Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
From: Eugene Stefanovich (eugenev_at_synopsys.com)
Date: 09/20/04
- Next message: no useful info: "Re: START WORK INTENSIVELY ON COLD FUSION NOW!!!"
- Previous message: Pavel Pokorny: "How do clouds get electric charge?"
- In reply to: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Reply: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:25:06 -0700
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message news:<414D4186.8090707@synopsys.com>...
>
>>Hello everybody,
>>I am pleased to announce that a new book
>>is available for download on my web-site www.meopemuk.com.
>> The title of the book is "Relativistic quantum dynamics"
>>It describes a successful attempt to unite relativity
>>and quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes and divergences.
>
> [...]
>
>> I hope you will find this book not boring and thought-provoking.
>>I would be glad to read your comments either on these newsgroups
>>or at my e-mail address eugene_stefanovich@usa.net
>>You can also visit my web-site www.geocities.com/meopemuk
>>Thank you.
>>Eugene Stefanovich.
>
>
> A few comments in respect to your new book...
Thank you for your comments. They are very helpful.
>
> 1) I'm uncertain whether this length of book is required to
> introduce an idea that Lorentz transformations are "inexact".
> - by writing a controversial chapter, the entire book's
> credibility is based solely on a few pages.
The inexactness of Lorentz transformations is only part of
my story. Another part is elimination of infinities from
QFT and derivation of instantaneous interaction between
particles.
I am fighting against the most sacred idea of modern physics -
Minkowski spacetime. All textbooks are based on this idea. I
cannot fight a textbook with journal papers. This is like
fighting against tank with a rifle. So, I decided to build my own
tank - write my own textbook.
>
> 2) Is this intended to be a reference, if so a chapter by
> chapter collaborating opinion would be good. I doubt anyone
> can review this entire book to ascertain it's quality, because
> it cover's so much territory.
> If it's intended as a reference, second party certification
> helps.
I hope to publish this book and go through normal review
process. Would you agree to be a referee?
>
> 3) I've noticed other authors clearly delineate convention and
> speculation, H. Weyl's "Space Time Matter" for example.
I tried to do that by distinguishing between Postulates,
Statements, and Assertions. Probably, I wasn't too good
at that. Do you have any specific suggestions how to improve
style?
>
> 4) The objective and purpose of the book are vague, if you are
> introducing a new theory or concept do you need >400 pages ?!
All ideas from the book were published in 3 papers in major
journals. You can get online copies on my web-site
www.geocities.com/meopemuk. Unfortunately, these papers went
largely unnoticed.
>
> 5) It is my impression you have a superficial exposure to
> relativity on the basis of excluding how General Relativity
> forms the basis of "Relativistic Quantum Dynamics".
> -IMO Special Relativity and Quantum Theory are based on GR,
> the latter being more difficult and in more need of understanding.
This is just another example that when it comes to relativistic
quantum theory everyone has his/her own ideas. This just emphasises
the need for a book with consistent and logical explanation
how relativity and quantum mechanics can coexist together.
I disagree with you
that GR forms the basis of "Relativistic Quantum Dynamics".
I think that we can safely ignore gravity in the absence of
large gravitating masses.
>
> 6) There's alot of detail in your equations, perhaps too much!
> -Once after completing a lengthy calculation I presented my
> hard work to a Prof. It was filled with trig, derivatives etc.
> He said get to the point, and pointed to E=hv, KISS.
You are right, there are probably too much details in derivations of
formulas. I wanted to make all proofs crystal clear even for less
prepared readers. There is an easy fix for this deficiency - just
cross out extra lines. Or just write "it is easy to show that...".
Probably, I'll do that in the final version of the book.
>
> 7) Are you imparting understanding, or showing off?
I am desperately seeking understanding.
>
> 8) Check out Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo". It's highly sophisticated
> but he has the benefit of being a lecturer and knows how to
> deliver complex ideas and sustain understanding. That's a hallmark
> of a successful author. John Baez does this with a different
> style, adding a bit more entertainment.
I wouldn't consider myself a great lecturer or writer. I always
admired "Feynman's lectures in physics". Weinberg and Baez are also
among my favorite authors. I tried to
do my best, but it could be not good enough. Besides, English is a
second language for me.
>
> 9) Never deliberately talk "over somebodies head", avoid that.
> The author is a leader, and the lead cannot be lead faster than
> they can be lead!
Thanks for the advice.
>
> 10) Lot's of potential, get more opinions.
> Ken S. Tucker
Eugene.
- Next message: no useful info: "Re: START WORK INTENSIVELY ON COLD FUSION NOW!!!"
- Previous message: Pavel Pokorny: "How do clouds get electric charge?"
- In reply to: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Reply: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
