant = usual partial ones + 00-connection.
Only true in a specific case, not in general.
>
> This is of course WRONG, any textbook of Newtonian mechanics explains
> that the correct derivatives are usual partial ones.
For the love of god, stop whining. This is a different theory. It is
not Newton.
>
> In my own work, the 00-connection is zero therefore Newtonian
> derivatives are partial ones. This is correct.
..and you get a = 0
Which is....incorrect.
>
> v) The scalar curvature in Carlip approach is R = R_00/g_00. Since he
> introduces the c^2 term into g_00, in the limit he obtains R --> 0.
> That is, in GR, gravity is spacetime curvature, even ignoring all four
> points of above doing Carlip derivation just wrong, one obtains that in
> the nonrelativistic limit the curvature of spacetime is ZERO. If A is
> the cause of B, then elimination of A may eliminate B. The curvature
> interpretation of GR is not only artificial (as proved by teleparallel
> gravity or FTG) is also incorrect.
So what are you saying, R *doesn't* go to 0 as r goes to infinity?
>
> In my own metric, the curvature is zero as correspond to Newtonian
> physics. Are you heard in some textbook of Newtonian physics that
> spacetime, time, or space is curved?
*sigh*
GR IS NOT NEWTON.
Say it with me.
GR IS NOT NEWTON.
To expect otherwise is foolish.
Is "your own metric" even a valid solution to Einstein's field
equations and does it even reduce to the Newton at the proper limit?
>
> vi) In the derivation from GR one may fix the 'gauge'. Carlip uses
> asymptotic limit. This is again wrong. As explained by Christian,
> Penrose and others, the island asumptions is ***experimentally***
> false.
BFD.
You are looking for something to complain about. The "island
assumption" is perfectly valid because we aren't trying to find the
metric of the universe, just for a specific case under specific
assumptions.
>
> Other people, as Christian, does use of aditional equations and
> constraints do NOT derived from GR.
>
> There is still more points and very very sophisticated that i do not
> discuss with Carlip, but since he is unable to recognize difference
> between a Newtonian potential (R(t)) and the nonrelativistic limit of a
> retarded LW field (x, t), i consider unnecesary to discuss advanced
> stuff with him.
Get the functional dependance of phi right first.
I see it as you are advocating a pet theory of your own and you haven't
dedicated the necessary time to properly learn GR. You keep making
mistakes, and often repeat them even when corrected by others.
Eugene Stefanovich
Bilge wrote:
> On the other hand, it's very easy to see how specific diagrams contribute
> to observable effects. For example, the diagram,
>
> \ is the first order correction to the magnetic moment.
> .\ It is easily interpreted that way, too. The virtual
> . \ photon which connects to the ingoing and outgoing
> . /~~~~ electron lines carries momentum. That modifies the
> / momentum at the vertex in the middle. A charge which
> / scatters from the electron then sees the modified
> momentum present at the middle vertex which connects
> the exchanged photon.
>
Does it bother you that this graph makes infinite contribution to
the scattering amplitude?
Eugene.
Eugene Stefanovich
Bilge wrote:
> For example, you reject any explanation, proof or argument in which
> the words lagrangian, field, phase, or gauge are used as well as some
> I probably omitted because I don't recall all of your quirks.
I reject your arguments based on Lagrangian, field,or gauges bacause
these concepts are theoretical assumptions that
1. do not have experimentally observed counterparts and
2. do not follow directly from fundamental principles
By "fundamental principles" I mean the postulates of quantum mechanics
and the principle of relativity. In my book I demonstrate that these
two postulates plus generally accepted form of the Hamiltonian in the
renormalized QED plus a few experimentally supported postulates
(e.g., the cluster separability, the triviality of the vacuum and
1-particle states) lead directly to the theory in which interactions are
instantaneous.
Eugene.
donsto...@hotmail.com
dedicated the necessary time to properly learn GR. You keep making
mistakes, and often repeat them even when corrected by others.
*******************************
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged."
- Some minor work of fiction.
AllYou!
O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /
Orion
nature?
Eugene Stefanovich
Juan R. wrote:
>>So I haven't specifically seen bound state problems solved in QFT, but I'm
>>suspicious of claims that they can't be.
>
>
> Difficult to believe that you can find them because the only physical
> states on R-QFT are free particle states. There is nothing on R-QFT as
> the wavefunction of two bound electrons.
By a well-known theorem, poles of the S-matrix are located at energies
corresponding to bound states. Since renormalized R-QFT can calculate
the S-matrix with perfect accuracy, it can also find the bound
state energies. That's what is done in the Bethe-Salpeter approach.
The problem, however, is with finding the wave functions of these
bound states in the framework of R-QFT. I agree with you that
R-QFT has no consistent solution for the wave functions.
This
becomes clear from the following point of view: If we know energies
and wave functions of stationary states then we can reconstruct the
full Hamiltonian. However, there is no finite Hamiltonian in
R-QFT. In the renormalized theory, the Hamiltonian expressed in terms
of bare particles has infinite counterterms.
The simple and natural solution for both energies and wave functions
of bound states is given by the "dressed particle" approach.
A finite Hamiltonian can be found by a unitary transformation of the
R-QFT Hamiltonian. The usual diagonalization of this
Hamiltonian provides the solution for bound states.
See, for example,
Shebeko, A. V.; Shirokov, M. I., Unitary transformations in quantum
field theory and bound states, nucl-th/0102037
Eugene.
Gregory L. Hansen
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged."
Usenet has taught me that this is not true.
--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
Eric Gisse
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <1131324813....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged."
>
> Usenet has taught me that this is not true.
Amen.
Bilge
>
>Bilge ha escrito:
>> i.e., the uncertainty relations permitting the short term violation
>> of conservation of energy.
>
>This is a common misconception.
Then tell eugene. Do you make a habit of quoting out of context?
>
>> >This means that there exists a substance
>> >that penetrates everywhere, effects real things, but cannot be
>> >directly observed. This looks very much like long forgotten aether.
>>
>> Only to you.
>
>This is not correct. Similar claims were done by people so smart like
>Einstein, Dirac or Feynmann or Wheeler between others.
You mean they told eugene the same thing?
>> >As history showed us, physics is doing much better if such
>> >unobservable "substances" like aether or virtual photons are removed
>> >from the theory and the theory is formulated in terms of directly
>> >observable things, like real physical photons, electrons, etc.
>>
>> Please explain precisely how to observe a real electron. Every
>> signal which is observed from a detector is observed through the
>> forces produced by virtual interactions, i.e., the motion of an
>> indicator on a meter, the chemical reactions in ones retina
>> which propagate via more chemical reactions through the visual
>> cortex, etc. I could claim the exact opposite with greater
>> veracity. Give me a single example of any observation in which
>> the final step in the observation involves any of the free
>> particles you call real.
>
>It is well known that fields are -by definition- unobservables, and
>that one only measure particles and motion of particles. Have you read
>chapter 3 of Weinberg manual? There Weinberg clearly states that one
>measures in particle physics experiments are particles. One NEWER
>measures fields.
Try posting something without deliberately misconstruing what
I've written.
>
>In fact your above discussion proves that you do not know even that a
>field is!!!! Even if one does the hyphotesis of the field exists and
>even if one does hypothesis one is measuring via meters, chemical
>reactions, etc. One is NOT measuring the field.
>
>You appears to mix the concept of *FIELD* with the concept of *strengh
>of the FIELD* at one point.
>
>That is, even if could prove that we are measuring the *strengh of the
>FIELD* at one point x in an instant t, that is VERY different from
>proving that the FIELD exist. If you want prove that field exist, you
>would measure the *strengh of the FIELD* not only in the point where
>the test particle is sited. You may also measure the *strengh of the
>FIELD* in the rest of points of the universe (even beyond observable
>universe) and remember that you cannot use tests particles (because if
>you use test particles you are measuring really forces newer fields).
>Can do that guy? Can you prove that fields exist?
Bilge
No, because I didn't include the two other graphs that go with
that one.
Eugene Stefanovich
Does it bother you that these additional graphs result from
infinite renormalization counterterms in the Hamiltonian?
Infinite Hamiltonian operator doesn't make sense, does it?
Eugene.