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

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 10/11/04 

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:17:04 -0000

 Eugene Stefanovich:
>Bilge wrote:

>> Then please explain it. The definition is a tautology without the
>> principle of equivalence.
>
>In any theory there are notions which are considered self-evident and
>do not require explanation.

  That is yet another misconception on your part. Theories contain
postulates whch do not require justification, a priori. However,
the postulate must still explain what it means and define its terms
in order to test the theory experimentally. If you are trying to
say that your theory is not subject to experimental verification,
then ok, I'm willing to take that as an indicator of merit.
 
>In Euclidean geometry these are notions of point and straight line.

  Euclidean geometry is not a physical theory. It's a mathematical
definition of a geometry. It has no relationship to physics until
one defines the physical meaning of a straight line. If you can't
specify what physics is self-evident, then it can't be very self-
evident, can it?
 
>In my theory the "inertial observer" is one of such fundamental notions.

  I didn't say otherwise. I asked you to define ``inertial observer''.
If you can't define one, it isn't a notion of anything but a circular
argument.

>The idea of inertial observer was quite clear to Galileo
>(see a quote in 1.1.1).

  Since I've already told you that I'm not going to download and
read your book, it's obvious tht you don't read what I've written.
Since you refer to galileo, then you apparently are suggesting that
your your theory is galilean invariat and inertial observers are
defined as those who measure `c' as infinite. Furthermore, since
you define `c' as the speed of light, your theory has been falsified
by your own reference t galileo, since `c' in galilean relativity
is infinity.

>Of course, you can build a different theory and deduce inertial
>observers from something even more fundamental (I wonder what that
>might be?).

  You might as well keep wondering, since you don't bother to
connect any theories to physics and observable quantities.

> Do you expect your inertial observers will be different
>from mine? If yes, then how? If no, then what are we arguing about?

  Yes, I expect any physically viable theory to differ from yours,
since you're suggesting your theory is galilean invariant, as
indicated by your reference to galileo above.

[...]
>> You have to be kidding. That is worse than a tautology. It's just
>> plain dumb. (1) That assumes light propagates at a constant velocity,
>> therefore such a definition could never be used to determine whether
>> or not light foes propagate at a constant velocity,
>
>1. What's wrong with assuming that light propagates with constant
>velocity?

  Nothing, provided your theory offers the means of testing that
assumption such that it isn't a tautology.
 
>This is a well-established fact.
 
  It's not an established fact. It's an established upper limit on
the photon mass obtained from the requirements of lorentz covariance.
Your theory is not lorentz covariant nor do you even offer a definition
of an inertial observer other than the one galileo gave. The only
constant velocity consistent with galileo's definition is infinity,
which is certainly not am established fact for any definition of
velocity with which I'm acquainted.

>2. I never assumed that light propagates with constant velocity in my
>book. I derived this property of photons.
 
  It's not really clear what you've derived, since what you call a photon
doesn't seem to have any relationship to a photon in the usual sense.
The photon in qed has a definite connection to light and to electromagnetic
interactions. Since you don't even define the terms necessary to talk about
electromagnetic interactions, there is nothing that connects your theory
to any measurement of anything.

>3. The speed of light has no importantce here. If you don't like
>"light clock", we can use
>a "billiard ball" clock: a billiard ball bouncing between two walls.
>The important thing is that this clock measures regular intervals of
>time, and its work does not involve interactions.
 
  OK, in that case, the speed of the billiard ball must then be
the `c' in the lorentz transforms. That defines the billiard ball
as massless. What is the mass of an electron using your suggestion
for a clock?

>
>> (2) It most
>> certainly does involve an interaction. How else do you think the
>> light could be reflected?
>
>Yes, there is interaction when the light pulse reflects from the mirror.
>But this process takes negligibly short time as compared to the
>period of the clock. Most of the time, the photons propagate freely.
 
  That is so riddled with fallacies, I hardly know where to begin,
especially in terms or your theory, in which none of the assumptions
to which one might appeal in some sort of limiting case of standard
quantum theory are applicable.

  (1) In your theory, the separation distance between the mirrors is
      undefined, since your theory doesn't explain how to measure that
      distance for all observers who measure the propagation speed to be
      `c' (your appeal to galilean invariance notwithstanding).
      Apparently, the distance measured in your theory depends upon both
      the velocity of the observers and the material used to perform the
      measurement. You have repeatedly insisted that your lorentz
      transforms are not universal, so you have no means to specify
      any distance between the surfaces of the mirrors.
      
  (2) Furthermore, you have not shown that the photons in your theory
      will be reflected, much less the properties of a photon which
      your theory would require under a reflection. You have stated
      explicitly that your theory disagrees with maxwell's equations,
      so obviously you can't argue anything based upon classical
      E&M. Since you also reject the idea of an electric and magnetic
      field and refuse to even discuss your theory in those terms,
      you can't even argue that your theory reduces to maxwell's equations
      in some limit.

Those are only of two examples of the obvious difficulty you have
in saying anything at all about a ``light clock''.

>So, to a good approximation, such a clock can be considered as
>non-interacting.
 
   Obviously that is completely wrong. If the photon didn't interact
with the mirror, the photon could not be reflected from it. For example,
a mirror which reflects light doesn't necessarly reflect neutrinos.
Such a clock has no physical existence without specifying the physics
it represents. That physics is precisely the issue, so your argument
is circular.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... It has no relationship to physics until ... by your own reference t galileo, ... It's not really clear what you've derived, since what you call a photon ... electromagnetic interactions, there is nothing that connects your theory ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >>The idea of inertial observer was quite clear to Galileo ... When Galileo discussed inertial observers he wrote about a person ... > the photon mass obtained from the requirements of lorentz covariance. ... > electromagnetic interactions, there is nothing that connects your theory ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >>The idea of inertial observer was quite clear to Galileo ... When Galileo discussed inertial observers he wrote about a person ... > the photon mass obtained from the requirements of lorentz covariance. ... > electromagnetic interactions, there is nothing that connects your theory ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: On the uncertainty principle for photons. An experimental counter
    ... Long ago I tried to think of the photon as a particle of some sort ... All we really observe is interactions. ... Physics has gotten terribly mathematical and has lost ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... for sound reasons states that the energy W of a photon ... Plus the relation between mass and energy ... education in physics. ... that is not the definition of aether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading