Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- From: "Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 05:46:39 -0700
On Sep 21, 10:55 pm, va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Without any doubt tensor development was a great advance in
mathematics and physics. What I am putting in doubt is that the use of
tensors in some theory is sufficient to assure its superiority over
another competing one with simpler mathematics.
My previous advice to using m_ab instead a scalar mass correction was
done from a physical perspective. You decided to ignore it.
The scientific value of any theory can be evaluated only by its
capacity to model Nature, not by the complexity of the mathematics
used.
That was the point! Astronomers do not use scalar theories for
modelling Nature because are not working:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_theories_of_gravitation
And for the same modelling capacity, the simpler mathematics is always the
better choice.
Yes, but I was pointing to physical limitations of your approach.
Surely you will be very surprised knowing that the "Newtonian
formulae" you are referring that "does not apply to relativity" are
used by Einstein in paragraph 4 of his following paper:
Surely I am not. Einstein did mistakes in 1905 and posterior years.
Just because he published something does not mean he was correct.
1907, Annalen der Physik, 23(7):371-384
"On the inertia of energy required by the relativity
principle".
And a year before he addressed precisely the centre of mass topic in
the paper:
[...]
You seem unable to understand that we are in 2007, with lot of
literature published on the topic of centers of mass since 1906.
As you see, not only the centre of mass concept is used in Relativity,
I did *not* said that the centre of mass concept is ruled out from
relativity. You misread me again. I am saying that Newtonian formulae
for the center of mass is not applicable.
It seems you are mixing pieces from different theories in an
inconsistent way. E.g. you take some kind of relativistic expression
for E whereas asuming a non-relativistic expression for the CDM.
This is precisely what I am trying not to do. To follow the
development of the ideas in the historic order prevent you from doing
that.
You are mixing pieces from different theories in one truly
inconsistent way.
"Historical order" is not one of tools of scientific methodology. By
following "historical order" instead a scientific method of analysis,
you are obtaining inconsistent (and outdated) results.
In this case you are taking for granted that the CDM concept is
a non-relativistic one,
Another misinterpretation.
I will explain to you again. The expression you choose for the center
of mass is *incompatible* with the expression for the energy you are
using.
See the historic facts.
Being a scientist, I may see *only* scientific facts.
Historians may focus on historical facts.
Einstein writes at the beginning of paragraph
1 of his first 1905 Jun 30 Relativity paper: {Let us take a system of
co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good}.
And after assuming that you accept later that in Relativity "the
equations of Newtonian mechanics DO NOT hold good"? Is that an
acceptable logic for you?
You ignore Einstein did mistakes.
You ignore that problematic statement was corrected years after when
Einstein paper was translated from German. Translator added footnotes
"to lowest order in
v/c" or "to a first approximation".
But since you decided to follow a historical route to analizing a
scientific paper (ignoring advices to you), you get wrong ideas.
In general (i.e. to arbitrary order v/c), the equations of Newtonian
mechanics do *not* hold in Relativity with independence Einstein wrote
or not.
In particular your expresions for the center of mass are plain wrong.
A scientific analysis is not restricted to past knowledge but *may* be
done from the last available knowledge.
If the analysed object is and old paper, you have no other choice. Any
reference to something developed in the future must be totally
avoided.
Once again you say is not true. You are just reinventing "science" and
"scientific methodology" probably for avoiding scientific criticism to
many incorrectness you are posting here.
If you write something now, you can't put in your writing
what doesn't exist yet.
This is another trivially statement. My colleagues revise my work
using their 2007 knowledge and vice versa. But -and this is the point
you still fail to grasp- any scientist by the 2108 would revise my
current 2007 work using 2108 knowledge background.
My theory of gravity? What you denote as "my theory of gravity" is
derived from what Einstein wrote in 1905.
Call it X if trouble you.
1. If it is a valid 1905 Einstein derivation or not.
I already said, at least twice, that X is inconsistent, i.e. not
valid.
2. The scientific value of the derivation (if any).
I remember me saying also that scalar theories like X cannot explain
all phenomena. I asked you explicitely about Mercury test.
What I denote as "promising" is to make derivations directly from 1905
Einstein's papers, taking into account the success obtained in the
explanation of gravitational time effects.
As said to you many times, scalar theories and similar attempts are
known since 1905.
Those theories are not promising because cannot explain all phenomena
and some of them are clearly internally inconsistent (e.g. X). They
were promising just decades or centuries ago before being abandoned
after further research.
I consider that a promising theory of gravity is one fulfilling next:
1) Explains so-called classical tests of GR.
2) Explain data GR cannot: galactic dynamics, clusters mass limits,
cosmology, full N-body systems...
3) Embraces a gravitational version of EM dualism.
4) Can be quantized as electromagnetism.
5) Can be unified with other forces.
I consider basic points for a 2007 research agenda.
The scientific method of physics is well-separated from the method of
history.
You don't know that History is a science?
Well that depend on definition of science used. I follow standard
view, where history belong to humanities not to science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_disciplines
But again your remark is irrelevant because I was not discussing about
history being or not being a science. I said: "The scientific method
of physics is well-separated from the method of history."
With independence of your definition of science (i.e. if history
belongs for you), the method used in physics continues to be very
different from the methods used in history.
Of course that scientific knowledge evolves, but always in the better
way?
The mean path is. The fluctuating path is not always the better.
In our case I am going to 1905 to follow a derivation road
different from the historical one, with the hope to find something
better.
And that is a good initiative, but:
1) You are not applying scientific methodology!
2) You are being warned that your approach is both flawed and limited.
Only its results modelling Nature can evaluate the scientific value of
a theory.
Any scientist know that. Emphasizing this kind of triviality will not
change my objective evaluation: X is both inconsistent and limited.
Applying it to an electron you can predict an atomic
clock time rate change owed to position in the field, in complete
agreement with Pound&Rebka experimental evidence.
I explained that value coincides with GR only to first order at rest.
I also explained to you I predict problems in other first order tests
(e.g. Mercury perihelion anomaly).
I explained you that your change of topology in the region r = 2GM is
another of weak points of X.
Moreover, there exist adittional comments about quantum mechanics and
your 'application' to electrons i am not doing now because it is
obvious you lack adequate preparation on advanced topics.
Please do not reply again something like in *your* view i would
evaluate 'your road' using only up to a 1905 knowledge, because that
is a nonsensical methodology that I will not follow.
This result is
derived only from 1905R with Euclidean geometry.
Your new mixture of relativistic expressions with Euclidean geometry
looks so inconsistent as when you utilized Newton formulae for the
center of mass of a body with non-Newtonian energy and momenta.
Until today that
result is obtained only with General Relativity and all it much more
complex mathematical stuff.
Untrue. That result is obtained by different theories, both more
complex and less complex than GR.
Do you think that this high quality result is a random one?
Whereas that result may be not a pure random result, it is very far
from being considered high quality because it is both inconsistent and
incomplete.
Prove that your theory is internally consistent and reproduces all
tests (up to 2007), and then you will receive my congrats.
I haven't any new theory. I am only making deductions from 1905
Einstein's results without violating the epoch knowledge context.
Your 'deductions' are not scientific.
I
don't know yet how far we can run in that road.
You have been pointed to several fundamental mistakes and serious
limitations even at first order tests. You just ignore them. For
instance, I asked you what is the value for Mercury perihelion anomaly
predicted by you using X.
I am still waiting for a reply.
When you say "valid" do you mean valid according to experiments (year
2007) or valid from a '1905R' perspective (i.e. before experiments) or
valid according to your feelings?
Valid in the 1905 knowledge context, of course.
I.e. without scientific validity.
Do you think P = mv = m_0 v / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) like for electrons?
Yes, valid for ANY body modelled by a material point.
According to you
E = m_0 c^2 / sqrt(1 - {v^2 / c^2})
P = m_0 v / sqrt(1 - {v^2 / c^2})
Therefore, one obtains next Lagrangian
L = - m_0 c^2 sqrt(1 - {v^2 / c^2})
Now, as stated before, Phipps proposed a Lagrangian [1]
L = - m_0 c^2 sqrt(1 - {v^2 / c^2})
With m_0 being a position dependant mass.
Yes, as you can see your scalar work (call it 1905R, call it X, call
it like you want) and your position-dependant masses are far from
being novel or surprising.
I also explained to you that Lagrangians of that kind give wrong
answers to both EM and gravitational questions even at low order
tests.
Lagrangians of that kind are still more unusable for quantum purposes.
This is reason I avoided to comment your useless statements about
protons, neutrinos, and the Higgs.
1905 Einstein's
Principle of Relativity doesn't exclude any Nature force.
Scientifically irrelevant statement. Then nuclear forces were not
noticed and GR did not formulated!
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.
This interpretation follows from v --> 0. How do you interpret next
limits: r --> infinity; M --> 0?
No, 1905 Einstein's results (or the new ones derived from them in the
epoch knowledge context) are valid for all v<c, not the v --> 0 you
are pointing.
You misread me again.
The *last* part of your message, your "r_m: distance from Mercury to
Sun if at rest with today equal total mass", follows from taking the
limit v --> 0. That is I was saying.
The restriction I make is m<<M, considering only the
static gravitational field associated with the material point at rest
with mass M (that restriction is also present in GR tests).
Untrue. That restriction holds for Schwarzschild metric tests but not
for other GR tests.
For r - ->
infinity we have m_0 --> m_om, but for a bound body with total mass m
you have a maximal distance r_m with the body at rest (total energy
mc^2 equal to potential one at r=r_m, values r>r_m are not possible).
Invalidating the well-established cluster decomposition principle.
Fine!
The absolute zero potential point at r=0 with v=c is the more
interesting detail here. In today SR, only the maximal m_0=m_0m is
recognized, corresponding to the free particle at rest and measuring
its maximal potential energy (not recognized as potential one, but as
an intrinsic "rest energy").
The m<<M restriction put out your M --> 0 case.
Why do you imagine i also asked you about this?
In short you dubbed 'promising' road to:
i)
One inconsistent 'theory' (really a mess of formulae picked from
different resources) based in formulae invalidating between
themselves. E.g. you mix cuadratic CM formulae with root kinetic
terms; Euclidean geometries with non Galilean terms; claiming for
instantaneous generalized masses m_0 associated to potential energies
would contain retarded components. And this is the short list.
ii)
A scalar approach do not explaining data beyond a single scalar
classical test at first order at rest. And I did not comment on EM
phenomena that your approach clearly cannot grasp because based in
wrong principles.
iii)
Derived from an _ad hoc_ modification of scientific method adapted to
your own needs and views; summarized in your rubric "one may restrict
to 1905 knowledge". Statement you (a non-scientist) blame over me each
time I (a scientist) point to some obvious scientific limitation or
weakness in your current approach.
You even call history a science, contradicting usual practice!
iv)
You decide to ignore all advances being done since 1905, and then you
self-evaluate your ideas as good or promising, when today we know they
are both bad and outdated.
E.g. you present a GM correction term instead a standard -2GM term.
Then you consider that absence of the minus sign may be a good
promising point and write about that in several posts.
But your approach looks wrong in the light of recent advances in
topological unification and renormalization issues. Issues you do not
know.
v)
You, living in 21st century, cannot even study the limit M --> 0
because of the restriction m << M.
Correct me if wrong but did not Newton model free motion by last part
of 17th?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[1] Physics Essays 1990 3, 414. Phipps, T. E, Jr.
==========================================================
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.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Here's how Synchrotron Magnets cause Radiation
- Next by Date: Re: The Value of TWLS Is Distance Dependent
- Previous by thread: Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- Next by thread: Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
