NEW REPORT «THEORIES REDUCING TO QUANTUM MECHANICS, QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS DOESN'T»
CfCS
ELECTRODYNAMICS DOESN'T»
Scientific knowledge is accumulative. Theoretical and fundamental
scientists require a «single comprehensive theory applying to all
physical phenomena». Quantum mechanics is used for a broad range of
microscopic phenomena. This implies that any quantum theory, to be
taken seriously, would reduce to quantum mechanics in some limit.
This 59 pages /Research/ report studies the quantum mechanical limit
of three theories, presenting the difficulties and inconsistencies
found when rigorously revised. The theories considered are:
relativistic quantum electrodynamics —both in its «field» and
«spacetime» formulations—; Stefanovich relativistic quantum dynamics;
and Stückelberg, Horwitz, & Piron action-at-a-distance quantum
theory.
This /Research/ report also introduces the new *post-relativistic*
quantum theory and discusses its possibilities and advantages over
current theories.
The rewieving process for this /Research/ report has been large and
complex, in consonance with its scope and size. We found many
experts —some authoring well-known textbooks— refusing to review
the drafts —e.g. «This paper is outside my field of expertise and so
I cannot review it», «It sounds like it should be reviewed by someone
with a sound mathematical background»—, and then pointing out to
other
experts —«You should ask [...] to review Section 7. I believe the
author would benefit from their comments.», «Have you tried
Prof. [...]?», «I take the liberty of suggesting the names of two
other persons who would be able to do this [...]»—.
The author benefited from several useful remarks and comments from
the reviewers that help to improve the final version.
Probably the most fascinating anecdote arised when a known expert,
who refused to review the initial draft, still offered us some advice:
«the abstract referes to earlier work. I had a look at the cited
work in PhysRev E 53 (1996) 5373, which is so blatantly wrong,
that I do not wish to write a report on the present draft.
That PhysRev E 53 (1996) 5373 is wrong, can be seen at a single
glance: in the special case a=0, v=0, eq (5) is just the Coulomb
field.
But eq (7) does not give zero as a=0, as it should for the Coulomb
field.
If the quality of the present draft is similar, then just reject
it.»
Unfortunately, he expert did not notice that the author of the draft
was citing both that Phys Rev E paper and its corresponding
erratum published in the same journal. The Phys Rev E errata page
reads:
«Equation (7) was in error [...] These errata do not influence the
results and conclusions of the paper.»
It is difficult to imagine how someone can suggest rejection of a
draft that has not reviewed, just because the draft cites a
reference, which he did not review neither, but only superficially
judged by the existence of a typo in it —a typo corrected in the
same journal—. However, his comment was useful because the final
version includes the reference to the Phys. Rev. E. errata in the
abstract for avoiding any similar confusion about the Phys. Rev. E.
paper cited therein.
NEWS AND BLOG
=============
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20101004.html