Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 09/20/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:41:44 -0000

 Eugene Stefanovich:

>The key difference of my approach
>is in correct understanding
>of the principle of relativity and Lorentz transformations.
>Yes, I am correcting Einstein!

  I don't think you're there yet. I scanned through chapter 3. Some of
your definitions are misleading and if your first potulate has any bearing
on the rest of the theory, you're theory was falsified a long time ago.

  In particular, you define an observable as ``an attribute or property
[that] can be assigned a numerical value''. You then give your first
postulate as: ``Each observable can be measured with any prescribed
accuracy[sic]''.

  That is false on it's face. As you've defined observable, the
components of the angular momentum, j_x, j_y and j_z are are all
observables. I can certainly measure each of those, but in measuring
one, the other two are completely indeterminate. Also, if those
are _all_ observable, the j itself is observable, which is manfestly
false. j^2 and only _one_ component can be the observables of a system.

  Now you postulate that I can measure each of these with unlimited
``accuracy'' (I think you meant precision, which doesn't make your
statement right, but at least it's the right word). Obviously, I
cannot do that. Take the basis |j,j_z>. What's the value of,

      j_x|j,j_z>

  Recall that the meaning of |j,j_z> is that the state which was
prepared has the projection of j along the z axis. j_x is indeterminate
in that basis. You have also mistaken quantum mechanics for statistical
mechanics. It is possible to prepare a system without preparing an
entire ensemble. Take the two photons from the decay of a pi_0.
The photon is a spin 1. The pair is in an S=0 singlet state. Regardless
of how many of those pairs you produce and measure, you will _never_
be able to predict the polarization of each of those photons when they reach
the detectors.

>Einstein rigorously
>derived linear Lorentz transformations
>of special relativity (and all their consequences,
>like time dilation and length contraction)
>for freely propagating light pulses. His mistake was to generalize
>these formulas for all physical systems independent on their
>composition and interactions.
 
  He didn't. He developed general relativity by explicitly considering
the effect of matter on spacetime.

>In my approach, the multiplication law of the Poincare group of inertial
>transformations requires that both time translations and transformations
>to the moving frame (boosts) must depend on interaction.

 Unfortunately, you've attributed the dependence incorrectly and
mistaken the freedom to make a gauge transformation for a physical
degree of freedom. How do you explain the fact that when writing the
equations in a form which is manifestly invariant, no such problem
arises?

Relevant Pages
Quantcast