Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 10/11/04
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: physical/intuitive understanding of RL/RC time constants?"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Reservoir collapse"
- In reply to: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Reply: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:17:03 -0000
Eugene Stefanovich:
>Bilge wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Any attempt to define such obvious things as point, straight line,
>or inertial frame of reference, would lead to tautology and circular
>argument.
No, it does not.
>You and I both know what these things are.
That would be impossible, since you believe that there exists
some devine way to specify the meaning of a distance which is
independent of the universe in which the definition applies.
Since I don't have a hot line to god, I haven't been let in
on the definition, much less been given a ruler and clock to
perform any measurements.
>I believe we do not disagree about the meaning of these notions.
On the contrary, we disagree about those concepts at the most
fundamental level at which they could be defined.
>So, I do not see the point in arguing about definitions.
I can't really say that I'm surprised. If there was any obvious way
to define those things without doing so circularly, you would simply
do so rather than spend 3 posts telling me it's obvious.
>> 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?
>
>"Straight line" is used in the 1st Newton's law. So, this is a physical
>notion.
Which is precisely why it's circular. Newton defines inertial motion
an uniform motion in a straight line and a straight line is defined
as the path of an object which moves inertially. There is absolutely
nothing that precludes you from mistakenly assuming either one and
concluding the other. The definition is circular.
>> 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.
>
>We can argue about definitions of point, straight line, and inertial
>observer until the end of times. That's what philosophers do. Let's move
>on and do some physics.
Excuse me? I guess I was mistaken when I received, 989 hits for
``varying speed of light'' theories, 1650 hits for ``doubly special
relativity'', 14,700 hits for ``conformal invariance'' and even
25 hits for fock-lorentz space. While all of that is far more
complex than the simple question I asked, I guess questions related
to physical quantities and equivalence (or non-equivalence) under
certain transformations must just be a philosophical deal.
>> 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.
>
>1. When Galileo discussed inertial observers he wrote about a person
>locked in a cabin on board of a ship which moves with constant speed in
>calm waters. Galileo demonstrated that no physical experiment can prove
>to this person whether the ship is standing still or is moving.
Obviously, that example is very naive and that sort of naivete resulted
in a bit of confusion as late as world war I, when the british aimed
their guns at german ships and watched the shells ``veer off'' of
the straight line they sighted and miss the targets by some one-hundred
meters to one side. Then, there is the foucalt pendulum. One might
wonder how that works if one employs the definition you just gave.
But, that only scratches the surface one we include relativity,
in which the definition of an inertial frame has an endless casdade
of consequences in how one defines lots of other things. I'm not
particularly interested in a definition adopted without giving any
thought to the physics required to actually employ the definition
consistently.
[...]
>The Galilean theory assumes (of course, Galileo didn't know about
>groups, but if he knew, he would agree with what I'm saying) that the
>transformations between inertial observers form the Galilei group.
>Einstein's theory assume that this group is the Poincare group.
Both theories suffer from the ambiguity in defining ``inertial''.
>
>2. I used the Poincare group throughout my book. So, I am working
>in the framework of Einsteinian relativity. I do not use the
>Minkowski space-time concept, but I don't think this is an
>important concept in Einsteinian relativity. The Poincare group
>is very important, but Minkowski space-time is an artificial
>construction.
Nevermind. I can see you're too hung up on using a personal definition
that you think proves your theory on paper rather than give any serious
thought to the physics required to measure your paper coordinates.
[...]
>> Nothing, provided your theory offers the means of testing that
>> assumption such that it isn't a tautology.
>
>That's should be a job of experiment to test theoretical predictions,
>isn't it? Or I am missing something?
Aside from the aforementioned missing items, yes you're missing
something. An experimentalist can't perform an experiment to test a theory
that doesn't bother to provide meaningful definitions of the terms in the
theory. If you want to leave that ``job'' to an experimentalist, then
I think I can pretty much tell how it will proceed. First, your
``predictions'' bear an uncanny resemblence to what one would predict
from a calculation in which mathematical artifacts were mistakenly
interpreted as real effects.
Assuming for the sake of argument, that there exists some doubt
that you haven't merely mistaken an artifact of your theory for
a real effect, the experimentalists ``job'' is to try and use the
theory to find an experiment that has a reasonable chance of testing
the theory. I hate to say this, but those who do not do experimental
physics, usually come up with great experiments which idealize
away the experimental reality. Therefore, the experimentalists ``job''
has little to do with performing an experiment you've suggested unless
it actually happens to be the best one that the theory offers as a
test. In your case, you absolutely refuse to admit to any consequences
which have to follow from your theory, except the one you happen to
be stuck on. I hate to inform you of this, but no one is going to
put any effort into doing an experiment to test a theory from an
uncooperative author who refuses to clarify anything, who argues over
semantics like the use of ``electric field'' and who has no interest
whatsoever in trying to identify any other physics in the theory.
There are enough experiments to do for which the the theorists
proposing the theory will make an effort to cooperate and in general be
helpful in identifying any relevant physics rather than deny the
possibility that any other physics exists. If you want an experimentalist
to sift out any ambiguities, then be satisfied with the judgement of the
experimentalist.
>> 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.
>
>Disagreed. In my theory photon is a massless particle described by a
>direct sum of two irreducible representations of the Poincare group with
>helicities +1 and -1. In classical language, this is equivalent to a
>superposition of transversal waves with left and right circular
>polarization.
That is not consistent with your claim that lorentz transforms
are interaction dpendent. Since two observers who compute their
relative coordinates will get different coordinates which depend
upon the interaction used to perform that measurement, the same
observers could compute different lorentz transforms between them
by virtue of choosing different materials to make the measurements.
Ignoring for now the additional problem with your belief that
interactions propagate instantaneously in your theory, the photon
helicity cannot be invariant for lorentz transforms defined in
different ways for the same observers, unless the the difference
is an unobservable artifact.
>Photons move with the velocity of light as all massless
>particles do.
That velocity is not well defined in your theory, since the transforms
between equivalent observers depends upon the method they use to measure
time and distance.
> This follows simple from the relativistic connection between enery
>and momentum
>
>E^2 = c^2 p^2 + m^2 c^4
I don't agree that definition holds in your theory. I think that
is even obvious:
What you wrote means (\gamma m)^2 = (\gamma\beta m)^2 + m^2.
Your so-called lorentz transforms contain the interaction by
which one measures those quantities. If your interaction just
happens to reduce to the same interaction independent expression,
then you haven't described any new physics. You're interpreting
an artifact as a real effect.
[...]
>> >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?
>
>Stop talking nonsense. We agreed already that the properties of light
>have nothing to do with relativity.
_You_ provided the example of a billiard ball and _you_ are the
one who insisted on it as an analogy to a light clock for which
_you_ consider the constant speed of light to be relevant to
the derivation. If what I wrote was non-sense, it's because I've
succeeded in pointing out just how ambiguous your measurement is.
>The Lorentz transfroms do not depend on what kind of clock you are
>using.
Well, that would be line. According to you it most certainly does
make a difference, since the tick rate of every clock clock in this
universe requires an interaction to make it tick and a way to
define what it means to tick uniformly.
>This could be a light clock, or billiard ball clock.
Sure, but that's my line. You need to explain how to relate the two
without relying on the geometry of space time to define it, since the
entire point you are attempting to make is that spacetime is an artifact
and lorentz transforms depend upon the interaction one uses to determine
them. I don't see how your theory says anything definite about clocks
that keep time in a way which depends upon the interaction that makes
them tick.
[...]
>> (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.
>
>Use non-interacting rods and non-interacting clocks. Then results of
>measurements are unambiguous.
OK. Could you tell me which universe has a supply of those on hand?
>> 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.
>
>Sure, I can argue that there is a connection between my theory and
>Maxwell's theory.
Obviously not, since you've spent about two months trying to avoid any
connection I've tried to make while not supplying one yourself.
>The principal terms in inter-particle interactions in
>my approach are the Coulomb potential 1/r and the Darwin's potential
>which is responsible for the magnetic interactions beteen particles.
>The bremsstrahlung interaction in my approach explains the
>"radiation reaction" which remains rather controversial in Maxwell's
>theory. So, Maxwell's theory can be basically reproduced by using
>only 2nd and 3rd perturbation orders and c^{-2} approximation of
>my theory. In higher orders, I obtain results Maxwell's theory cannot
>even dream about.
First I'd like to see the results maxwell didn't dream about, but
actually obtained.
[...]
>You are not reading my book and you are not reading my posts either.
>I find it very difficult to argue in these conditions. Let me
>repeat what I wrote you
I read what you wrote. What you wrote was obviously wrong and you
simply ignored the reasons I gave.
>
> > >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.
>
>Of course, there is interaction, but it can be neglected when we
>consider the time balance for the period of the clock.
Don't be absurd. The interaction is obviously large enough that the
it inverts the photon momentum. Furthermore, I am not simply referring
to the ratio of the momenta involved. I'm referring to the actual
interaction by which the photon momentum is reflected and the polarization
changes (or not as the case may be). If you are having difficulty
dealing with that question, the next one I have will be impossible for
you to answer. In particular, I also expect you to justify the assertion
that the incident and reflected photon describe the same photon, which
includes specifying the connection between the incident and reflected
photon such that the two photons end up with the correct phase/polarization
and momentum relationship.
You are proffering your theory as an alternative to special relativity
and qed. It's not unreasonable to expect you to explain the same things,
since those things have been empirically validated in the context of
those theories.
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: physical/intuitive understanding of RL/RC time constants?"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Reservoir collapse"
- In reply to: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Reply: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
