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
Juan R.
Eric you have pointed to a book on relativistic quantum FIELD theory
which is *different* from relativistic quantum MECHANICS.
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-.
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.
Our theory has been already generalized to gravitation -showing why
Einstein General Relativity is not a correct approach to gravity- and I
am now working in the quantization. We have already derived a
theoretical expression for the computation of the full quantum metric
g_munu. No other quantum gravity approach has done this still:
- Discrete approaches focus on spacetime structure but without full
explicit result far from some recent -not very convincing- simulations
(e.g. triangulations).
- Geometrodynamics and its loop extension are simply wrong. In fact,
even ignoring details, today, the WdW equation does not compute quantum
metric g_munu.
- String theory is at the best an insane discipline. See recent
criticism on sci.physics.strings "String theory is not a TOE by Juan
R."
If your browser is 'old' or non-standard (e.g. MIE) you cannot access
the site (which use some advances features like MathML code). An
alternative limited page is available at root
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
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
>> 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.
>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:
> 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.
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.
Juan R.
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.
Sure that those is abut nonrelativistic quantum mechanics? What is the
relativistic quantum wave equation for a electron?
>
> >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.
Metaphysical claims? If you cannot distinguhes between relativistic
qwuantum mechanics Bjorken & Drell, Volume I why would i believe that
you can correctly valuate Eugene own proposal?
> >
> >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.
No problem try on
http://www.ed.gov/parents/read/resources/edpicks.jhtml?src=qc
>
> >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.
Have you computed the nonrelativistic limit of GR. Where? Interestingly
Dirac wrote similar thoughts about the failure for obtaining the
nonrelativistic limit of QED. Probably you unknown both...
Juan R.
Eric Gisse 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 am sure. Most of is said in quantum field theory books is completely
wrong.
Greiner's textbook is NOT about relativisitc quantum mechanics, it is
about an inconsistent and experimentally wrong relativizitation of
quantum mechanics.
The complexity of the theorems proving that usual -textbook-
relativistic quantum mechanics is completely wrong is beyond usual
textbooks and articles on the topic.
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
Juan R.
Eugene Stefanovich ha escrito:
> 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.
That 'depends' of the concept of physics one has. For an 'enginneering'
-wrote down and compute- view, QFT is fantastic. From a fundamental
point of view and if your objetive is the development of an advanced
unified and CONSISTENT theory of universe, then QFT is rather, rather
wrong.
Experimental verification? One can prove with very rigorous and
advanced theorems developed at the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) and
by other people in an independent manner, that almost all agreement
between experimental result and certain QFT predictions has been a
luckly coincidence. Similar views were said by the pioonering father of
QED. In one of his last works Mathematical Foundations of Quantum
Theory. (Academic Press, Inc., 1978) Dirac claimed:
Most physicists are very satisfied with this situation. They argue that
if one has rules for doing calculations and the results agree with
observation, that is all that one requires. But it is not all that one
requires. One requires a single comprehensive theory applying to all
physical phenomena. Not one theory for dealing with non-relativistic
effects and a separate disjoint theory for dealing with certain
relativistic effects. Furthermore, the theory has to be based on sound
mathematics, in which one neglects only quantities that are small. One
is not allowed to neglect infinitely large quantities [...]
The agreement [QED] with observation is presumably a coincidence, just
like the original calculation of the hydrogen spectrum with Bohr
orbits. Such coincidences are no reason for turning a blind eye to the
faults of a theory. One must seek a new relativistic quantum mechanics"
The theory developed at the Center proves with rigorous matht Dirac's
belief that "The agreement [QED] with observation is presumably a
coincidence".
> 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.
Our Center has proved that fields are approximations arising in special
cases. Our work generalizes Hoyle/Narlikar and Wheeler/Feynman
theories. It has been extended to gravitation and now i am quantizing
it. We already obtain a non perturbative finite full causal structure.
None other approach to quantum gravity has obtained this: string theory
'work' -so say- only in perturbative regime, LQG and HQG continues
without classical limit and with the famous problem of time -all of
that solved in our approach-, etc.
Moreover experimental results on Marinov motor, longitudinal forces in
tokamaks, Ampere forces in mercury, the causality problems of standard
LW potentials, etc. are not pased by clasical field theory but passed
by our theory. Literature on problems of field theory is very large.
Do not forget that Weinberg manual does NOT work on chemistry. I
already cited for you a recent Physical review article where is
rigorusly proven that the S-matrix theory and the use of Hilbert-Fock
space -you use- are valid as a first approximation. The canonical
theory, of course, has none of those problems, since work directly with
both L and S-spaces.
It goes beyond...
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.
>
>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.
>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...?"
Juan R.
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.
Of course was a typo "abut nonrelativistic quantum mechanics" would
read "abOut Relativistic quantum mechanics" Sorry.
However, you have replied just as i wait you would do. Since you read
"Relativistic Quantum Mehanics" printed in the cover you think that
those is correct. But is NOT because the theory inside is incorrect as
already noted Dirac, and Landau, and etc.
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?
You would leave serious stuff to prepared people (premier leage) and
you would focus only in elementary stuff (undergraduate stuff and
similar).
> >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.
It is a very simple question -somewhat like "what is the curvature of
spacetime on the nonrelativisitc limit of GR?" and that nobody replied
still-.
I am not asking to you advanced stuff. I am asking elementary stuff.
/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?
> [...]
> >> 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.
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?
> 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.
I find more ironic still the attitude of some guys to believe that
'mainstraim physics' is complete or rigorous. Those guys ignore the
history of physics when many times mainstraim physics was proved to be
incorrect and newer theories arised. In Newtonian epoque, for example,
physicists believed that all was already well known. Mainstraim physics
was perfect. In fact, Newton was durely attacked by his colleagues:
mainstraim physicists. The history of physics is recursive.
> 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.
[p,x] = -i\hbar is valid for nonrelativistic QM.
Correct this and try again.
> 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.
> [...]
> >> 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?
Curious. Yes references were cited. References i had read and pointed
why and WHERE were wrong. Nobody replied to points i said were wrong.
Is it supposed that i may admit that are correct because were cited by
Carlip?
> >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.
What? I know perfectly why nonrelativistic QM cannot be obtained from
relativisitc QFT. I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived
from GR.
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".
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.
>
>Of course was a typo "abut nonrelativistic quantum mechanics" would
>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.
Juan R.
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".
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.
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.
Then does GR reduces to NG in the nonlinear regime? Again NO.
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"
"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.
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 Ehlërs boundary is unphysical. and
therefore Ehlërs attempt to derive Newtonian limit of spacetime is
nonrigorous and experimentally unphysical, etc.
Etc, Etc.
Why do you think that still today people continue publishing articles
on the Newtonian limit, why question has been not solved still guy?
Juan R.
Bilge ha escrito:
> >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.
It is not so simple. There is an complete research field on the search
of one relativistic quantum mechanics. But i will not cite here since
you are well-versed in the topic :-)
> >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?
Juan R.
Bilge ha escrito:
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.
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.
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".
>
>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".
>
>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:
>> >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.
>
>It is not so simple. There is an complete research field on the search
>of one relativistic quantum mechanics. But i will not cite here since
>you are well-versed in the topic :-)
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.
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.
Eric Gisse
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.
>
> 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.
Juan R.
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).
Juan R.
Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
>
> 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?
That was addressed both here and in sci.physics.research.
Juan R.
Bilge, it is easy, you simply are arrogantly attacking people without
subtanting your discourse.
In fact you are still not replied to
> >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?)
> >Are you
> >claiming that QED is a relativisitc quantum MECHANICS?
Please write also the relativistic uncertainty relations.
Please prove also why (2) light which propagates at `c', and (3)
electromagnetic interactions which propagate instantaneously are
incompatible.
Or at least proves that PRE 1996 53(5) 5373-5381 is wrong.
Write also the diference between a field and a potential?
Juan R.
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.
Continue being true.
I will explain to you again. Almost all books on GR CLAIM that NG is
/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.
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.
Juan R.
Bilge ha escrito:
> Can the crap. Eugene starts with the same theory. All he does is
> perform a unitary transform. Changing representations doesn't
> change any physics.
I already expresed my doubts on you understanding of Eugene theory and
your real capacity for evaluating it...
Since Eugene already replied to you i will say nothing more
Advice: please study topics a bit before claim that work of others is
nonsense.
Eric Gisse
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.
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.
Juan R.
> 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.
>
Exactly! You see page 77 of Wald and you think "equation (4.4.21) of
Wald is Newtonian law".
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.
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).
***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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'"
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.
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
(1 -1 -1 -1)
Therefore if GR was a consistent theory would have no gravity.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
My work on gravity corrects this and one obtains the correct functional
dependence without lack of continuity, etc.
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
covariant = usual partial ones + 00-connection.
This is of course WRONG, any textbook of Newtonian mechanics explains
that the correct derivatives are usual partial ones.
In my own work, the 00-connection is zero therefore Newtonian
derivatives are partial ones. This is correct.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Juan R.
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...
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.
Gregory L. Hansen
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
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?
Juan R.
Bilge ha escrito:
> i.e., the uncertainty relations permitting the short term violation
> of conservation of energy.
This is a common misconception.
> >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.
> >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.
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?
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!"
Juan R.
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.
Where is there a complete bound-state theory in Weinberg manual for
example?
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.
In the
e + e = 2 photon
scattering. R-QFT only can study the wavefunction of the electrons or
the photons when are not interacting. That is when the wavefunction
factorizes |12> = |1>|2>.
In an atom or molecule you can claim that electrons are infinitely
separated and |12> is NOT |1>|2>. All test of QED are for nonboundend
states for example scattering two two electrons in acellerator physics
(which is an ONE-body problem), hidrogen atoms or hidrogenic ions
He^(++). In fact, recent test of two electrons in bound states has been
a failure.
Yes one can obtain a Dirac equation for a single particle. What is the
corresponding equation for two particles. It cannot be derived from
field theory and equations proposed in literature /ad hoc/, for example
two-body covariant are not rigorous and not complete.
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.
Why you think that R-QFT states that only scattering states are
observables?
Still today, nobody has found the correct, consistent, and complete
relativistic equation for N-bodies (perhaps our center has already done
but are cheking details).
Juan R.
Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
> In article <1131214171....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Juan R. <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >
> >Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >That was addressed both here and in sci.physics.research.
>
> 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.
And proved that ct collapses as dimension (which is the correct
physics) but that parameter tau reduces to Newtonian time (which is a
parameter NEWER a dimension). And also proved as covariant derivatives
reduce to Newtonian ones (Carlip, the 'great relativisit' was unable to
prove this), etc.
But still that is not exactly Newtonian gravity. In fact, the
functional dependence (x, t) is just wrong, because GR is a field
theory and cannot deal with nonlocal AAAD contributions. Moreover i
proved that the curvature of spacetime is ZERO, doing the curvature
interpretation of GR just wrong. If A is cause of B elimination of A
may eliminate the effect B. This is a basic principle of science that
relativists just ignore!
If you eliminate curvature and still there is gravity then curvature is
NOT the cause of gravity.
Moreover, there is no posibility for fixing the gauge of the potential
obtained inside GR. Either one use incorrect -experimentally false
boundaries as in Ehlërs approach- or either one is forced to use
**aditional** equations does not derived from field equations of GR.
Therefore one continues to not derive NG from GR.
Moreover i exactly computed in sci.physics was the nonrelativistic
limit of trayectory from the GR geodesic equation. But trajectory
where? I just computed the nonrelativistic limit of trajectory on a
relativistic spacetime.
If i had computed the nonrelativistic limit of spacetime i had obtained
(1 -1 -1 -1) which is Minkoskian spacetime and if i had computed then
the trajectory on THAT spacetime i would obtain a = 0. This indicates
the breaktrought of the curvature interpretation.
What sense has the computation of a nonrelativistic trajectory on a
relativistic spacetime? One may be coherent.
Moreover, all of discussion on sci. was for one body system. The
equation of motion for one test body. One can prove that the two body
equation of motion cannot be obtained. This difficulty is common to all
relativistic theories: Maxwell EM, R-QFT, RQM, SR, and GR.
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
Juan R.
Bilge ha escrito:
> 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?
Since as proven by Cartan extension the Rieman curvature geometrization
of GR is a approximation (GR cannot deal with spin for example), one
can regeometrize GR on the so called torsion gravity (there spacetime
is just flat).
Also in quantum FTG (the theory worked by Feynman or Weimberg between
others) spacetime is just flat.
For a formulation of particles on curved spacetime you can see
Hoyle/Narlikar theory using Synge parallel propagators
Try again on your irrational defense of fields :-)
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
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
>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...
obtained it by rearranging the terms to get new physics is quite
another.
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.
>
>Where is there a complete bound-state theory in Weinberg manual for
>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
Juan R.
Bilge ha escrito:
> 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.
Completely wrong!!!
As proven by many authors retarded LW potentials disagree with many
recent experimental data on Mercury forces on Hg, railguns, tokamaks
anomalies, etc. From a theoretical point of view, several authors have
proven in recent years that LW potentials are theoretically incorrect.
In the PRE article i cited above authors proved 1) LW potentials are
not complete solutions of Maxwell equations 2) The introductions of an
instantaneous action does the solutions complete.
My only criticism to that paper is the dualism concept which is solved
in my approach.
It is another general misuderstanding that an instantaneous interaction
conflicts with wave data or similar. There exist absolutely no
experimental data proving that instantaneous interactions are wrong.
In fact, as proven by members of the Weber electrodynamics school in
recent years if one begins from an instantaneous Weber-like interaction
one can obtain the telegraph equation (retarded action) when one
considers bulk matter.
My own EM theory (direct particle interaction generalizing Fokker,
Dirac, Wheeler, Feynmann, Hoyle, and Narlikar theory) is compatible
with all experimental data of standard EM and also with tests that
classical EM cannot pass. Moreover, there is no renormalization of
mass, there is no divergences, etc.
Moreover, one obtains the full equation of motion for particles.
Remeber that field theory cannot obtain the full equation of motion
even for a single particle!!! The Maxwell-Lorent equation is NOT
complete and violates conservation of energy. The field theoreticians
proposed /AD HOC/ (ad hoc because cannot be derived from the
Lagrangian), the Maxwell-Lorent-Abraham-Dirac equation, which is so
ugly and full of unphysical behavior that practically nobody acept it
as real. Our theory correct all of those!
Moreover the canonical theory explain why one does not observes
aberration in gravity.
Carlip wrote a paper on this, but it is wrong. i) He eliminated all
aberration via chosing a specific example without aberration!!! and
then Carlip obviously obtained not aberration at the final of his
'proof'. ii) He used LW potentials, which as proven in many rigorous
papers are incorrect (see for example above cited PRE article. iiii)
Carlip did not consider first-order terms on Universe backreaction
(when one does that Carlip's conclusion turns wrong). iv) At the best,
Carlip agreed in the conclusions of his paper that van Flandern's
approach (speed of gravity >>> c) WAS compatible with experimental
data on absence of aberration.
> >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.
Colleague, have your hear about Wheeler/Feynmann theory of absortion?
It is a theory withou fields and can be quantized. In fact, in a recent
rev on modern physics has been illustrated that a 'QED' without fields
explains the same experimental data that standard QED and can offer
replies to questions that standard QED cannot even ask.
Read for example Rev Mod. Phys 1995 67(1), 113. The theory
***without*** fields is better than the theory with them!!
Canonical theory is still better and correct some errors of that paper
:-)
> 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.
completely WRONG discussion. You have not idea of AAAD theory.
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:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Exactly! You see page 77 of Wald and you think "equation (4.4.21) of
> 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
|
|
|
|
\ _ /
Juan R.
> Juan R. wrote:
> > Eric Gisse ha escrito:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Exactly! You see page 77 of Wald and you think "equation (4.4.21) of
> > Wald is Newtonian law".
>
> I should have qualified that by explaining what phi was. My mistake.
>
> The phi obtained is GM/r.
already explained why Wald equation is not Newtonian equation!! I will
explain again Phy (x,t) is not Phy(R(t))
'r' in Wald equation is not 'r' in Newtonian equation. Moreover, 'GM/r'
in Wald equation contains c in a hidden manner via retardation of the
field. 'M' in Wald equation computed at t_{ret} is not 'M' in Newton
equation computed at tau, etc.
Moreover, i already explained why the rest of the equation and
derivation are just wrong.
> > 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.
Read Wald before doing irrelevant claims. Wald clearly proves why in
the linear regime a=0.
> >
> > ***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*
Read elementary stuff and after understanding basic stuff read more
advanced literature and after understanding it continue reading still
more advanced literature. Do not make irrelevant claims at first
undergraduate level.
> >
> > 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.
What is the link of this nonsense with Wald's proof on linear regime a
= 0 and gravitation is not correclty modelled? Do you know that word
'proof' mean?
> >
> > 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.
Nonsense. Wald is just deriving the weak field slow velocity limit
which is NOT the Newtonian limit. The Newtonian limit is in rigor the
c--> infinite limit. Do you know NC theory? Perhaps you would study
first before doing claims...
> If you think a = -del*phi isn't the Newtonian potential, your
> understanding of Newton is suspect.
It is not 'if your think'. You appear unable to distinguish between a
Newtonian potential with functional dependence phy = phy(R(t)) with the
nonrelativisitc limit of a LW 'potential' -really field- with
dependence phy = phy(x, t). I only can recomend to you read literature
on the topic. I cited several articles where the correct dependence is
highlighted. Also cited a chapter on a well known book on dynamics (the
Goldstein). I also cited a web page where you can see the diference on
functional dependence. No worry i will cite again the online page.
Look the first V in http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
That is a potential with functional dependence V = V(R, dR/dt)
Taking limit c--> infinite one recovers Newton potential V = V(R) =
V(R(t))
Now scroll down the page and looks in the LW potential just before
equation (2). The phy in Wald equation has the same functionality phi =
phi(x, t). There are published literature (i already cited) where it is
proven that mathematically the phi(x, t) is incorrect.
Moreover V(R(t)) is different from V(x, t). Do you know what is a
function?
Moreover you just ignore the rest of criticisms.
> > 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...
No, that 'option' is not valid on physics. 'Close enough' is not
suficient. Or you can explain data or cannot explain data. In Wald
equation experimental data is not explained and this is the reason that
authors doing serious research in the topic does not follow that way.
If GR cannot reduce to NG then GR is unable to explain experimental
data that Newtonian gravity CAN explain.
Moreover, GR says that gravity is caused by spacetime curvature and in
the nonrelativistic limit there is no curvature, therefore the causal
structure is just wrong.
Then one has the same problem that with relativisitic quantum field
thoery that cannot explain non-relativistic quantum mechanical
experiments. In Dirac words:
"Most physicists are very satisfied with this situation. They argue
that if one has rules for doing calculations and the results agree with
observation, that is all that one requires. But it is not all that one
requires. One requires a single comprehensive theory applying to all
physical phenomena. Not one theory for dealing with non-relativistic
effects and a separate disjoint theory for dealing with certain
relativistic effects."
You cannot use GR for computing certain relativistic phenomena (light
bending radar delay, Mercury perihelion, etc) AND Newtonian gravity for
computing other phenomena. for example computer programs use Newtonian
gravity for computing orbits and in the final step time delays for
aparent image of celestial bodies or formulas for correcting perihelion
are introduced /ad hoc/. That is more, both theories GR and NG are so
incompatible as GR and QM.
We need is a NEW gravitational theory explaining all phenomena,
relativistic and nonrelativisitic, and without the further difficulties
of GR (self-action, singularities, problem of energy, quantization,
frames, etc.).
> >
> > 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.
You obviously do not understand.
In Wald derivation, phy = phi(x, t) is a LW potential (field). Taking
the limit of low motion does that retardation effects in velocity are
negigible but those do not make t dissapear`since is stiull present in
te retarded density. In fact the 'M' in Wald LW potential is M =
M(t_{ret}) because that term is independent of velocity.
Even ignoring time dependence of M and writting just phy = phi(x) THAT
is NOT Newtonian potential because Newtonian potential functional form
is
phy = phi(R(t)) = phi(R)
and R is different from x and moreover CONTAINS implicit time
dependence on t, because R = R(t).
Still even ignoring all of this the a in a = -grad(Phi) is not
Newtonian a.
> >
> > 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.
I think that Penrose know what is an approximation. Approximation means
that if you put the approximate answer you obtain and approximate
answer (more good if approximation was better). If you put the real
answer you may obtain the correct
answer. This is not the situation with island asumption. If you put the
real boundary of universe which is not island one you obtain a WRONG
Newtonian limit.
100 is an approximation to 101, because the difference between real
value and approximate value is small of order of 1/100. Substitution of
approximated (100) by real values (101) imply a better fiting of data.
In GR boundaries if flatness was an approximation then that mean that
substitution of approximated boundary by real (observed) boundary would
imply a better fiting of data. BUT IS NOT!!! If you use the observed
boundary of the universe instead of flatness one, one does not obtain a
better result one obtains JUST WRONG results.
> > 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.
No, 'post-Minkoskian' way is not! and this is the reason in the
research in alternative ways (post-Newtonian ones). Moreover Wald
approach is internally inconsistent and implies that one may substitute
***by hand*** incorrect mathematical expresions by correct ones.
For example, Wald obtains
d^2 x_{Einstein} / d t_{Einstein}^2 = - grad { -G M(t_{ret}) / [x -
y(t_{ret})] }
and may FIRST know Newtonian gravity and then one may after do, by
hand, the ***substitutions****
x_{Einstein} ===> x_{Newton}
t_{Einstein} ===> t_{Newton}
M(t_{ret}) ===> M
[x - y(t_{ret})] ===> [R(t)]
Etc.
And this only for the ONE body problem. For the N-body problem the
number of ad hoc substitutions is greater.
Moreover, there is conceptual and theoretical difficulties. Why one may
ignore c dependence in a kinetic term but c is still present in the
potential term. How is possible that an instantaneous interaction is
derived from a retarded interaction maintaining c finite (if one
maintain retardation in a Newtonian potential then orbits are destroyed
in simulations becaue momenta is not conservedl, etc.), etc.
This is the reason that limit only can be c---> infinite that,
curiously, IS the limit studied in research literature. Textbooks are
only that... textbooks.
> >
> > 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.
Yes Carlip 'explained'... using a wrong metric with wrong Minkoskian
limit, incorrect dimensions (when metric is adimensional), violating
the /XXIVth International Astronomical Union General Assembly
recomendations. Moreover, Carlip obtain wrong functional dependence
(violating causality), wrong boundaries (violating cosmological data),
wrong derivatives (due to the use of 00-connection), wrong time
(obtained a dimension and time is not a dimension in Newtonian physics)
and finally was unable to prove that curvature interpretation holds in
the limit.
If that is a explanation for you i repsect your criteria. however, it
is very interesting that people doing research in those topics
(including Penrose) do not hold Carlip views.
For example, Penrose clearly reject island asumption as *unphysical*,
Carlip is still unable to understand why.
> The metric for flat space, with c restored, is diag(-c^2,1,1,1)
> assuming the -+++ sign convention.
But that is not the correct metric. Take a basic book on SR, EM,
particle physics, etc. The metric is (1 -1 -1 -1). The c is NOT
introduced into the metric, the c is introduced into the x^0 component
of spacetime.
I already cited an online textbook on GR
pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/grtinypdf.pdf
see page 2 of Sean Carrol basic manual, x^0 = ct and the metric is (1
-1 -1 -1). Carlip does x^0 = t and his metric is (c^2 -1 -1 -1), which
is wrong. For example, in Carlip's wrong metric there is not
four-currents because the c term in the temporal dimension is mising.
Moreover, Carlip obtains a full couple of mistakes in the limit c-->
infinite as proven.
> >
> > Therefore if GR was a consistent theory would have no gravity.
>
> That is stupid. Seriously, it is.
It is well-known that GR is not a consistent theory of gravity. It is
also known by people who has done serious stuff in Newtonian limit (and
Carlip is not one of them) that the Newtonian limit cannot be obtained
from GR without invoking aditional equations and ad hoc postulates.
> >
> > 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.
I was talking of the Minkoskian limit of Carlip wrong metric when i
talked of Em currents, it is obvious!!! Moreover, you do not understand
Carlip's approach. In my approach the nonrelativistic limit of (ct, x)
looks like (infinite, x). the zero-dimension collapses and one is
forced to use a 3-space parametrized by the invariant tau. In Carlip
wrong approach, his nonrelativistic limit is (t, x) and one obtains a
four spacetime which has no sense in the newtonian limit!!!
> > 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.
That is you ignore published literature, you ignore math, and you put
in words of one author the mistakes done by other authors. For example
you critize to me that in your words "In Newton there is no
4-anything." when precisely i am obtaining a 3-space and Carlip is who
obtained a wrong 4-space with time like a dimension, which is a
complete absurdity!!!!
> >
> > 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.
Or either you obtain Newtonian physics exactly or your theory is just
wrong. Moreover you appears completely ignorant of NC theory and
similar.
> > 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 insults do not mistakes. Perhaps you would read a basic textbook
on Newtonian physics...
> Your usage of "collapse" is completely unmotivated and confusing.
No it is not, the collapse of the topology of the dimension zeroth does
you cannot use it as a valid physical dimension distance between two
physical intervals is of measure zero, and only other three dimensions
survive. Curiously this is also 'predicted' by NC theory. Yes NC is
just complex enough for doing not appear in the Wald or in other
elementary textbooks but does not mean that was not a research topic.
> >
> > 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.
?????
I am obtaining the correct functional dependance R(t). It is Wald and
Carlip and other who obtain incorrect dependence (x, t)!!!
> >
> > 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?
You do not understand.
> > 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.
New terminology? "Physical derivative" is a standard term. I explain
again, in presence of a nonzero 00-connection the flat derivative is
unobservable ad this is the basic reason for the minimal coupling
standard rule
flat derivative ---> covariant derivative.
> 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.
If the 00 connection is not zero you are forced to substitute the flat
derivatives by covariant ones in the Newtonian limit. In Newtonian
physics the physical derivatives are flat ones.
> >
> > 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.
WE ARE ATEMPTING TO OBTAIN THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT. THEREFORE YOU MAY
OBTAIN ALL OF NEWTONIAN LIMIT.
In fact, this is the reaos that textbooks only focuse on the derivation
(so say) of Newtonian law for one single body. Newtonian mechanics is
not equivalent to Newton law for an single body. Newtonian mechanics is
some more.
For example what is the continuity equation in Carlip approach.
> >
> > In my own work, the 00-connection is zero therefore Newtonian
> > derivatives are partial ones. This is correct.
>
> ..and you get a = 0
Completely WRONG, you have no idea. The 00-connection is zero but a is
NOT zero if you are computing the nonrelativistic limit of the
trajectory ;-)
> Which is....incorrect.
Incorrect is your profound misunderstading of even the most elementary
stuff.
Moreover the physical derivative is the flat one just as in Newton
physics.
> >
> > 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.
WE ARE ATEMPTING TO OBTAIN THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT. THEREFORE YOU MAY
OBTAIN ALL OF NEWTONIAN LIMIT not just the part what is of interest for
you and the part that is not of interst for you because breaks the
consistency of GR just is ignored. Ignorance of data is not a good
attitude for a scientist
> GR IS NOT NEWTON.
>
> To expect otherwise is foolish.
Is wait that GR reduce to the correct Newtonian limit 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.
Yes it is so valid that we know that is experimentally invalid. Great!
"However, physical evidence clearly suggests that we are not living in
an 'island universe' (cf. Penrose 1996, 593-594) - i.e., universe is
not 'an island of matter surrounded by emptiness' (Misner et al. 1973,
295)."
> >
> > 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 already obtained the correct functional dependence (R(t)). From GR,
one obtains the incorect functional dependence (x, t).
> 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.
It is really interesting as people who has studied those points on
detail concide with me.
But do not worry if you want believe that GR reduces to NG in the
linear regime you can do it : -)
Juan R.
Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
> >Where is there a complete bound-state theory in Weinberg manual for
> >example?
>
> It doesn't have to be in Weinberg manual. No single textbook is
> comprehensive, or can represent work done after it was published.
Where is there a complete and consistent relativistic bound-state
theory?
> >
> >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.
Correction, the S-matrix is the only possible observable on R-QFT and
it is only defined for free particles. The only well-defined fields on
R-QFT are free fields.
> 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.
There is not equation of motion in R-QFT defined for full interacting
states and only scattering states can be defined. This is reason that
S-matrix is the only observable. Only free fields are defined in R-QFT.
> 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.
> ...
> >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.
I clearly said that only propagators on R-QFT are formal propagators
for asymptotic scattering. Care! do not confound quantum field theory
with relativistic quantum field theory. Full bounded states are defined
in nonrelativistic quantum field theory. The only defined states on
relativistic quantum field theory are free fields and whereas that can
be useful in certain regimes of condensed matter (basically when
thermodynamic limit applies) the R-QFT is not applied to a single
molecule of water.
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.
>
>> >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.
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.
Eric Gisse
Juan R. wrote:
> Eric Gisse ha escrito:
>
> > Juan R. wrote:
> > > Eric Gisse ha escrito:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Exactly! You see page 77 of Wald and you think "equation (4.4.21) of
> > > Wald is Newtonian law".
> >
> > I should have qualified that by explaining what phi was. My mistake.
> >
> > The phi obtained is GM/r.
>
> already explained why Wald equation is not Newtonian equation!! I will
> explain again Phy (x,t) is not Phy(R(t))
I repeat myself, because it bears repeating.
There is *no* time dependence in the potential in Newtonian
gravitation.
>
> 'r' in Wald equation is not 'r' in Newtonian equation. Moreover, 'GM/r'
> in Wald equation contains c in a hidden manner via retardation of the
> field. 'M' in Wald equation computed at t_{ret} is not 'M' in Newton
> equation computed at tau, etc.
That is because GR is not Newton.
Considering how the potential is derived, I am going to disagree and
say the Ms are the same. But if you are insistant, you can work out the
Komar integral for this case and see what you get, which I think I
should do as an exercise anyway.
>
>
> Moreover, i already explained why the rest of the equation and
> derivation are just wrong.
...except that your entire line of thought is poorly concieved.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Read Wald before doing irrelevant claims. Wald clearly proves why in
> the linear regime a=0.
I guess on page 77, where acceleration is trivially not zero, is
clearly a mistake in my reading comprehension abilities.
>
> > >
> > > ***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*
>
> Read elementary stuff and after understanding basic stuff read more
> advanced literature and after understanding it continue reading still
> more advanced literature. Do not make irrelevant claims at first
> undergraduate level.
Well if you say so, I must follow for you are a member of the Center
for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> What is the link of this nonsense with Wald's proof on linear regime a
> = 0 and gravitation is not correclty modelled? Do you know that word
> 'proof' mean?
I guess on page 77, where acceleration is trivially not zero, is
clearly a mistake in my reading comprehension abilities.
Read, and understand, your sources before you cite them.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Nonsense. Wald is just deriving the weak field slow velocity limit
> which is NOT the Newtonian limit. The Newtonian limit is in rigor the
> c--> infinite limit. Do you know NC theory? Perhaps you would study
> first before doing claims...
Would a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?
Small pertubation, weak field, slow particles [although extendable].
Newtonian limit!
>
> > If you think a = -del*phi isn't the Newtonian potential, your
> > understanding of Newton is suspect.
>
> It is not 'if your think'. You appear unable to distinguish between a
> Newtonian potential with functional dependence phy = phy(R(t)) with the
> nonrelativisitc limit of a LW 'potential' -really field- with
> dependence phy = phy(x, t). I only can recomend to you read literature
> on the topic. I cited several articles where the correct dependence is
> highlighted. Also cited a chapter on a well known book on dynamics (the
> Goldstein). I also cited a web page where you can see the diference on
> functional dependence. No worry i will cite again the online page.
>
> Look the first V in http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
>
> That is a potential with functional dependence V = V(R, dR/dt)
>
> Taking limit c--> infinite one recovers Newton potential V = V(R) =
> V(R(t))
a = -del * phi
phi = GM/r.
r = sqrt( (x-x_0)^2 + (y-y_0)^2 + (z-z_0)^2)
NO TIME!
If you are going to be so nitpicky about my definition of Newton you
shouldn't be so lax about yours.
>
> Now scroll down the page and looks in the LW potential just before
> equation (2). The phy in Wald equation has the same functionality phi =
> phi(x, t). There are published literature (i already cited) where it is
> proven that mathematically the phi(x, t) is incorrect.
>
> Moreover V(R(t)) is different from V(x, t). Do you know what is a
> function?
>
> Moreover you just ignore the rest of criticisms.
Instead of correcting me, you just repeat your assertion so I have no
idea if I missed something or not.
I don't care about Lagrangian formalisms, mostly because I am not
familiar with them.
>
> > > 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...
>
> No, that 'option' is not valid on physics. 'Close enough' is not
> suficient. Or you can explain data or cannot explain data. In Wald
> equation experimental data is not explained and this is the reason that
> authors doing serious research in the topic does not follow that way.
>
> If GR cannot reduce to NG then GR is unable to explain experimental
> data that Newtonian gravity CAN explain.
Newtonian gravitation can't explain shit no matter how much you patch
it up because it is *wrong* at a fundamental level.
>
> Moreover, GR says that gravity is caused by spacetime curvature and in
> the nonrelativistic limit there is no curvature, therefore the causal
> structure is just wrong.
No, it means Newton is wrong since Newton fails to predict correctly
and GR does. Expecing a correct theory to be incorrect is....pointless.
>
> Then one has the same problem that with relativisitic quantum field
> thoery that cannot explain non-relativistic quantum mechanical
> experiments. In Dirac words:
>
> "Most physicists are very satisfied with this situation. They argue
> that if one has rules for doing calculations and the results agree with
> observation, that is all that one requires. But it is not all that one
> requires. One requires a single comprehensive theory applying to all
> physical phenomena. Not one theory for dealing with non-relativistic
> effects and a separate disjoint theory for dealing with certain
> relativistic effects."
My QFT book isn't here yet.
>
> You cannot use GR for computing certain relativistic phenomena (light
> bending radar delay, Mercury perihelion, etc) AND Newtonian gravity for
> computing other phenomena. for example computer programs use Newtonian
> gravity for computing orbits and in the final step time delays for
> aparent image of celestial bodies or formulas for correcting perihelion
> are introduced /ad hoc/. That is more, both theories GR and NG are so
> incompatible as GR and QM.
Oh please.
Whine about the semantics until you run out of breath and die, the weak
field limit of GR predicts correctly, even if its simply deflecting
your massive ego.
Just because *you* do not understand how they are derived does not mean
they are done ad-hoc.
But yes, GR and NG are incompatable because one is correct and the
other is WRONG. GR can reduce to the Newtonian limit to explain things
with easier math but that doesn't mean you should expect GR to reduce
to Newton exactly.
>
> We need is a NEW gravitational theory explaining all phenomena,
> relativistic and nonrelativisitic, and without the further difficulties
> of GR (self-action, singularities, problem of energy, quantization,
> frames, etc.).
What makes you think the new theory will be any nicer than GR?
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> You obviously do not understand.
>
> In Wald derivation, phy = phi(x, t) is a LW potential (field). Taking
> the limit of low motion does that retardation effects in velocity are
> negigible but those do not make t dissapear`since is stiull present in
> te retarded density. In fact the 'M' in Wald LW potential is M =
> M(t_{ret}) because that term is independent of velocity.
The potential is static, like the metric. No time dependance. It is
written explicitly many times, too.
Where do you get this shit?
>
> Even ignoring time dependence of M and writting just phy = phi(x) THAT
> is NOT Newtonian potential because Newtonian potential functional form
> is
>
> phy = phi(R(t)) = phi(R)
>
> and R is different from x and moreover CONTAINS implicit time
> dependence on t, because R = R(t).
>
> Still even ignoring all of this the a in a = -grad(Phi) is not
> Newtonian a.
I cannot fix your reading disabilities, so I am not even gonna try.
[snip]
>
> > The metric for flat space, with c restored, is diag(-c^2,1,1,1)
> > assuming the -+++ sign convention.
>
> But that is not the correct metric. Take a basic book on SR, EM,
> particle physics, etc. The metric is (1 -1 -1 -1). The c is NOT
> introduced into the metric, the c is introduced into the x^0 component
> of spacetime.
Do you even know what you are talking about?
>
> I already cited an online textbook on GR
>
> pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/grtinypdf.pdf
>
> see page 2 of Sean Carrol basic manual, x^0 = ct and the metric is (1
> -1 -1 -1). Carlip does x^0 = t and his metric is (c^2 -1 -1 -1), which
> is wrong. For example, in Carlip's wrong metric there is not
> four-currents because the c term in the temporal dimension is mising.
> Moreover, Carlip obtains a full couple of mistakes in the limit c-->
> infinite as proven.
Carrol works in units where c = 1, it is explained many times
throughout his book which I have sitting below Wald. It is also where I
learned what I know sofar.
>
> > >
> > > Therefore if GR was a consistent theory would have no gravity.
> >
> > That is stupid. Seriously, it is.
>
> It is well-known that GR is not a consistent theory of gravity. It is
> also known by people who has done serious stuff in Newtonian limit (and
> Carlip is not one of them) that the Newtonian limit cannot be obtained
> from GR without invoking aditional equations and ad hoc postulates.
It serves no purpose to speculate about what Steve Carlip thinks or
does. Especially by people who make assertions such as "GR is
inconsistent".
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> I was talking of the Minkoskian limit of Carlip wrong metric when i
> talked of Em currents, it is obvious!!! Moreover, you do not understand
> Carlip's approach. In my approach the nonrelativistic limit of (ct, x)
> looks like (infinite, x). the zero-dimension collapses and one is
> forced to use a 3-space parametrized by the invariant tau. In Carlip
> wrong approach, his nonrelativistic limit is (t, x) and one obtains a
> four spacetime which has no sense in the newtonian limit!!!
hahahahahaha
>
> > > 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.
>
> That is you ignore published literature, you ignore math, and you put
> in words of one author the mistakes done by other authors. For example
> you critize to me that in your words "In Newton there is no
> 4-anything." when precisely i am obtaining a 3-space and Carlip is who
> obtained a wrong 4-space with time like a dimension, which is a
> complete absurdity!!!!
Allowing one component of the metric to go infinite doesn't mean it
goes to zero and you can treat it as good ol' 3-space.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Or either you obtain Newtonian physics exactly or your theory is just
> wrong. Moreover you appears completely ignorant of NC theory and
> similar.
Thats a new one.
"Either your theory reproduces an incorrect theory, exactly, or it is
WRONG".
>
> > > 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 insults do not mistakes. Perhaps you would read a basic textbook
> on Newtonian physics...
Is Symon suitably basic for your cultivated tastes?
>
> > Your usage of "collapse" is completely unmotivated and confusing.
>
> No it is not, the collapse of the topology of the dimension zeroth does
> you cannot use it as a valid physical dimension distance between two
> physical intervals is of measure zero, and only other three dimensions
> survive. Curiously this is also 'predicted' by NC theory. Yes NC is
> just complex enough for doing not appear in the Wald or in other
> elementary textbooks but does not mean that was not a research topic.
If you tell the time dimension to fuck off by allowing c to be infinite
you have a metric that is unchanging in time because time nolonger has
a meaningful existance.
Obviously the "NC" theory predicts it because you have been vague about
what exactly the "NC" theory is. In fact, not once have you explained
what "NC" theory is.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> ?????
>
> I am obtaining the correct functional dependance R(t). It is Wald and
> Carlip and other who obtain incorrect dependence (x, t)!!!
"Why is everyone stupid but me?" [Sorry Gregory].
>
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> You do not understand.
>
> > > 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.
>
> New terminology? "Physical derivative" is a standard term. I explain
> again, in presence of a nonzero 00-connection the flat derivative is
> unobservable ad this is the basic reason for the minimal coupling
> standard rule
google.com "physical derivative" 203 hits. Perhaps some standards are
more standard than others.
>
> flat derivative ---> covariant derivative.
Only in flat space, which in the linearized limit is manifestly NOT.
>
> > 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.
>
> If the 00 connection is not zero you are forced to substitute the flat
> derivatives by covariant ones in the Newtonian limit. In Newtonian
> physics the physical derivatives are flat ones.
You aren't getting it. GR is not Newton.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> WE ARE ATEMPTING TO OBTAIN THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT. THEREFORE YOU MAY
> OBTAIN ALL OF NEWTONIAN LIMIT.
Except for the wrong parts, which is most of it.
>
> In fact, this is the reaos that textbooks only focuse on the derivation
> (so say) of Newtonian law for one single body. Newtonian mechanics is
> not equivalent to Newton law for an single body. Newtonian mechanics is
> some more.
Fine. You derive a nice closed-form way of working with multiple bodies
in GR. It might take awhile though.
>
> For example what is the continuity equation in Carlip approach.
>
> > >
> > > In my own work, the 00-connection is zero therefore Newtonian
> > > derivatives are partial ones. This is correct.
> >
> > ..and you get a = 0
>
> Completely WRONG, you have no idea. The 00-connection is zero but a is
> NOT zero if you are computing the nonrelativistic limit of the
> trajectory ;-)
If all the connection coefficients are zero, which is what you desire,
then there is no acceleration. It is flat space.
>
> > Which is....incorrect.
>
> Incorrect is your profound misunderstading of even the most elementary
> stuff.
I have been known to make the occasional profound misunderstanding or
three.
>
> Moreover the physical derivative is the flat one just as in Newton
> physics.
I am going to assume you mean total derivative, because you don't
explain what a physical derivative means.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> WE ARE ATEMPTING TO OBTAIN THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT. THEREFORE YOU MAY
> OBTAIN ALL OF NEWTONIAN LIMIT not just the part what is of interest for
> you and the part that is not of interst for you because breaks the
> consistency of GR just is ignored. Ignorance of data is not a good
> attitude for a scientist
Newton is wrong.
Why do people here have such a hard time grasping that simple fact?
>
> > GR IS NOT NEWTON.
> >
> > To expect otherwise is foolish.
>
> Is wait that GR reduce to the correct Newtonian limit foolish?
Nope, but to expect GR = Newton at that limit is.
>
> > 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?
>
> ??????
I guess not.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Yes it is so valid that we know that is experimentally invalid. Great!
>
> "However, physical evidence clearly suggests that we are not living in
> an 'island universe' (cf. Penrose 1996, 593-594) - i.e., universe is
> not 'an island of matter surrounded by emptiness' (Misner et al. 1973,
> 295)."
Again, BFD.
I understand what he is saying, and he is exactly correct, but its a
GOOD ENOUGH approximation.
>
> > >
> > > 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 already obtained the correct functional dependence (R(t)). From GR,
> one obtains the incorect functional dependence (x, t).
Sure, why not? Making it up as you go along is fun sometimes.
>
> > 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.
>
> It is really interesting as people who has studied those points on
> detail concide with me.
I would suggest you make sure those people know what the hell they are
talking about before letting them be advocates of your pet theory,
otherwise it makes you look stupid.
Bilge
>
>
>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.
No, it isn't. However, you have provided yet another illustration of
of where you attribute physics to unobservable phases:
>Consider two Hamiltonians H and H' that are related by a unitary
>transformation (U does not commute with H)
>H' = U H U^{-1}
Which means that if H and H' describe the same system, then at time
t = 0,
<\Psi|H'|\Psi> = <\Psi|U^{-1}HU|\Psi>
= <\Phi|H|\Phi> \Phi = U\Psi
Obviously, H' acting on \Psi is the same as H acting on \Psi' and
since [H,U] != 0, by hypothesis, there is no \Psi which are simultaneous
eigenstates of both H and H'. Or equivalently,
H' = U^{-1}HU = H + U^{-1} [H,U]
(H' - H) = U^{-1} [H,U]
>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>
So what? Is that your so-called proof? \Psi can't be an eigenvector of
both H and H'.
>so unitary transformation of the Hamiltonian DOES change physics.
No, it changes your description of the physics. You just failed to
include the transformation between H and H'.
>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.
You keep restating the obvious and avoiding the point.