Re: Understanding SR - simultaneity


Spoonfed wrote:
Sue... wrote:
The Sorcerer wrote:
"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149118920.869337.71050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| > Snipping will not make you right
|
| True.

So why do you try to convert other's to your faith?
You may succeed with a gullible moron such as yourself, but
not with anybody of intelligence. Somehow you are not "compelling".
Say three "Hail Galileo's" as a penance.
Androcles

Forgive my big feet but this might be a good place to flesh out
something (a bit less religious) I am trying convey in another
thread.

What we may call an ?action~principle?..

Sitting down to learn at the feet of Sue.
ROFL Just finding common language.


uses a go or no-go
test. A collision happens... or it does not. It is perfectly suited
to operations of probability and statistics.

Absolutely.

There is no ambiguity about the meaning of simultaneous.

No? When two particles collide, is there no chance that one responds
slightly before or after the other? Can we ascribe meaning to
Heinsenberg's issue regarding T>E/hbar in this situation?
Later... in Hilberts space and Lorenz space.


You see debris or you do
not. There are no degrees of simultaniety. (Hilbert imaginaries)


This, I am not familiar with.
Some say "this ain't horseshoes"
Is there debris when automobiles almost collide?
Are photons almost absorbed ?

A collision is not when two bodies try to occupy the same space.
It is when bodies occupy the same space at the same *time*.


Precisely.

The problem is that all bodies occupy all spaces...

A superposition of schrodinger's functions?
I was refering the Coulomb field.

Swap the position of an electron and a positron
and the whole universe is going to know about it.


The electrical charges that comprise a material body are
infininitly large. See:

Is it the charges, or merely the effect of the charges, and how does
this infinitely large material body respond to a change in momentum of
the charge?
We only know the charge by its effects. If you could see
spray, but not the water sprinker, there are a lot of forms
you could imagine for the sprinkler's structure. So you
assume none of them. We know a sprnkling system
as a spary pattern that can be moved around the yard.
The rest is details for the hired help to trouble about.



http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html

We need a degree of freedom that a go/no-go test doesn't
provide.

We also need an explicit list of what comprises a go/no-go test.

Yes I was vague about that. Maybe it won't matter.

Rhut Row! Rough water ahead.
What
causes acceleration? A fall through a gravitational potential
describes a geodesic which seems to indicate no particular change of
energy, thus no radiation. Is this the same or different with
electrical potential? Quantum states of motion becoming available or
disappearing cause electrons to jump to new energy levels without an
associated change in kinetic energy. The result is radiation, or (if
you'll pardon the ambiguity of causality) absorption of radiation.

Suppose light doesn't depend on atomic absoption and emission.
Then we don't have to consider any of that. (for the moment)


Instead of considering collisions, we also need to
consider closeness. A pair of hydrogen atoms and a
pair of helium atom may have a different idea about what
*close* means. So we represent fundamental charges as
a density (of pseudo particles) and use superposition to
determine what is *close*.

I think you've lost me.
Back up about three laps. I am right in the dust
you left me in. :o)


"Time-independent Maxwell equations"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node26.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral (shared volumes)

What is imaginary? The psuedo particles we represented
the electrical field with. They are integrable but not countable.

Bodies AND their associated fields share space with some
respect to time.

Well, okay. I hear some echoes of Tim's argument here. I'm not quite
clear on it, though.

The best online example I know is the triple integral to
derive magnetic force from coulomb force. It is just
a 3D superposition of moving water sprinklers. But
some of them squirt (+) and some of the suck (-).



We can't count the pseudo particles of our
own creation to see if they are *simultanieouly* in the same
place. They are only where we imagined them to be.


I would say this is all in agreement with some interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics.

I would say some of Quantum Mechanics is in agreement
with this. :o)

Hmmm I would hope we could agree
that a roof shouldn't look like a door and 2 windows and
the front of a house should not look like shingles.

QM and Classical fields are loosely speaking,
orthogonal views.



So we need a way to represent a degree
(the overlap of associated fields) of simultaniety
To do this we put space and time on and equal footing.
(Lorentz transform)

The interaction in the shared volumes of spaces is
evaluated with respect to their separation in space
or time.

What is imaginary? The equivalance of space and time.
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations (vector imaginaries)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node41.html
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm


You've probably handed me a perfectly good wheel, but I don't know
exactly what it is. I may try using it as a telephone while I
re-invent it. Anyway, I printed out wolfram-stanek. Maybe I'll glean
something.

Great! I forgot that included:
"Maxwell's equations considering quantum field theory"
which may speak more to you symbolically than I can
with a thousand water sprinklers.



The gradient of the Coulomb field, equated to the statistics
of a normal distribution is where a link between the
Hilbert space and Lorenz space ~can~ have validity.


Hilbert space is the coefficients of one of those Schrodinger
functions, right?
That is beyond me. Here is a more formal statement also
over my head:
<< In mathematics, a rigged Hilbert space (Gelfand triple,
nested Hilbert space, equipped Hilbert space) is a construction
designed to link the distribution (test function) and square-integrable

aspects of functional analysis. Such spaces were introduced to
study spectral theory in the broad sense. They can bring together
the 'bound state' (eigenvector) and 'continuous spectrum', in one
place. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigged_Hilbert_space

Remembering the Heisinberg uncertainty principle, try
to identify what is determined by statistics and what is
processed as a probability amplitude.



QED's sucesses in the subatomic realm exemplify
when a marriage of Lorenz and Hilbert space is on
sound footing.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html
The twins paradox exemplifies when it is not.


Goodness gracious, Miss Dominatrix, you make me read a lot.

Likewise. But you wern't suppose to read so much of Feynman's
war stories. More of triple integrals so a flash of brilliance
gives instant insight where probabilty replaces "closeness"
or "earlyness". ( Howzat for temporal and spatial with a
down-home drawl? )


For a little railroad gedanken, all the above, is putting 10 possums
in a 2 possum sack. So the chapter written by Einstein
is to bad writing, as Shakespeare is to good writing.


Aye, he wrote inelegant proofs, as well.

I almost forgot 'simultaniety'. Einstein doesn't follow
with any development of probabilty so HUP is not
an issue. The two postulates are resolved formally
with time dependent Maxwell's equations.

They are resolved without paradox in this:
Observer dependent...
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

....Constant speed of light:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

I would *guess* they don't resolve in QM because
the nearfield effects of a coupling structure
can't be represented.
<< The difference between maxwell's equations in classic
field theory and quantum field theory is shown in red boxes.
The additional "red box" terms consist of magnetic vectorpotential
A, electric scalar potential PHI, material properties in vacuum
both permeability mue & permittivity eps.>>
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm


Sue...



We can however take from it one great universal truth:
Embankments are a good place to put rail cars. :o)
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Sue...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Understanding SR - simultaneity
    ... | Androcles wrote: ... Is it the charges, or merely the effect of the charges, and how does ... Time-dependent Maxwell's equations (vector imaginaries) ... Hilbert space is the coefficients of one of those Schrodinger ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: wicks theorem question
    ... altered by creating a spin-up particle at rest, ... there's no way the Hilbert space can get ... different from the Hilbert space of the quantum field theory. ... were trying to evaluate using Wick's theorem, you wouldn't need to contract ...
    (sci.physics)