Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 09/22/04 

Date: 22 Sep 2004 11:09:29 -0700

Eugene Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message news:<415070EB.5080606@synopsys.com>...
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Eugene Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message news:<414F39BA.70801@synopsys.com>...
> >
> >>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>GR was (in part) developed to eliminate instanteous
> >>>gravitational interactions. It's principles are highly
> >>>respected, I would certainly suggest you understand what
> >>>you're doing before taking a hard stand ...
> >>
> >>GR has nothing to do with this. For systems I am considering,
> >>gravity can be safely neglected.
> >
> > Regarding the issue of *instanteous* field propagation, such
> > as Newton requires, GR is consistent with a finite rate of
> > propagation, as specified by SR.
>
> The whole point of my book is that rigorous understanding of
> relativity (without Einstein's arbitrary assumption of universality
> of Lorentz transformations) requires instantaneous propagation
> of interactions (see section 12.3).

Paraphrased...(1)

"The whole point of my book ... requires instantaneous propagation
of interactions."

Eugene, have you worked to consider finite propagation theory?
((You're quite young, perhaps your works could merge that finding)).

>My claim is that Einsteinian
> presentation of
> relativity (with universal tensor transformations of observables
> and Minkowski space-time) is approximate.

I think every GRist understands an idealized gedanken. In
practical applications better understanding is obtained
when the specific charges relating photons to measurement
are accounted for, but the level of detail usually bores
everybody.

>It can only be
> justified for systems with weak interactions. In general case,
> boost transformations of observables depend on the interaction
> and on the state of the system. GR is fully based on the
> Minkowski space-time picture.

No it's not, as I explained the math AE used, used Minkowski
as a crude approximation in the absence of gravitation, but
the principles of GR stand independent of math assumptions.
  I've found better ways to do the fundamental mathematics
of GR, but in no way changed the General Theory of Relativity.
  I understand I had an opportunity to learn tensors at age 16.
while Einstein didn't study them until age 30+, and even then
applications to dynamic systems were in the infancy.

>The space-time just becomes
> curved and twisted, still retaining its status as universal
> "background".

>For this reason I reject GR treatment of gravity (2)
> right from the beginning.

>However, I do not want to open this can
> of worms.

Your statement (1) above rejects SR, your statement (2)
rejects GR, then you pronounce GR a "can of worms",
please recall this NG consists of many experts on relativity,
do you really expect your book to be warmly embraced?

>Let us stay away from GR and gravity, and focus
> on pure electromagnetic effects.

That's hard to do. How can one have a "pure" electromagnetic
effect" when unification is considered? And why are we
avoiding GR. GR IS NOT GRAVITY...IT is the foundation of
relativity!

> > Well, by invoking instanteous propagation, you're suggesting
> > a return to a pre-SR/GR point of view, you should care, a lot
> > has happened since then.
>
> Well, science sometimes make unexpected turns and returns
> to long forgotten ideas. My book should convince you that I
> am well familiar with SR and QM developments in the 20th
> century (could we stay away from GR, please?).

Sir, I will reiterate. We looked long and hard for 3 centuries
on how to make instanteous force work, (Newtons Gravity), defects
occurred, and GR helped to explain why. Albiet some subtle and even now
controversial problems exist with the mathematics of GR, that's why GP-b
and LIGO are being done, to refine the math and theory.
  Everything we know to date, I find supports field theories
expressed with finite rate propagators, and while I find virtual
particles distasteful, it fills the gap in our theoretical ignorance,
until a good QT field theory or something else clears things up,
if ever that will happen.

>And still, I
> maintain that SR view of the world must be corrected and
> Newtonian instantaneous interactions restored in their
> respected status.

How to lose friends and gain enemies in an NG entitled
"Relativity". If you're half as intelligent as we think
you are, then the least you could do is understand GR,
then shoot down the dead wood.

> > That's practically a denial of much of relativity, the title
> > of your book "relativistic..." implies accepting the usual
> > principles of relativity.
>
> You may notice that
> I respect the principle of relativity (This is Postulate A in
> subsection 1.1.1), I even derive the invariance of the speed of light
> (Statement B in subsection 1.1.2). So, I consider my approach
> perfectly relativistic. What I do not accept is the
> assumption (Assertion D in subsection 1.2.1) tacitly made in each
> textbook since Einstein. This assertion claims that Lorentz
> transformations (rigorously derived for light pulses, and probably
> for non-interacting particles) can be exactly and universally
> applied to all kinds of systems. I do not accept this assertion,
> and build my theory without it, and prove it wrong.
>
> My claim is that usual approach postulating kinematical character
> of boosts is not relativistic, because it violates the commutation
> relations of the Poincare group.
>
> >
> >
> >>However, I do not want to discuss gravity here.
> >>I am not ready to do that yet.
> >
> >
> > Are you very familiar with GR?
>
> Yes, I am familiar with GR, but I do not want to discuss it here,
> because it would just complicate the matter without adding much
> insight. Let us first deal with what you call "flat space-time".

Intrusion of a mere "charge couple" disturbs spacetime
sufficiently to include that consideration when physical
law is considered.

> > Yes I did read that, would you to comment on this post,
> >
> > From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics@vianet.on.ca)
> > Subject: Re: Geodesic Definition
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
> > Date: 2003-05-06 10:36:32 PST
> >
> > about photons atoms and relativity.
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> Could you please reproduce this post. I cannot see sci.physics.research
> at this early date.
>
> Thanks.
> Eugene.

You're welcome. I must say I'm a bit worried about
a man of your young age and high intelligence making
such strict decisions at variance with alot of good
(and some bad) work, by dismissing a century of genius.
Regards
Ken S. TUcker

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >> as Newton requires, GR is consistent with a finite rate of ... >> propagation, as specified by SR. ... > relativity (without Einstein's arbitrary assumption of universality ... expressed with finite rate propagators, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >> as Newton requires, GR is consistent with a finite rate of ... >> propagation, as specified by SR. ... > relativity (without Einstein's arbitrary assumption of universality ... expressed with finite rate propagators, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Testing the oneway lightspeed constancy
    ... The MMX experiments use 2-way propagation for the same signals ... and with systems that use multiple detectors at different ... and relativity goes a lot further ... I think that the behaviour of muons could be explained ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Einstein the joker
    ... Sometimes Einstein tests the loyalty of his zombis by making them ... "The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the ... conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Google please assign this group a moderator
    ... Here, QM and relativity rule. ... proves Newton incorrect. ... For some reason you're ... of physics runs too deep in your blood. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast