Re: Debunking Nimtz

On Sep 13, 7:32 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Vern wrote:

This is the same as differential equations: the equations
describe an infinite set of POTENTIAL behaviors, but the
specific behavior of a specific system is determined by
the initial conditions (boundary conditions) one uses to
solve the equations.

That is true of differential equations you use in geometric approaches
(e.g. the geodesic equation of motion in GR).

It is not true in more general theories of physics, where initial
conditions do NOT determine the future behavior of the system. The
geometrical view is incomplete.

A differential equation used for studying chiral symmetry breaking is

d ALPHA / dt = - ALPHA^3 + LAMBDA ALPHA

The path is

/
O
/
/
-x-------------
\
\
Q
\

If you know the initial condition x at t=0, you do not know the future
behavior of the system *beyond* the bifurcation point. The system at
posterior instant t could be at O or at Q. The geometric approach (you
call 'modern') is outdated and you may add more modern math (e.g.
bifurcation theory) and more modern physics (e.g. dinamics of
correlations).

The instant my hand releases the stone is no different in this from any
other instant along its freefalling trajectory -- that is the key
concept of LOCALITY: at each and every point of its existence, the
object responds only to the local geometry and forces it experiences;
there is no "action at a distance" at all.

This is not true.

GR and all of classical physics obeys the concept of locality;
it is not fully known whether QM does so or not....

It is known that characteristic non-locality of QM is in conflicts
with classical relativity. There is not accepted relativistic quantum
mechanics, just a relativistic quantum field theory for scattering
between free fields.

It is not true that all of classical physics obeys the concept of
locaility. This is pure and simply wrong. Another of your DOGMAS.

Non-relativistic mechanics and thermodynamics are non-local theories.
Locality was forced in both after formulation of SR and the result was
a relativistic mechanics theory limited to one-body motion [1].
Relativistic thermodynamics, moreover, is full of paradoxes.

The original Coulomb electrodynamics was non-local, but nonlocality
was again eliminated in relativistic electrodynamics in a poor
practice by relativists.

In recent years non-locality has been reintroduced in electrodynamics.
For instance from page 5379 of [2]

{BLOCKQUOTE [emphasis in the original]
Summarizing there results, we see that the concept of potential
(*nonlocal*)
energy and potential forces must be conserved as valid in
classical electrodynamics.
}

That authors have done in the paper was twofold. First they proved
that locality is incomplete (gives wrong results) and then introduced
a *nonlocal* term A(R(t)) to the local potentials

A(r,t) --> A(r,t) + A(R(t))

The modern conception of electrodynamics and gravity and the modern
experimental results are very far from your ancient knowledge, Tom.

Tom Roberts

[1] http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-limitations.html

[2] Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683 (1998).



==========================================================
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 Bilge, Bill Hobba, Dono (once Karandash2), Eric Gisse, and
Tim Shuba]
Avoid to reply this message. 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.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Exact solution of 2-body problem in GR? (second part)
    ... cannot be derived from Field theory (or from General Relativity). ... singular and radiative potentials at a point x near the world line. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Resubmitting Re: Exact solution of 2-body problem in GR?
    ... cannot be derived from Field theory (or from General Relativity). ... singular and radiative potentials at a point x near the world line. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Cosmological Principle
    ... attempting to explain apparent retrograde motion!. ... For Einstein, they were clearly part of God's thoughts. ... - relativity, ... Maxwell's electrodynamics could not, for example, explain ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
    ... Bill Hobba and others cited Landau as 'supporting' the ... idea of no existence of potential energies in relativity. ... potential energy was not applicable to relativity. ... The interesting question is not if those potentials are exact or if ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Potential energy and relativity
    ... The vector potential is not a potential energy. ... formulations as Maxwell electrodynamics or quantum field theory. ... Assuming you can already understand that relativity does NOT imply ... potentials more a month ago. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)