Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory

On 20 ago, 10:49, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In the current micro-thought, I present relativistic Lagrangians and
discuss several limitations of the field-theoretic approach.

This is motivated by the generalized belief on field theory as
fundamental or complete for modelling interactions either classical or
quantum.

First, I introduce some popular choices for field relativistic
Lagrangians.

Next, I list several fundamental limitations of the field theoretic
approach related to the relativistic equations of motion. This shows
that field theoretic formulations are not fundamental.

Those limitations are often unknown and still some authors try to get
some kind of "unified field theory" or believe that general relativity
(a metric formulation) is our last word about macroscopic gravity.

Authors who considered the field-theoretic description to be limited
and worked in alternatives includes celebrated Fokker, Dirac, Wheeler,
or Feynman, between others.

S. Weinberg has not provided us an alternative to the field paradigm
but at least he warns his readers in the page 1 of his textbook on
quantum field theory (vol. 1):

{BLOCKQUOTE
If it turned out that some physical system could not be described
by a quantum field theory, it would be a sensation; if it turned out
that the system did not obey the rules of quantum mechanics and
relativity, it would be a cataclysm.

In fact, lately there has been a reaction against looking at
quantum field theory as fundamental.

}

But field theory is not fundamental already at the classical level. We
need alternatives.

In a final step, I introduce an alternative formulation to
relativistic motion that does not use fields for modelling
interactions. It is a theory of action-at-a-distance dealing with
relativistic phenomena that relativistic field theory cannot. The
formulation contained in the monograph I cite has been worked in
detail in literature, including several applications in gravity,
quantum chemistry, and molecular physics.

Prof. Schieve is a recognized expertise on relativistic chaos. I do
not consider the theory he and others work to be the last word on
relativistic interactions (can one say the last word in science?). But
from the available theory detailed in the monograph you can easily see
what the traditional field theoretic view is missing about Nature.

Also I cite a recent ArXiv preprint by Eugene V. Stefanovich on
classical limit of quantum theory of gravity. Eugene develops the
classical limit corresponding to the action-at-a-distance theory he
develops.

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-...

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-...

Note: The version archived on Arxiv at this moment is number 5, which
contains some inaccuracies. Eugene is working in an improved version
would be ready this week

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm...

==========================================================
Note for readers]
Because some past episodes of flamming in sci.physics.relativity, both
comments in my blog and my newsgroup e-mail are disabled.

Note for 'experts' and 'professionals']
Avoid to reply this message if you are in my blacklist below. The
capacity of any human for correcting your endless conceptual nonsenses
and foolish mathematical mistakes is, unfortunately, just finite. Also
my occupations do not include to teach you to read others, not to
teach you dimensional analysis or even pre-university physics.

Since you will be sanely ignored here in thereafter you are open to
misread, misquote, or misinterpret me in any way you want, specially
when that adds some light to your grey existence. You are open to
write any triviality; to invent any mistake I did not really did. You
can cite discredited, outdated, or wrong references. You can
manipulate or misread references. You are also open to address any
insult you consider supports your points and you can, of course,
extend your insults to any poster, institution, colleague, friend,
theories, or journal discrediting you.

You can also try to falsify ratings, voting against me dozens or
several hundred of times simulating different people. You can use the
same dishonest tactic for increasing the rating of your akins.

{BLACKLIST
{ Bilge; Bill Hobba; Dono (once Karandash2); Eric Gisse; Tim
Shuba; }}

Hello Juan G., maybe you remember me as the one opening the thread
Potential energy in Einstein's 1905 Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f50627c5376608fa/48260fe6dfdd7b36?tvc=1&hl=es#48260fe6dfdd7b36

I don't remember exactly, but almost sure you put a post (I can't find
it now, maybe for some technical error) in that thread making a
reference to the first page of the following article

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=336961&blobtype...
L. Brillouin, "THE ACTUAL MASS OF POTENTIAL ENERGY, A CORRECTION TO
CLASSICAL RELATIVITY".
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1965 March; 53(3): 475-482.

Thanks to David A. Smith (dlzc) I obtained the last link with access
to the full article, and from it the following second part

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=219831&blobtype...
L. Brillouin, "THE ACTUAL MASS OF POTENTIAL ENERGY, II"
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1965 June; 53(6): 1280-1284.

I put the links because maybe you have interest in them (you started
some analysis of the unique page available then). For an unfortunate
mistake from my part, I didn't answer your post thinking that it was
an answer to someone of the persons you have now in your blacklist.
I read your actual post (including a first fast reading of the
Stefanovich's article), finding really a lot of things related with my
recent activity in this group addressing what I denote as Einstein's
1905 Relativity (1905R). My principal claim here is that 1905R is NOT
Special Relativity (SR), being the more relevant difference the rest
mass (m_0) concept. In today SR, m_0 is a constant and intrinsic
attribute (exactly the Newtonian view). In 1905R, m_0 (as any mass) is
a measurement of energy, in this case an ABSOLUTE potential energy
(with absolute zero point where m_0=0) that includes at the same time
ALL Nature forces (known or for known, including of course
gravitational and electromagnetic ones). A particle and its field
can't be separated, measuring (the now variable) m_0 the field energy
corresponding to the particle (or the particle energy corresponding to
the field, that is the same thing). As you can guess, this put
particle-field interactions in a completely new perspective. The doors
seem open to destroy the today existing barriers between Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics and among Nature forces (specially gravitation).
And all of these starting in a very simple context, Euclidean
geometry, Cartesian coordinates, space separated from time, no tensors
yet, Newtonian laws valid for all velocities v<c (not just v<<c), and
many other things that are too much to describe you in a single first
post.
Let me now show you how the clock gravitational time dilation effect
can be explained using only 1905R. Consider the static gravitational
field associated to a material point of mass M. The change in time
rate for a clock situated at distance r from the point can be computed
using the following factor (G: Newtonian gravitational constant, c:
vacuum light speed):
1/(1+GM/rc^2)
For an electron of rest mass m_0m at infinite (free one), it has there
a maximal absolute potential energy m_0m c^2 (usually the chosen
relative potential zero point), and an ABSOLUTE zero potential energy
point m_0=0 at r=0. There exist no singularity in all the value
interval of r from 0 to infinite (different from the General
Relativity prediction). You can see the very simple derivation in the
first post of my following thread in this group:
Gravitational time effects explained with Einstein's 1905 Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/21961de826abb587/2889a8d9c4d72ac4?hl=es#2889a8d9c4d72ac4

Depending on your possible interest, I advance you these other links
where you can find other derivations from 1905R (always using only the
1905 knowledge context).

Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) in Einstein's 1905 Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/66654597fa9beb77/176b2ccdb1ef7ff6?hl=es#176b2ccdb1ef7ff6

In Einstein's 1905 Relativity a single body must be at rest
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/5271a06b12698182/efc577d452a84223?hl=es#efc577d452a84223

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

.

Relevant Pages