Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- From: valls@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:06:05 -0700
On 30 ago, 02:58, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:21 pm, va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:But who can assure that this generalization was necessary?
On 28 ago, 07:00, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What is important to me is that if the 1905 Principle of Relativity
includes or not gravitation. {The laws by which the states of physical
systems undergo change...}. Are excluded gravitational laws?
In that quotation there exists no explicit rejection of gravitational
laws. But I already expressed my point: "Einstein was not aware of the
difficulties with gravitation when writing his 1905 paper."
In one of the posterior works I cited, Einstein advances his
understanding about relativity and gravity explaining some limitations
of previous works.
You are suggesting then that 1905 PoR is not valid for gravitation and
that Einstein discovered it later? In any case I am now supposing it
valid and deriving results with strong experimental evidence.
According to general acceptance 1905 PoR was generalized by the
concept of covariance in GR.
Is GR covariance the only way? I doubt.Can you prove that the tensor approach is better in some sense than
But my point was not about that. My point was about the scalar nature
of 1905 theories and hypotesis. I already wrote about this. Remember
my remark m_ab.
the scalar one?
Could you write explicit formulae for potential energy, kinetic
energy, and total energy here?
Sure. For a body belonging to some centre of mass inertial system,
with velocity v and rest mass m_0 in some position, being Total Energy
E= Kinetic Energy K + Potential energy U:
E=m_0 c^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2); K=m_0 c^2((1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) - 1); U=m_0
c^2
Since E = K and by definition U = E - K then U = 0.
But U=m_0 c^2 = 0 implies m_0 = 0Are you changing history? In 1905 E=K+U. What definition E=K are you
Therefore K = 0 also.
talking about? You are rejecting Potential Energy "by definition"? If
you have yet some doubt about Einstein managing Potential Energy, see
the following reference.
Almost at the beginning of paragraph 4, Annalen der Physik, 1907,
23(7):371-384, Einstein is talking about the kinetic energy K of a
material point:
{If one does not ask about the kinetic energy in particular, but
simply about the energy E of the moving mass point, then E=K+const.
While it is more convenient to set the arbitrary constant in this
equation equal to zero in classical mechanics, the simplest expression
for E in relativistic mechanics is obtained by choosing the zero point
such that the energy E_0 for the stationary mass point equals m_0 c^2.
One then obtain
E=m_0 c^2/sqrt(1-v2/c^2)
We will henceforth adhere to this choice of the zero point of
energy.}
Are you sure? In the 1905 Jun 30 Einstein's paper you can read at theI am just curious, how you identify the "unique centre of mass
inertial system"? Make formulae explicit.
This is and old Newtonian mechanics topic. For a body set with n
bodies modelled by material points with mass m_j, with Cartesian
coordinates x_ij at any instant t, (i=1,2,3; j=1,2,...,n), coordinates
of the centre of mass are x_i0=(sigma j)m_j x_ij/(sigma j)m_j
I suspected that kind of reply. That formulae follows from the
Newtonian theory and above E is not Newtonian.
beginning of paragraph 1: {Let us take a system of co-ordinates in
which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good}. I took the job
to obtain the original 1905 German text.
Do you know any valid logic system from where you can derive the
contrary of something supposed true?
By the way, Einstein put attention on the centre of mass since the
beginning of 1905R. See the following references from Annalen der
Physik:
"The principle of conservation of the centre of gravity movement and
the inertia of energy", 1906, 20(8):627-633.
When Potential Energy is considered jointly with Kinetic Energy, in
the more common case total energy is conserved, corresponding to a
constant mass m, and Newton's second law F=(d/dt)(mv) maintains its
form F=m(d/dt)v=ma.
Are you mixing pieces from different theories?In my own perception, I am only using the scientific method. If you
think I am departing from it in any way, make the corresponding
observation.
As English is not my native language, maybe I am using it in a wrongThis is different from I said: "An isolated body would have not
velocity".
Yes? I identify rest with zero velocity. Explain to me the difference
if you think there exist one. Maybe I am missing something here.
Saying v = 0 is different from saying body has no velocity. In your
case you can assure that body is at rest and in my case you cannot
afirm that.
way. I see no problem at all considering v=0 a particular case for
velocity, and when a body is in this particular case, I make no
difference between saying the body is at rest or it has zero velocity.
If in the model exist more than one body, the rest state can be only
an instant. If exist only one body, its rest state is permanent (can't
change).
I will repeat. To interpret the meaning of some paper you must takeYour methodology is strange at best.
It's only pure common sense.
I see strange still.
You can't put in the mind of some author
a concept that doesn't exist yet, even the ones developed by himself
in the future. To interpret the meaning of some paper you must take
out any concept developed in its future.
During a historical study? Sure
But this was an scientific analysis.
out any concept developed in his future. Your goal is to know the
author's ideas in the context of its epoch. If for you "scientific
analysis" is something different from that, please, explain to me what
is it.
What you name "scientific analysis" permit you to put in Einstein'sYou, in 2007, derive a result from you decide to call the 1905R
approach. Then you compare with a result derived from a theory
developed after 1905 and you ask me "And now a very interesting
question, what formula is the approximate one, the GR or the 1905R?"
The epoch restriction only applies to the interpretation of the
meaning of an old paper.
During a historical study? Sure
But this was an scientific analysis.
mind an idea that do not exist yet in the writing moment? Per example,
the concept of "rest energy" analysing the 1905 Sep 27 paper? When
Einstein writes H_0 for the energy of a body at rest in some inertial
system S, what meaning do you put to the energy H_0? Rest energy?
Potential Energy? Unknown energy? Any other?
Don't forget to state what kind of energy is denoting Einstein when heWhat I denote by 1905R is exactly what
Einstein wrote in that year, that must be interpreted using only the
1905 knowledge context.
During a historical study? Sure
But this was an scientific analysis. Therefore i am obligated to
analyse the 1905 paper from a 2007 perspective.
writes "H_0" in his 1905 Sep 27 paper. This is a crucial point in our
talking.
One thing is to know what Einstein says when writing, his 1905 ideas.
Another different thing is to evaluate the new (in 1905) theory taking
into account all theoretical and experimental development until today
2007. I just realize which may be our misunderstanding, you don't
think that what you name "historical study" (making it different from
"scientific analysis") can have any scientific value.
And we have not agreement yet in this point. In my opinion only anWhat I can derive (or any other person) from
1905R (using only the epoch knowledge context) is another thing. It
belongs to 2007. It is then perfectly valid to ask about the
scientific value of the derived result, comparing it with all already
known in 2007. Per example, if I derived gravitational effects from
1905R, it is totally logic to compare it with all known today in the
topic. I just don't know yet if the formula I derived from 1905R is
superior or not to the similar one derived from GR, I don't know if it
models Nature in a better way or not than the GR one.
That was the point! You asked me what was the approximated formulae. I
said which was (your is) and the reason(s).
experimental evidence can decide this. That GR uses more complex
mathematics is not sufficient reason for me to be superior than the
more simple 1905R in modelling Nature.
You are talking about "my theory" as a new one competing with GR,I replied you that your 1905R formulae is an approximation from the GR
perspective but now you wait your result to be analized only from a
1905 perspective!
No, you are taking for granted that the GR result is superior,
denoting my result "an approximation" of the (supposed) more exact GR
one. This is what I am rejecting. We don't know yet what result models
Nature in a better way. Only an experiment (if possible) can decide
this.
We know that scalar approaches of gravity are limited in description
of experimental data. That is the reason GR is so different from SR or
from the many 'SR + gravity' theories were tried since 1905 by
multiple authors.
I already said that the GR formulae you compare with is not
fundamental but a special case of limited applicability.
I asked you to write the full formulae for frecuencies obtained in
your theory.
Also, what is the value of Mercury perihelion in your theory? I do not
know details of your own theory but that lack of a 2 is worrying me.
maybe you are exaggerating a bit. Remember that we are talking about
1905R, don't forget it. I see a great difference between this case and
the other ones you are mentioning. Analysing the original 1905
Einstein's papers using only the epoch knowledge context I detected
substantial differences with what today is denoted as SR. The
principal one is the management of the Potential Energy. I am claiming
that Einstein discovered in his 1905 Sep 27 paper an absolute and
total zero Potential Energy point, with a universal mass-energy
relationship that includes rest mass measuring the absolute and total
Potential Energy. But he didn't realize that! In my reference above to
an Einstein's 1907 paper we can see that Einstein talk about the zero
point of energy as a "convenient" choosing, not realizing that having
mass no arbitrary constant, the energy measured by the mass doesn't
need more an arbitrary constant.
A SR mechanics was developed considering rest mass a constant and
intrinsic attribute, I am claiming that a 1905R mechanics can be
developed with rest mass measuring an absolute and total Potential
Energy. I consider already the gravitational field of a material point
of mass M, being able to deduce the variation law of rest mass with
position, applying it to an electron and deriving an atomic clock time
rate change (rest mass proportional to frequency, de Broglie). All of
this is not sufficient to convince you that this approach is a very
promising one?
The derived 1/(1+GM/rc^2) factor is in agreement with the more exactI doubt. Not just i do not see advantage in your approach but i think a
theory of that kind may be mistaken.
You can be right (or wrong) in it. Let us see. For the moment I found
very encouraging that using very much simpler mathematical tools 1905
Einstein (with some help from my part) is competing with 1915
Einstein.
I do not think so.
experiment done until now (Pound&Rebka), obtained without the complex
stuff of GR (only elemental mathematics and Euclidean geometry).
Evidently, in this first round 1905R win.
As said above many theories of kind 'SR + gravity' were tried sinceNo one is derived from Einstein's own original ideas, and supported by
1905. You can fit one or two tests using them but none has compited
with GR in full range of tests.
Einstein's own papers.
If your theory is internally consistent and reproduces all tests, thenThe 1/(1+GM/rc^2) factor is for me a total success. The energy
congrats. But i am skeptic in the light of details and formulae you
are writting.
formulae have exactly the same form as accepted ones. The unique
difference (and of course, an essential one) is that rest mass m_0 is
now a variable measuring an absolute and total Potential Energy.
See the following formulae valid for the Mercury-Sun case:
m=m_0m/(1+GM/r_mc^2)=m_0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
(1+GM/r_mc^2)=(1+GM/rc^2)sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
where M:Sun mass; m:Mercury total mass; m_0:Mercury rest mass; m_0m:
Mercury maximal rest mass at infinite; r_m: distance from Mercury to
Sun if at rest with today equal total mass.
M, m, m_0m and c are constants; m_0, r and v are variables. Notice
that the distance r from Mercury to Sun and its speed v are related
variables, if you fix one the other is determined.
RVHG ((Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)I am just curious, how do you know how much near I am?
surely more easy to find, with the doors completely opened to pass to
Quantum Theory.
But you do not know our work! How can you do statements of this kind?
Of course that I don't know about your work. When I refer to Quantum
Theory I am thinking in 1905R space separated from time and the more
close relationship with Classic Mechanics already mentioned.
If you do *not* know, then do not write 'surely' when refering to the
work of others.
No post can be perfect. Permit me to write something not adequate from
time to time.
Of course, you are also welcomed to rectify.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
==========================================================
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; }}- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: The "2" in the Schwarzschild Radius formula
- Next by Date: Re: ElectroMagnetic radiation through 2 slits causes interference patterns
- Previous by thread: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
- Next by thread: Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
