Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
From: Eugene Stefanovich (eugenev_at_synopsys.com)
Date: 10/07/04
- Next message: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Previous message: Jim Black: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- In reply to: RP: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: chaverondier: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:27:16 -0700
RP wrote:
>
>
> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> RP wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's boil it down to one simple question.
>>>>> Given two test charges initially at rest wrt each other:
>>>>> When charge A is accelerated wrt charge B, will A experience the
>>>>> change in force due to B
>>>>> 1) instantaneously?
>>>>> or
>>>>> 2) after a time r/c?
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Perry
>>>>>
>>>> You probably wanted to ask:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but interestingly the question that I asked also begs an answer :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > When charge A is accelerated wrt charge B, will B experience the
>>>> change
>>>> > in force due to A
>>>> > 1) instantaneously?
>>>> > or
>>>> > 2) after a time r/c?
>>>>
>>>> My answer is that B will feel the change of force instantaneously.
>>>> Then, after time r/c there will be another kick on B due to
>>>> photons (or electromagnetic wave, if you will) generated by
>>>> the acceleration of A. See subsection 12.3.3 in the book.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The only problem that I have with this view, is that relativistically
>>> speaking, we can set B in the near field of the em wave (photon), by
>>> simply changing frames of reference. IOW, If A and B (arranged along
>>> a line that is also our line of sight of A and B) are initially
>>> moving away from us at near c, then the frequency of the radiated
>>> photon, though in the visible region wrt A, will be red shifted to
>>> arbitrarily low values, approaching zero frequency at c. Since
>>> lorentz contraction places A and B closer together wrt us than they
>>> are wrt each other, then wrt them there may be several wavelengths
>>> simultaneously suspended in space-time between them, whilst wrt us
>>> only some minuscule fraction of one wavelength is suspended between
>>> them. IOW, photons are exactly the same as the change in
>>> electromagnetic force experienced by B. They are thus constrained to
>>> propagate at the same speed as the electromagnetic force, that is,
>>> since they are one in the same process.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can hardly understand what you are saying. In my approach photons
>> and instantaneous Coulomb (and magnetic) force are completely
>> independent.
>
>
> And your approach is exactly what I'm addressing here, more
> specifically, I was laying out the contradiction between your view and
> special relativistic causality. IOW, your view trashes, not modifies,
> but utterly trashes the lorentz transform. If you haven't seen the
> contradiction, as also repeated in numerous ways by Bilge, then you
> probably won't ever see it.
I understand very well how my theory is different from SR. I modify
Lorentz transforms slightly, i.e., make them dependent on interactions,
and this completely "trashes", as you say, the beautiful Minkowski
spacetime picture. That's right.
> You simply cannot maintain a limiting speed
> of c for photons while maintaining instantaneous propagation of forces
> from within that theoretical framework.
This is not possible in Einstein's SR framework, but it is possible in
my theory.
> As I explained, these are
> necessarily one in the same effects, and not only in the lorentz
> context, but the same conclusion follows from the Galilean viewpoint as
> well. They are different aspects, nothing more. The photon is the "en
> mass" holographic interaction of surrounding particles. Every particle
> is involved in every interaction. Geometry keeps it straight, and not
> only provides for the absorption of waves in packets, but for the
> ability to focus an image, which the photon is, i.e. just the focusing
> of the radiated energy by a en mass cooperative interaction between
> particles via field superposition. A photon is just a fluctuation in the
> field gradient, that field being just the superposition of all discrete
> fields. Fields and charges are inseparable, they are one in the same.
We disagree here. In my approach there are no fields, their
fluctuations, etc. Everything is very simple: there are only real
observable particles (electrons, photons, protons, etc.) and
instantaneous interactions between them
>
>
>>>
>>> There is however another view that will salvage your equations, and
>>> mine, that rests in the fact that hypothetical closed systems are an
>>> idealized version of reality, and as you know, idealizations commonly
>>> lead to contradictions. Nature requires those omitted details for
>>> this very reason, i.e. that without them nature would be
>>> contradictory. In this universe the reality is that there simply are
>>> no closed systems other than the universe itself. "Two particles
>>> interacting" is the grossest sort of oversimplification. Every
>>> particle in the universe is interacting with every other particle.
>>> Thus, even though the Coulomb force may be experienced
>>> instantaneously between two particles, there are an infinite number,
>>> minus two of course:) , that are also experiencing the fields of
>>> those particles, and are thus accelerating partly as a function of
>>> those two discrete fields. The result is "screening" of the charges,
>>> in wavelike fashion. IOW, though the forces between the two particles
>>> are experienced instantly, other particles are also accelerating, and
>>> the resultant superposition of fields of all of those particles
>>> effectively screens the far field from experiencing any changes for a
>>> time r/c.
>>
>>
>>
>> This sounds very much like Feynman-Wheeler action-at-a-distance
>> electrodynamics. I could make a smarter comment if I understood what you
>> are saying. In my view, the Coulomb forces decrease rather rapidly
>> with the distance, and if you take a couple of particles in a far corner
>> of the universe, you shouldn't worry about the "screening" coming
>> from the rest of it.
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. OTOH, until we can crack the entire code, we can
> start with this possibility:
> Quantum vacuum charge, Dirac sea, Higgs field, space charge, dark
> matter, however you want to qualify it, space contains much more than
> visible matter.
I am not sure about that. All things you mentioned are highly
hypothetical, there are no compelling evidence for introducing these
things into theory. Theory would be better off without such
complications.
> Free charges cannot be bottled in glass, they will flow
> right through it, and through you, and every piece of visible matter.
> That doesn't mean that they aren't everywhere around you. Massive
> currents of free charges are flowing around the Earth as we speak.
> Either way, the permittivity of free space is more than a number.
What are these "free charges"? Are they real particles? I am not sure
what you are talking about?
>
>>
>>> These premises cannot be reconciled however with quantum theory as
>>> quantum theory stands now. OTOH, there must certainly be hidden
>>> variables linking the two descriptions, or as Einstein put it, the
>>> quantum theory, being statistical, must be a subset of the classical
>>> field theory, in the same way that Maxwell's gas laws are a subset of
>>> Newton's mechanics.
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree. I think Einstein was wrong here. We have a better chance
>> to express classical mechanics as a subset of quantum mechanics
>> (see, e.g. 7.3.3 - 7.3.5 in my book), then otherwise.
>
>
> Then we will never agree until you change your stance, because mine is
> solid. There are many logical arguments to be framed, and that I and
> others have framed, that reduce quantum ontology to fancies and
> fairytales. The lack of mechanism spells a big fat zero, period. Cause
> and effect cannot be dispelled from any reasoning mind. "No mechanism"
> equals "no anything", and that applies on every level, all the way down.
We may disagree on interpretation of quantum probabilities, but do you
agree, at least, that QM is a sound computational approach unsurpassed
in its accuracy and predictive power?
Eugene
>
> Richard Perry
>
>
- Next message: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Previous message: Jim Black: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- In reply to: RP: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: chaverondier: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
