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

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 12/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:11:04 GMT

 Eugene Stefanovich:
>Bilge wrote:

>> So, how do you arrive at the conclusion that interactions can
>> propagate infinitely fast?
>
>First I take the Hamiltonian of QED (with infinite counterterms to
>ensure correct S-matrix). Then I apply "dressing transformation" to this
>Hamiltonian. This transformation preserves the accurate S-matrix and
>makes the Hamiltonian finite. Then I analyze the interaction terms in
>the "dressed" Hamiltonian.

  I didn't ask how you arrived at what's in your paper. I asked how
you concluded the interaction propagates instantaneously.
 
>Let's first take the biggest term in
>interaction between two electrons. I write it through creation and
>annihilation operators of electrons omitting irrelevant factors
>
>V = e^2 \int dk k^{-2} a^+(p_1-k) a^+(p_2+k) a(p_1) a(p_2)
>
>This operator can be also written in terms of particle observables
>(positions) of two electrons
>
>V = 1/|r_1 - r_2|
>which is instantaneous Coulomb interaction. Of course, there are
>more terms of higher perturbation orders (power of e^2) and
>relativistic corrections (proportional to powers of c^{-2}).
 

>The free Hamiltonian is not an analytical function of momentum
>
>H = + \sqrt{M^2c^4 + P^2c^2}
 
  That can't even be a hamiltonian. You don't have complete set of
states.

  (1) Your theory contains no E fields,
  (2) no B fields,
  (3) no four potential,
  (4) no connection between the photon and charged particles that isn't
      simply an ad hoc assertion,
  (5) no explanation of charge conservation, beyond an ad hoc assertion,
  (6) no explanation of positrons, given your pseudo-hamiltonian above,
  (7) no language that can be used to discuss experiments in terms of
      what physicists measure in laboratories,
  (8) is not poincare invariant, since `c' does not actually have anything
      to do with your theory and doesn't prevent you asserting the existence
      of effects which violate poincare invariance,
  (9) introduces modified lorentz transformations to allow transformations
      between coordinates for which the instant for defines as not being
      reachable by a lorentz transform as the basis for defining the instant
      form,
 (10) appears to contain far less information about particle interactions
      than qed.
      
  In short, I can't see why anyone would be interested in your theory as
you describe it. It's not even possible to converse about your theory
because it lacks the necessary physical content to do so. I'm simply
not interested in your semantics bull*** any longer. Everytime you ask
for proof of something, you deny the existence of the math, the physics,
or anything else used by physicists, before or since special relativity.
Your theory explains nothing.

      

  

Quantcast