Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion Relativistic Quantum Mechanics?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu  
View profile  
 More options Nov 11 2005, 2:27 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, rec.org.mensa
From: carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:27:45 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Fri, Nov 11 2005 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: Relativistic Quantum Mechanics?
In sci.physics Juan R. <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:

[...]

> The best attemp to reply my 'unortodox' view has been from specialist
> Carlip. He has used a completely wrong metric with dimensions that
> forces to us to change all of standard stuff -e.g. there is not EM four
> currents in his nonstandard approach-. Finally he derives wrong
> temporal dependence, wrong functional dependence of potentials,
> incorrect equation of motion -moreover he just obtain the
> nonrelativistic limit of the trajectory in a relativistic spacetime,
> newer GR trajectory in a NONrelativistic spacetime-, he obtains zero
> curvature -due to c^2 term into g_00 one has R = R_00 / g_00 --> 0- of
> spacetime which reinforces my view that in the nonrelativistc regime
> the causality structure of GR break -if gravity was spacetime curvature
> then zero curvature would imply zero gravity which is wrong according
> to Newtonian limit-.
> Moreover, Carlip obtains all a couple of wrong results. for example he
> obtains a nonzero 00-connection which implies that full physical
> derivatives in the Newtonian limit are covariant ones WHICH is wrong.
> In the Newtonian limit one, physical derivatives are partial and total
> ones NEWER covariant ones.
> According to Carlip derivatives as partial v / partial t that one find
> in Newtonian textbooks are NON physical because he uses a non zero
> 00-connection.
> Moreover, Carlip does not know what is the difference between a
> potential and a field and he still unknow why Penrose (like other
> specialists) has claimed that Ehlers boundary is unphysical. and
> therefore Ehlers attempt to derive Newtonian limit of spacetime is
> nonrigorous and experimentally unphysical, etc.

Briefly (since I don't have a lot of time to waste on cranks):

Juan R. has been shown mathematically rigorous derivations of the
Newtonian limit of general relativity.  He doesn't like them because
they require a choice of coordinates to get the standard form of
Newton's equations.  (General relativity is generally covariant,
while the form of Newton's equations that he likes isn't, but he
apparently believes that taking the limit c->infinity should
magically pick out a coordinate system.)

Juan R. uses a coordinate x^0=ct, where t is the Newtonian time,
and thinks this makes sense even in the limit c->infinity.  Of
course, in this limit, t=x^0/c->0 for every finite value of x^0,
and all derivatives with respect to x^0 go to zero.  He has
been told how to take the limit properly, even in his coordinates
(start with a large but finite value of c, multiply by an appropriate
power of c so that the c->infinity limit makes sense, and then take
the limit), and has been shown how this process gives the correct
Newtonian limit, but he doesn't like that, either.

Juan R. has apparently casually read a paragraph or two about
Cartan's formulation of Newtonian gravity as a spacetime theory
with a preferred time, and has misinterpreted what he read.  In
particular, it is an easy calculation that in the Cartan formalism,
the spatial curvature at a fixed time is zero, but the spacetime
curvature is not; he has made the beginner's mistake of confusing
spatial and spacetime curvature (much as, in the post I'm replying
to here, he seems to confuse the scalar curvature with the curvature
tensor).  See, for example, J. Christian, arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9701013.

Juan R. does not understand the role of boundary conditions.  In
particular, he thinks that the need to impose boundary conditions
to obtain a Newtonian potential is somehow "unphysical" (basing this
largely, it seems, on an out-of-context quote of Christian).  This
is again apparently related to his belief that the Newtonian limit
of a generally covariant theory should magically produce the right
coordinate system.

Juan R. does not think that the solution of the Poisson equation is
really the Newtonian potential.  He also thinks that the Minkowski
metric should apply even to Newtonian gravity (!).

And, of course, Juan R. believes that his brilliant insights about
very elementary general relativity have somehow been missed by all
of the physicists who have worked on the subject for the last 90 years.

Steve Carlip


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google