Instantaneous interaction does not imply infinite speed
Juan R.
In a past message Hans wrote
(\blockquote
according to you and you claim the speed of gravity is infinite...
)
I never wrote that, in fact Hans invented the claim. I corrected his
misreading and pointed I never wrote that. But instead apologizing Hans
returned with a:
(\blockquote
Well. this is from your post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/
d647ae6731d38506
" The conclusion is always the same:
STATEMENT
The speed of gravitational and electromagnetic influences is not
retarded by c but both contain an *instantaneous* component."
)
Yes, I wrote that and it is right and completely different to Hans wrong
statement of above.
The field model of interactions is a model of mediators. For commodity I
will be discussing photons only.
The interaction in field theory is modeled by potentials
A = A(r,t)
where the potential is evaluated not at instant t but at retarded time t_0
with (t - t_0) = R/c.
This is standard stuff. Now field theoreticians read the word
instantaneous in messages as my own (cited by Hans) or in recent
theoretical papers like
Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The
basis and application of the separated-potentials method. 1996: Phys. Rev.
E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.
Erratum: Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell
equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method
[Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373 (1996)] 1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793. Chubykalo,
Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.
Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
interactions in classical electrodynamics. 1999: Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A
14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev, Stoyan J.
1998: Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.
And experimental papers
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 102, 013529 2007
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 101, 023532 2007
Etc.
And field theoreticians make the next computation
(t - t_0) = 0 = (R / infinity)
and assume that instantaneous interactions imply infinite speed. This is
obviously the reason which Hans wrote the nonsense "the speed of gravity
is infinite" when he read "instantaneous component."
In recent dual models of interactions (developed to correct the
limitations and inconsistencies of field theoretic models) the total
potential is
A = A(r,t) + A(R(t))
The component A(r,t) is local and retarded. The component A(r,t) is non-
local and instantaneous. Instantaneous means that the potential is
evaluated at instant t.
Of course, no retardation does not imply that the speed of interaction was
infinite. Claiming something as that would be just nonsense because the
relation ((t - t_0) = R/c) only works for the local potentials.
The nonlocal potential A(R(t)) is not a field theoretic potential, it is
not derived from any field; there is no mediators but just a DPI
interaction.
The more interesting part of last developments in our understanding of
interactions is not that now we know that the model of retardation is
incomplete but that field theory is now derived as special case.
To be precise, Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda in above paper simply
postulated the general solution to Maxwell equations to be of the form
A = A(r,t) + A(R(t))
and proved that dualism correct several inconsistencies and limitations of
classical field theory but they do not explained why, neither extended
their work.
This is done in my recent work "Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda dualism:
Foundation and generalizations" which is actually under review.
I start from a general many-body theory with instantaneous potentials A
(rho(tau)) and rigorously showed that dualism and the field theoretic
potentials (the Lienard-Wiechert potentials) arise as special case
A(rho(tau)) --> A(r,t) + A(R(t))
after performing a number of approximations. Those approximations define
the theory of fields, the own concept of spacetime also arises in the
approximation.
I have also extended the PRE paper to gravitation and to quantum theory.
In gravity dualism takes the form
g_ab = g_ab(r,t) + g_ab(R(t))
The usual theorems on the speed of gravity are proved considering *only*
the local part of the interaction g_ab(r,t) because General Relativity
only considers this part of the interaction. When one also includes the
nonlocal part g_ab(R(t)) the GR theorems lose validity of course.
This is the reason which in my above message I corrected Carlip about his
wrong statements about the speed of gravity.
Regarding quantum theory I have showed that one-photon QED field potential
(in Feynman gauge) arises as approximation from the more general theory
using A(rho(tau)).
Thus the theory reduces to field theory, is free of the inconsistencies of
field theory and can explain phenomena cannot be explained using field
theory.
The relativistic potentials used in this new theory are of the nonlocal
time implicit class A(rho(tau)), but they are not exactly the relativistic
potentials used in recent relativistic many body theories as this one
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/mtrump/manybody/
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations_20.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
> In recent dual models of interactions (developed to correct the
> limitations and inconsistencies of field theoretic models) the total
> potential is
>
> A = A(r,t) + A(R(t))
>
> The component A(r,t) is local and retarded. The component A(r,t) is non-
> local and instantaneous. Instantaneous means that the potential is
> evaluated at instant t.
Sorry correct above to
"The component A(R(t)) is non-local and instantaneous."
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Ken S. Tucker
Ken does a screeching HALT....
Which "GR theorems"?
Juan R.
>> In gravity dualism takes the form
>>
>> g_ab = g_ab(r,t) + g_ab(R(t))
>>
>> The usual theorems on the speed of gravity are proved considering
>> *only* the local part of the interaction g_ab(r,t) because General
>> Relativity only considers this part of the interaction. When one also
>> includes the nonlocal part g_ab(R(t)) the GR theorems lose validity of
>> course.
>
> Ken does a screeching HALT....
> Which "GR theorems"?
Replied in the message
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d647ae6731d38506
cited in the one which you are replying. Search when Carlip wrote
>>> What Low shows is the following:
>>> Let R be an arbitrary region in space (at a fixed time, say t=0)
>>> containing some sources of gravitation. Let p be a point outside R,
>>> at a distance d from R -- that is, for which the closest point in R is
>>> a distance d away.
>>> At time t=0, change conditions in R any way you want -- move the
>>> masses around, add more masses, take some away, anything at all, as
>>> long as you don't change anything outside R. What happens at p? Low
>>> shows that it is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous prediction of GR
>>> that nothing whatsoever changes at p until a time d/c has passed.
That kind of theorems are only valid when one considers a field
interaction of kind g_ab(r,t). That retardation d/c does *not* apply to
components of the form g_ab(R(t))
The novel g_ab(R(t)) terms give the rich physics associated to many-body
phenomena. For instance the zero-zero term is a Newtonian-like potential
phi(R(t)).
You can see in Schieve monograph, cited above also, that gravitational
potentials of this kind were chosen for the study of relativistic many
body phenomena that cannot be studied using General Relativity and its
local retarded potentials phi(r,t).
Schieve is regarded as one of the world experts in the field of many-body
phenomena and relativistic chaos
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Ken S. Tucker
On Aug 24, 8:07 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:11:47 -0600:
>
> >> In gravity dualism takes the form
>
> >> g_ab = g_ab(r,t) + g_ab(R(t))
>
> >> The usual theorems on the speed of gravity are proved considering
> >> *only* the local part of the interaction g_ab(r,t) because General
> >> Relativity only considers this part of the interaction. When one also
> >> includes the nonlocal part g_ab(R(t)) the GR theorems lose validity of
> >> course.
>
> > Ken does a screeching HALT....
> > Which "GR theorems"?
>
> Replied in the message
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d647ae6731d...
Juan, your reply is nonsequitor, you wrote,
" the GR theorems lose validity of course." and I
inturn asked for a ref to "the GR theorems" to which
you refer. Can you provide an independent ref to
those " GR theorems" ?.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
[...]
Juan R.
>> > Which "GR theorems"?
>>
>> Replied in the message
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/
d647ae6731d...
>
> Juan, your reply is nonsequitor, you wrote, " the GR theorems lose
> validity of course." and I inturn asked for a ref to "the GR theorems"
> to which you refer.
Non quod dictum est.
You wrote a bare "Which GR theorems?". And you were replied that you
asked.
If now you are asking for a reference, then that is another question Ken.
> Can you provide an independent ref to those " GR theorems" ?.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
> [...]
Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant.
Grav. 16 (1999) 543, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067.
is the paper cited by Carlip as 'proof' that interactions in gravity are
retarded. This has no experimental basis and theoretically it lacks
considering the g_ab(R(t)) components, which are not taken into account
in general relativity.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Ken S. Tucker
On Aug 26, 4:40 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:29:16 -0600:
...
> > Can you provide an independent ref to those " GR theorems" ?.
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
> > [...]
>
> Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant.
> Grav. 16 (1999) 543,http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067.
>
> is the paper cited by Carlip as 'proof' that interactions in gravity are
> retarded. This has no experimental basis and theoretically it lacks
> considering the g_ab(R(t)) components, which are not taken into account
> in general relativity.
I was quite surprised by the latitude of solutions
the GR EFE's permit. An analysis of an electrical
configuration of two charges finds the EFE gives
a metric (see Eq.2) here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
that is defined by a *length* from "a" to "b", and
most importantly, the solution works!
I suggest you put your metric into the EFE's and
see what you get, I'd be curious to know.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker