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 08:34:41 -0000

 Eugene Stefanovich:
>Bilge wrote:
>>
>> Physics is not representation dependent. See some reference other
>> than your own book.
>
>Do you mind give me a reference which we can discuss?
 
  Can you give me a reference to anyone but yourself that believes that
physics depends upon a particular representation? One chooses a particular
representations are chosen because it is convenient in a particular
circumstances, not because any physical results depend upon it.

>> Since your theory doesn't have a classical limit, it really doesn't
>> matter what you think. Apparently you can't even state in terms that
>> permit comparison to any real experiment ever conducted.
>
>My theory has a classical limit all right. I went at great length to
>discuss it in section 7.3. The instantaneous interparticle potentials
 
  I believe I've already made it clear that you should post something
rather than provide endless references to a book for which I've
already pointed out many misconceptions. That will prevent you
from an endless digression along irrelevant tangents. If your theory
had a classical limit, you wouldn't have spent the effort denying
it further below.

[...]
>> conserving charge. You refuse to even consider trying to show your theory
>> has a classical limit that makes any sense, so I've taken the liberty of
>> doing so, for you taken explicitly from your own words regarding what your
>> theory contains:
>>
>> (1) the coulomb potential, \grad^2\phi = \rho
>>
>> (2) the propagation of light in free space, c^2 d^2A/dt^2 - \grad^ A = 0
>> A is a three vector here, and even that is more than you'll admit.
>>
>> OK, where's the rest of your theory of E&M?
>
>You are still reading some other book, not mine. I afraid you haven't
> even looked in my book. You cannot find Maxwell's equations there.

  I realize that I can't find maxwell's equations there. If I could have
found some classical limit in which maxwell's equations were approximately
correct, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What I wrote above were
not maxwell's equations, but two equations which your theory has no choice
but to satisfy. The first is nothing but the coulomb potential, written
precisely in the non-covariant way which you've argued, ad nauseum, as the
definition of your interaction. The second equation is just the very
minimal vector wave equation that light has to satisfy if it propagates at
a velocity `c', which you have also repeated, ad nauseum, follows from
your theory. Since I am willing to believe that either or both of those
assertions don't really follow from your theory, feel free to discard
either or both of those equations quantifying your assertions, as the case
may be.

>I never mentioned "charge density" \rho and potentials \phi and A.
 
  Then you have no classical limit which resembles reality. There are
lab instruments called ``charge integrators'' that tell me what the
integral of dq/dt is for a charged paricle beam incident on a farady
cup. Obviously dq/dt can't be zero or else I'm at somewhat of a loss
in giving any meaning to the term ``particle flux''. Obviously, your
simplistic requirements for a charge operator are inadequate. Rather
than force you to accept the (apparently radical) idea of a ``conserved
current'', and explain something you'll ignore anyway, I'll let you
figure out why your charge operator doesn't reflect my experience
in the lab. Since you used \rho explicitly in the hamiltonian
you wrote, I didn't see any problem with using it. However, you
did write j_0 rather than \rho, so if you'd like to call it that,
feel free. I don't really believe there is any physics that depends
upon what you call something, so call it whatever you like.

  I also never identified \phi and A as being the potentials in maxwell's
theory. You assumed that without bothering to note that what I wrote most
certainly does not define \phi and A in maxwell's theory or any theory of
E&M outside of yours, for which I defined \phi and A according to the
``features'' you assert your theory contains, namely the coulomb potential
and a spin 1 photon that propagaes at `c'. Feel free to pick different
symbols. If you don't like that option, feel free to stop referring to
either or both the coulomb interaction and photons that propagate at `c'.

>There are no continuous field quantities there.

  Fuck off, eugene. You might think it sucks to be forced to discuss your
theory in the same terms necessary to compare it to the physics that has
been done in E&M for close to two centuries, but that's too bad. You are
apparently so intimidated by the word field, that you don't even know
the difference in a classical field and and a quantum field. If your
theory doesn't have a limit in terms of classical E and B fields, then
your theory has no classical limit. If your theory does not encompass
maxwell's equations in some limit, you're wasting your time as maxwell's
equations are known to give the correct results for most EM phenomena.

>In my approach the charge is conserved.

  No, in your ``approach'', charge is declared to be conserved by fiat.

>It can be explicitly demonstrated: I write the operator of electric
>charge Q in the Fock
 
  And since your charge operator is defined by the number operator,
then apparently you contradict yourself when you say that particles
can be created and destroyed in your theory. You can't answer every
question by appealing to fock space. There is a difference between
fock space and a magic lantern.

[...]
>subsection 11.1.2. You can calculate the commutator {H, Q]
>and confirm that it is zero. This means that total charge does not
>depend on time. It is conserved.
 
  Then by your own definition of the charge operator, neither does
the number of particles in a system. Your definition of a charge
operator also fails to deal with the fact that the neutron has
a non-zero magnetic moment, despite having a zero charge. You can
obviously not build a neutron from an even number of fermions or
and odd number of fermions which have charges that only differ in
sign. Don't bother arguing that a neutron doesn't have a magnetic
moment unless yu plan to inform everyone with ion sources that produce
vector and tensor polarized deuterons that their ion sources can't
work.

[...]
>> No, I'm saying that you've disregarded your own assumption of
>> using the instant form of the poincare group. Are you saying that
>> weinberg and bjorken & drell also claim that interactions propagate
>> instantaneously?
>
>Yes, both Weinberg and Bjorken & Drell use instant form representation
>of the Poincare group.
 
  Once again, you are being totally dishonest. I obviously did not
ask you anything you are attempting to answer.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >> Physics is not representation dependent. ... >Do you mind give me a reference which we can discuss? ... had a classical limit, you wouldn't have spent the effort denying ... >> conserving charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... clearly different in physics from any interacting form of dynamics. ... > had a classical limit, you wouldn't have spent the effort denying ... between particles and light propagating at speed c. ... > simplistic requirements for a charge operator are inadequate. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... clearly different in physics from any interacting form of dynamics. ... > had a classical limit, you wouldn't have spent the effort denying ... between particles and light propagating at speed c. ... > simplistic requirements for a charge operator are inadequate. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... theory, it is modern physics. ... The distribution of charge was noted in the very beginning by ... That's like saying that mass itself is an unsupported assertion. ... electrostatic charge. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... theory, it is modern physics. ... The distribution of charge was noted in the very beginning by ... That's like saying that mass itself is an unsupported assertion. ... electrostatic charge. ...
    (sci.physics)