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

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 09/23/04 

Date: 23 Sep 2004 01:26:26 -0700

Eugene Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message news:<4151D506.50204@synopsys.com>...
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Eugene Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message news:<415070EB.5080606@synopsys.com>...

[...]

> > Eugene, have you worked to consider finite propagation theory?
> > ((You're quite young, perhaps your works could merge that finding)).
 
> Hmm, I wrote a whole book to prove this point. Now you are asking me
> to write another book and contradict my own findings. That's quite
> a challenge!

I'm suggesting your FTL requirement/prediction (FTL=Faster Than Light)
contradicts a great deal of theory and experiment. You would need
some hard data or some experiment to prove that. You're theory is on
very unsafe grounds without that.
 
> > I think every GRist understands an idealized gedanken. In
> > practical applications better understanding is obtained
> > when the specific charges relating photons to measurement
> > are accounted for, but the level of detail usually bores
> > everybody.
>
> Sorry, I missed your point here. Could you please
> rephrase your statement.

Well a photon can't be *measured* to move from one *point*
to another. We really need an emitter and detector at each
end.

>>GR is fully based on the Minkowski space-time picture.
 
> > No it's not, as I explained the math AE used, used Minkowski
> > as a crude approximation in the absence of gravitation, but
> > the principles of GR stand independent of math assumptions.

> I always thought that space-time in GR is just the same 4D
> Minkowski continuum, just curved, i.e., with non-trivial metric tensor.
> The curvature is dependent on gravitating masses, or energy-momentum
> tensor of the matter. If there is not much matter around, then
> the space-time continuumm is flat, the metric tensor is
> (-1, 1, 1, 1) and we can use old good SR for all means and purposes.

Hmmm, let me demo how GR predicts Quantum Theory.

SR excluded absolute velocity. GR excluded absolute acceleration.
When you're predicting the motion of particles and their measurement
these Principles of Special and General Relativity must be included
or denied, I'll include them.
  For example, GR impacts Lorentz force to produce the following
problem...Lorentz force is defined by,

  f_u = q*F_uv U^v

q=charge, F_uv is EM field tensor, U^v is four velocity.

Since f_u is a tensor, if it is non-zero in one FoR (Frame of Reference)
then it is non zero in all FoR's. However that means f_u is a
force/acceleration that is "absolute" as no FoR can be found where
the acceleration is zero. But that contradicts GR! GR requires,

  f_u = 0, ie. absolute acceleration vanishes in all FoR's.

f_u are components of a force vector and we can re-write,

  f_u = f*U_u and it follows from f_u=0 and U_0 =/=0 that f=0.

That provides a basis for the Quantum Theory. Consider,

  0 = f_0 = q*f_01 U^1 == q*E.V = 0

where E is Electric field and V is Velocity. Note the constraint
on the "motion" of charge q in the E-field, (I call that a quantum
geodesic for short). It specifically prevents a charge from
continuously moving in the direction of the E-field. That in turn
predicts charge "q" cannot continuously vary in energy, IOW's an
electron cannot spiral into a central nucleus, it is constrained
to move in quantized fashion by GR requiring Lorentz force to
vanish. (I have ref's if anybody wants).

 The point is GR unifies EM and QT, it's much more than gravity.

[...]
 
> Please understand me that I do not reject SR.
> Universal linear Lorentz transformations, and even Minkowski space-time
> may be a good approximation for most systems. My corrections
> to SR predictions are miniscule, with the exception of
> instantaneous propagation of interactions,

That's a BIG exception.

>which still awaits
> experimental test. SR captures 99.999% of relativistic effects.
> I am arguing about SR's pretense that these 99.999% is full,
> accurate, entire, and complete truth. My point is that
> Minkowski space-time is rigorously justified ONLY if SR
> accounts for 100% of the truth. The 0.001% of difference I've
> discovered, undermines the universality of the Minkowski space-time
> and therefore the entire idea.

SR has been superseded by GR in 1914.

> > your statement (2)
> > rejects GR,
>
> Again, I do not reject GR. GR could be a fine computational approach,
> which, probably, can account for 99.999% of observable effects in
> gravity. I just don't know much about GR. What I know is that GR
> uses the same idea of universal "background" space-time as SR.
> I showed that this idea is not more than approximation (though a
> good one). I am against pretending that curved space-time
> is exact and final truth.

Good, curved spacetime is an analogy, I've showed above GR is
much more deeper than that.

> I choose this expression not to diminish GR, which I respect
> very much. I choose this expression because I am not that familiar
> with GR (I know a lot about it, but not enough to withstand your attack,
> I think). So, I don't want you to start asking me questions about
> GR and gravity, for which I don't have answers. I think we can
> perfectly confine our discussion to the world without gravity,
> where I feel myself safer.

You don't want to "feel" safe, the laws of nature aren't warm and
fuzzy, people die and risk health and fortunes to get a bit more
insight.
 
> Do we need GR to predict Lamb's shifts or scattering cross-sections
> of charged particles?

It would surprise me if you don't.
 With all due respect, a 4 year old does not need to know
electrical and quantum theory to know flicking a switch on
a wall makes light. It all depends how refined you want unified
field theory.

> > Everything we know to date, I find supports field theories
> > expressed with finite rate propagators,
>
> Let us take QED. Could you please show me a reference in which
> retarded propagation of electromagnetic intearaction is demonstrated
> in the formalism of QED. I am talking about direct solution of a simple
> two-particle problem: two charged particles A and B are at a distance
> R from each other; some external impact changes the trajectory of
> particle A; when particle B will feel this change?

Ah that's 3 particles. I'm assuming the inbound particle is a photon,
and particle A and B represent a dipole able to react with the photon,
then A and B will react at the same time, they behave as one particle
like an atom of hydrogen absorbing a photon. The electromagnetic gain
in energy is the same for the electron and the proton and is simultaneous.

>after time R/c or immediately.

Immediately.

[...]
 
> Please do not try to use in your argument things like
> (anti)commutativity of fields at space-like separations. These
> properties have no relationship to the problem I am talking about.

Ok, not yet.
 
> In my view, QED cannot say anything about the speed of propagation of
> interaction, because
> 1) There is no well-defined Hamiltonian in QED. The Hamiltonian in
> QED is plagued by infinite counterterms.
> 2) Without well-defined Hamiltonian, there is no way to calculate
> time evolution of interacting system.
> 3) Without direct calculation of time evolution you cannot say
> whether interaction is retarded or instantaneous.

Or (4) there is no problem.

[...]

> > Intrusion of a mere "charge couple" disturbs spacetime
> > sufficiently to include that consideration when physical
> > law is considered.
>
> I repeat my question: where is the need for GR when
> we calculate the spectrum of the hydrogen atom or
> Compton scattering? I'll help you with the answer:
> Nowhere.

Steve Bell has posted some research in sci.physics,
about that. I suggest you google him and/or email
him about GR and electron orbitals.

As I demo'd GR is fundamental to QT, just depends on
depth.
 
> >>>From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics@vianet.on.ca)
> >>>Subject: Re: Geodesic Definition
> >>>Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
> >>>Date: 2003-05-06 10:36:32 PST
> >>>
> >>>about photons atoms and relativity.
> >>>Ken S. Tucker
> >>
> >>Could you please reproduce this post. I cannot see sci.physics.research
> >>at this early date.

Just go to the group and use search.

> > You're welcome. I must say I'm a bit worried about
> > a man of your young age and high intelligence making
> > such strict decisions at variance with alot of good
> > (and some bad) work, by dismissing a century of genius.
>
> I disagree with you here. I think that I understand SR, QM,
> and QFT pretty well. The list of references in the book should
> convince you that I am staying current with the literature.
> I incorporated work of lot of geniuses in my book:
> Einstein, Dirac, Weinberg, to name a few.
> If you have any specific substantive comments on what I have done,
> I would welcome it. If you see any gaps in my postulates or
> my logic, I would like to know it. If you want to simply dismiss what I
> have done because it disagrees with accepted "wisdom",
> that's your choice.

The fellows you mention above have internally consistent
theory's logically interlaced, one cannot take a bit of
relativity (Lorentz) and discard the unwanted (light limit),
and declare FTL interaction as based on any of Einstein's refs.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... The point is GR unifies EM and QT, it's much more than gravity. ... > Minkowski space-time is rigorously justified ONLY if SR ... > particle A; when particle B will feel this change? ... in energy is the same for the electron and the proton and is simultaneous. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... The point is GR unifies EM and QT, it's much more than gravity. ... > Minkowski space-time is rigorously justified ONLY if SR ... > particle A; when particle B will feel this change? ... in energy is the same for the electron and the proton and is simultaneous. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: What the hell is going on? Who is in charge here???
    ... Perhaps pretending there’s a Semitic God in charge of everything, ... electron, was kept there because of the 'electricity' between ... Is it a wave or is it a particle, and so they set up a panel ... for the holiest of holy grails, a theory of quantum gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Self-forces
    ... field should radiate (massless charged particle near a gravitating ... Why *would* one expect an electron to exert a force on itself? ... Once an acceleration is involved, they're not symmetric anymore, even ... a quantum theory of gravity is needed. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
    ... we grow up with gravity from day 1 and it becomes so familiar we think ... any reason that the virtual-particle mechanism is restricted to the ... Physicists are looking for real gravitons in, e.g., the LIGO ... If you can know where the particle is after passing the ...
    (comp.os.vms)