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

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 10/02/04 

Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:28:10 -0000

 Eugene Stefanovich:
>Bilge wrote:

>> When do you plan to answer me with respect to the fact that
>> lorentz boosts are poincare transforms, which makes your claims
>> regarding the lorentz transforms needing to be non-linear to
>> obtain poincare invariance, self-contradictory? My contention
>> (which so far you have deliberately tried to misconstrue) is that
>> you've mistaken a gauge transformation for a physical correction
>> to the lorentz transforms because you ignored the fact that your
>> hamiltonian isn't covariant and not even written in terms of
>> canonical invariants, yet you treat it as if it were.
>
>I think we disagree about the definition of relativistic invariance.
 
  So what?
 
>My definition is given in Statement N in subsection 5.2.4.
 
  I don't really care what your book has to say.

>
>It seems that your definition of relativistic invariance is different:
>You think that theory is relativistically invariant if all quantities
>transform as 4-tensors (or 4-vectors or 4-scalars) under boosts.

  Thanks for reading my mind for me. Try addressing what I said.
 
>In addition, you assume that boost operators are the same for
>non-interacting and interacting systems.
>Could you please tell me where this definition comes from?
 
  The derivation about which you are now arguing is so ubiquitous that
I can't imagine it's not in your textbooks. Look in weinberg. I'm
certain it's there.

[...]
>> Either write it in your post or don't bother posting it. Obviously
>> the spin doesn't come from ``Wigner's irreducible representation of''
>> anything. It comes from physically interpreting what he derived.
>> You simply assert that what may be interpreted from wigner's derivation
>> applies to you. Since my contention is that it does not, nor do
>> the rest of your references, post and interpret what you assert
>> as supporting evidence.
>
>OK, I can briefly repeat the logic of how spin is introduced in my
>theory. First, I postulate that there should be a 3-component Hermitian
>operator S in the Hilbert space of the system, which corresponds to the
>intrinsic angular momentum (or spin).
 
  In other words contrary to what you previously implied, you don't
derive it. You postulate it.

>I postulate certain (rather obvious) properties of this operator
>in 6.3.1 and guess the expression of S through 10 basic generators of the
 
  Why do you do that when it's derivable from first principles?
  
 
>> If weinberg's text supported your assertions, weinberg would have
>> derived them himself and abandoned the gauge theory for which he received
>> a nobel prize. Unless you are claiming he renounces gauge theories and
>> quantum field theory in his book, your reference to weinberg is
>> irrelevant. Do you really believe weinberg would agree with you? If so,
>> write him at the University of Texas at Austin and see if he agrees with
>> the context in which you've referenced his textbook.
>>
>
>We were talking about spin, but now you switched to another subject -
>gauge invariance.
 
  Forget it, eugene. We were discussing gauge invariance and then you
changed the subject to what my definition of invariance is. You're
a crackpot.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... > spin and magnetic moment if the equation wasn't covariant: ... which may be written in a manifestly gauge invariant ... > lorentz boosts are poincare transforms, ... I think we disagree about the definition of relativistic invariance. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... > spin and magnetic moment if the equation wasn't covariant: ... which may be written in a manifestly gauge invariant ... > lorentz boosts are poincare transforms, ... I think we disagree about the definition of relativistic invariance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >> to the lorentz transforms because you ignored the fact that your ... >I think we disagree about the definition of relativistic invariance. ... Look in weinberg. ... >> derived them himself and abandoned the gauge theory for which he received ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the basis of relativity
    ... >> The entire standard model follows from gauge invariance. ... ``observe'' the color degrees of freedom as directly as most anything ... Nuclear isospin is very commony used in nuclear physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)