Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

[...]

A few comments in respect to your new book...

Thank you for your comments. They are very helpful.



1) I'm uncertain whether this length of book is required to
introduce an idea that Lorentz transformations are "inexact".
- by writing a controversial chapter, the entire book's
credibility is based solely on a few pages.


(1)

The inexactness of Lorentz transformations is only part of
my story.

(2)

Another part is elimination of infinities from
QFT and

(3)

derivation of instantaneous interaction between
particles.


(1) and (3) are certainly controversial, (3) especially
so. GR was (in part) developed to eliminate instanteous
gravitational interactions. It's principles are highly
respected, I would certainly suggest you understand what
you're doing before taking a hard stand ...

GR has nothing to do with this. For systems I am considering,
gravity can be safely neglected.

I also noted
you've used "Dr. Flandern" as a reference, that is risky
in the GR community, again very controversial.

I wrote this book not to please some community, but to find
the truth. So, I don't care about controversies.



I am fighting against the most sacred idea of modern physics -
Minkowski spacetime. All textbooks are based on this idea. I
cannot fight a textbook with journal papers. This is like
fighting against tank with a rifle. So, I decided to build my own
tank - write my own textbook.


Well the good thing is, you've consolidated your thinking
circa 2004. However (employing military analogy) I won't
advise attacking on 3 front's simultaneously in one book,
is a trilogy possible?

All issues are closely related to each other. So, I see more
sense in putting them together.


Minkowski spacetime was "adulterated" by Einstein as an
introduction to GR, the introductions written about his
spacetime in textbooks are a simplified version.
In that epoch, tensor analysis applied to dynamic systems
was at it's infancy, and crude approximations from that
time are often presented as the holy truth, just old
habits.

Do you believe in Minkowski spacetime in the absence of gravitaion
or not? I can formulate my position even stronger: I am against
unification of space and time in one 4D continuum and
against covariant (tensorial) transformation of observables.
However, I do not want to discuss gravity here.
I am not ready to do that yet.



2) Is this intended to be a reference, if so a chapter by
chapter collaborating opinion would be good. I doubt anyone
can review this entire book to ascertain it's quality, because
it cover's so much territory.
If it's intended as a reference, second party certification
helps.

I hope to publish this book and go through normal review
process. Would you agree to be a referee?


Certainly, but only on parts I can effectively comment on,
but I'll do that anyway.

Thanks.



3) I've noticed other authors clearly delineate convention and
speculation, H. Weyl's "Space Time Matter" for example.

I tried to do that by distinguishing between Postulates,
Statements, and Assertions. Probably, I wasn't too good
at that. Do you have any specific suggestions how to improve
style?


You might present the conventional stand point clear and
crisp, but point out the defects, many of which are
standard in the literature, that's a good thing, then
reference to an appendix for your own point of view.

My disagreement with the conventional stand point is
too profound to put it in appendix.



4) The objective and purpose of the book are vague, if you are
introducing a new theory or concept do you need 400 pages ?!

All ideas from the book were published in 3 papers in major
journals. You can get online copies on my web-site
www.geocities.com/meopemuk. Unfortunately, these papers went
largely unnoticed.


Yes and to your credit the're peer reviewed.


5) It is my impression you have a superficial exposure to
relativity on the basis of excluding how General Relativity
forms the basis of "Relativistic Quantum Dynamics".
-IMO Special Relativity and Quantum Theory are based on GR,
the latter being more difficult and in more need of understanding.

This is just another example that when it comes to relativistic
quantum theory everyone has his/her own ideas. This just emphasises
the need for a book with consistent and logical explanation
how relativity and quantum mechanics can coexist together.


I disagree with you
that GR forms the basis of "Relativistic Quantum Dynamics".
I think that we can safely ignore gravity in the absence of
large gravitating masses.


GR is more about "covariant" equations of motion than merely a
theory of gravity. To merge quantum theory and relativity it's
easier (imo) to place QT on GR, then at least you start with
a covariant foundation for QT.


You may notice that
manifest covariance is formulated as Assertion F in Chapter 1.
This means that this assertion is proven wrong in my theory
(see, e.g., section 12.3). I do care about relativistic invariance,
though (the difference with manifest or Lorentz covariance is
explained on page 27 in chapter 12), i.e., equivalence of all inertial
observers, which is mathematically expressed in commutation
relations of the Poincare Lie algebra.



6) There's alot of detail in your equations, perhaps too much!
-Once after completing a lengthy calculation I presented my
hard work to a Prof. It was filled with trig, derivatives etc.
He said get to the point, and pointed to E=hv, KISS.

You are right, there are probably too much details in derivations of
formulas. I wanted to make all proofs crystal clear even for less
prepared readers. There is an easy fix for this deficiency - just
cross out extra lines. Or just write "it is easy to show that...".
Probably, I'll do that in the final version of the book.


You may want to place the "detail" in an appendix.


7) Are you imparting understanding, or showing off?

I am desperately seeking understanding.


Well the ambition of your program verifies that!


8) Check out Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo". It's highly sophisticated
but he has the benefit of being a lecturer and knows how to
deliver complex ideas and sustain understanding. That's a hallmark
of a successful author. John Baez does this with a different
style, adding a bit more entertainment.

I wouldn't consider myself a great lecturer or writer. I always
admired "Feynman's lectures in physics". Weinberg and Baez are also
among my favorite authors.


I think it's experience. When I was a teacher it sharpened me
up doing lectures, mind if you tell us how old you are?

I am 43. You can find my brief CV on http://www.geocities.com/meopemuk



I tried to do my best, but it could be not good enough.
Besides, English is a second language for me.


Won't have noticed, your grammar skills are superior to mine.

Thanks.



9) Never deliberately talk "over somebodies head", avoid that.
The author is a leader, and the lead cannot be lead faster than
they can be lead!

Thanks for the advice.



10) Lot's of potential, get more opinions.

Ken S. Tucker

Eugene.

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

GR was (in part) developed to eliminate instanteous
gravitational interactions. It's principles are highly
respected, I would certainly suggest you understand what
you're doing before taking a hard stand ...

GR has nothing to do with this. For systems I am considering,
gravity can be safely neglected.

Regarding the issue of *instanteous* field propagation, such
as Newton requires, GR is consistent with a finite rate of
propagation, as specified by SR.

I also noted
you've used "Dr. Flandern" as a reference, that is risky
in the GR community, again very controversial.

I wrote this book not to please some community, but to find
the truth. So, I don't care about controversies.

Well, by invoking instanteous propagation, you're suggesting
a return to a pre-SR/GR point of view, you should care, a lot
has happened since then.

Minkowski spacetime was "adulterated" by Einstein as an
introduction to GR, the introductions written about his
spacetime in textbooks are a simplified version.
In that epoch, tensor analysis applied to dynamic systems
was at it's infancy, and crude approximations from that
time are often presented as the holy truth, just old
habits.

Do you believe in Minkowski spacetime in the absence of gravitaion
or not? I can formulate my position even stronger: I am against
unification of space and time in one 4D continuum and
against covariant (tensorial) transformation of observables.

That's practically a denial of much of relativity, the title
of your book "relativistic..." implies accepting the usual
principles of relativity.

However, I do not want to discuss gravity here.
I am not ready to do that yet.

Are you very familiar with GR?

My disagreement with the conventional stand point is
too profound to put it in appendix.

There are a lot of defects in the conventional stand point,
the ones you're finding should be explained and a correction
suggested.

GR is more about "covariant" equations of motion than merely a
theory of gravity. To merge quantum theory and relativity it's
easier (imo) to place QT on GR, then at least you start with
a covariant foundation for QT.

You may notice that
manifest covariance is formulated as Assertion F in Chapter 1.
This means that this assertion is proven wrong in my theory
(see, e.g., section 12.3). I do care about relativistic invariance,
though (the difference with manifest or Lorentz covariance is
explained on page 27 in chapter 12), i.e., equivalence of all inertial
observers, which is mathematically expressed in commutation
relations of the Poincare Lie algebra.

Yes I did read that, would you to comment on this post,

From: Ken S. Tucker )
Subject: Geodesic Definition
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Date: 2003-05-06 10:36:32 PST

about photons atoms and relativity.

Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...

Ken S. Tucker wrote:


GR was (in part) developed to eliminate instanteous
gravitational interactions. It's principles are highly
respected, I would certainly suggest you understand what
you're doing before taking a hard stand ...

GR has nothing to do with this. For systems I am considering,
gravity can be safely neglected.


Regarding the issue of *instanteous* field propagation, such
as Newton requires, GR is consistent with a finite rate of
propagation, as specified by SR.

The whole point of my book is that rigorous understanding of
relativity (without Einstein's arbitrary assumption of universality
of Lorentz transformations) requires instantaneous propagation
of interactions (see section 12.3). My claim is that Einsteinian
presentation of
relativity (with universal tensor transformations of observables
and Minkowski space-time) is approximate. It can only be
justified for systems with weak interactions. In general case,
boost transformations of observables depend on the interaction
and on the state of the system. GR is fully based on the
Minkowski space-time picture. The space-time just becomes
curved and twisted, still retaining its status as universal
"background". For this reason I reject GR treatment of gravity
right from the beginning. However, I do not want to open this can
of worms. Let us stay away from GR and gravity, and focus
on pure electromagnetic effects.



I also noted
you've used "Dr. Flandern" as a reference, that is risky
in the GR community, again very controversial.

I wrote this book not to please some community, but to find
the truth. So, I don't care about controversies.


Well, by invoking instanteous propagation, you're suggesting
a return to a pre-SR/GR point of view, you should care, a lot
has happened since then.

Well, science sometimes make unexpected turns and returns
to long forgotten ideas. My book should convince you that I
am well familiar with SR and QM developments in the 20th
century (could we stay away from GR, please?). And still, I
maintain that SR view of the world must be corrected and
Newtonian instantaneous interactions restored in their
respected status.



Minkowski spacetime was "adulterated" by Einstein as an
introduction to GR, the introductions written about his
spacetime in textbooks are a simplified version.
In that epoch, tensor analysis applied to dynamic systems
was at it's infancy, and crude approximations from that
time are often presented as the holy truth, just old
habits.

Do you believe in Minkowski spacetime in the absence of gravitaion
or not? I can formulate my position even stronger: I am against
unification of space and time in one 4D continuum and
against covariant (tensorial) transformation of observables.


That's practically a denial of much of relativity, the title
of your book "relativistic..." implies accepting the usual
principles of relativity.

You may notice that
I respect the principle of relativity (This is Postulate A in
subsection 1.1.1), I even derive the invariance of the speed of light
(Statement B in subsection 1.1.2). So, I consider my approach
perfectly relativistic. What I do not accept is the
assumption (Assertion D in subsection 1.2.1) tacitly made in each
textbook since Einstein. This assertion claims that Lorentz
transformations (rigorously derived for light pulses, and probably
for non-interacting particles) can be exactly and universally
applied to all kinds of systems. I do not accept this assertion,
and build my theory without it, and prove it wrong.

My claim is that usual approach postulating kinematical character
of boosts is not relativistic, because it violates the commutation
relations of the Poincare group.



However, I do not want to discuss gravity here.
I am not ready to do that yet.


Are you very familiar with GR?

Yes, I am familiar with GR, but I do not want to discuss it here,
because it would just complicate the matter without adding much
insight. Let us first deal with what you call "flat space-time".



My disagreement with the conventional stand point is
too profound to put it in appendix.


There are a lot of defects in the conventional stand point,
the ones you're finding should be explained and a correction
suggested.

That's what my book is about.



GR is more about "covariant" equations of motion than merely a
theory of gravity. To merge quantum theory and relativity it's
easier (imo) to place QT on GR, then at least you start with
a covariant foundation for QT.



You may notice that
manifest covariance is formulated as Assertion F in Chapter 1.
This means that this assertion is proven wrong in my theory
(see, e.g., section 12.3). I do care about relativistic invariance,
though (the difference with manifest or Lorentz covariance is
explained on page 27 in chapter 12), i.e., equivalence of all inertial
observers, which is mathematically expressed in commutation
relations of the Poincare Lie algebra.


Yes I did read that, would you to comment on this post,

From: Ken S. Tucker )
Subject: 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.

Thanks.
Eugene.

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...

Ken S. Tucker wrote:


GR was (in part) developed to eliminate instanteous
gravitational interactions. It's principles are highly
respected, I would certainly suggest you understand what
you're doing before taking a hard stand ...

GR has nothing to do with this. For systems I am considering,
gravity can be safely neglected.

Regarding the issue of *instanteous* field propagation, such
as Newton requires, GR is consistent with a finite rate of
propagation, as specified by SR.

The whole point of my book is that rigorous understanding of
relativity (without Einstein's arbitrary assumption of universality
of Lorentz transformations) requires instantaneous propagation
of interactions (see section 12.3).

Paraphrased...(1)

"The whole point of my book ... requires instantaneous propagation
of interactions."

Eugene, have you worked to consider finite propagation theory?
((You're quite young, perhaps your works could merge that finding)).


My claim is that Einsteinian
presentation of
relativity (with universal tensor transformations of observables
and Minkowski space-time) is approximate.

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.

It can only be
justified for systems with weak interactions. In general case,
boost transformations of observables depend on the interaction
and on the state of the system. 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've found better ways to do the fundamental mathematics
of GR, but in no way changed the General Theory of Relativity.
I understand I had an opportunity to learn tensors at age 16.
while Einstein didn't study them until age 30+, and even then
applications to dynamic systems were in the infancy.

The space-time just becomes
curved and twisted, still retaining its status as universal
"background".

For this reason I reject GR treatment of gravity (2)
right from the beginning.

However, I do not want to open this can
of worms.

Your statement (1) above rejects SR, your statement (2)
rejects GR, then you pronounce GR a "can of worms",
please recall this NG consists of many experts on relativity,
do you really expect your book to be warmly embraced?

Let us stay away from GR and gravity, and focus
on pure electromagnetic effects.

That's hard to do. How can one have a "pure" electromagnetic
effect" when unification is considered? And why are we
avoiding GR. GR IS NOT GRAVITY...IT is the foundation of
relativity!

Well, by invoking instanteous propagation, you're suggesting
a return to a pre-SR/GR point of view, you should care, a lot
has happened since then.

Well, science sometimes make unexpected turns and returns
to long forgotten ideas. My book should convince you that I
am well familiar with SR and QM developments in the 20th
century (could we stay away from GR, please?).

Sir, I will reiterate. We looked long and hard for 3 centuries
on how to make instanteous force work, (Newtons Gravity), defects
occurred, and GR helped to explain why. Albiet some subtle and even now
controversial problems exist with the mathematics of GR, that's why GP-b
and LIGO are being done, to refine the math and theory.
Everything we know to date, I find supports field theories
expressed with finite rate propagators, and while I find virtual
particles distasteful, it fills the gap in our theoretical ignorance,
until a good QT field theory or something else clears things up,
if ever that will happen.

And still, I
maintain that SR view of the world must be corrected and
Newtonian instantaneous interactions restored in their
respected status.

How to lose friends and gain enemies in an NG entitled
"Relativity". If you're half as intelligent as we think
you are, then the least you could do is understand GR,
then shoot down the dead wood.

That's practically a denial of much of relativity, the title
of your book "relativistic..." implies accepting the usual
principles of relativity.

You may notice that
I respect the principle of relativity (This is Postulate A in
subsection 1.1.1), I even derive the invariance of the speed of light
(Statement B in subsection 1.1.2). So, I consider my approach
perfectly relativistic. What I do not accept is the
assumption (Assertion D in subsection 1.2.1) tacitly made in each
textbook since Einstein. This assertion claims that Lorentz
transformations (rigorously derived for light pulses, and probably
for non-interacting particles) can be exactly and universally
applied to all kinds of systems. I do not accept this assertion,
and build my theory without it, and prove it wrong.

My claim is that usual approach postulating kinematical character
of boosts is not relativistic, because it violates the commutation
relations of the Poincare group.



However, I do not want to discuss gravity here.
I am not ready to do that yet.


Are you very familiar with GR?

Yes, I am familiar with GR, but I do not want to discuss it here,
because it would just complicate the matter without adding much
insight. Let us first deal with what you call "flat space-time".

Intrusion of a mere "charge couple" disturbs spacetime
sufficiently to include that consideration when physical
law is considered.

Yes I did read that, would you to comment on this post,

From: Ken S. Tucker )
Subject: 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.

Thanks.
Eugene.

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.
Regards
Ken S. TUcker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...


Ken S. Tucker wrote:


GR was (in part) developed to eliminate instanteous
gravitational interactions. It's principles are highly
respected, I would certainly suggest you understand what
you're doing before taking a hard stand ...

GR has nothing to do with this. For systems I am considering,
gravity can be safely neglected.

Regarding the issue of *instanteous* field propagation, such
as Newton requires, GR is consistent with a finite rate of
propagation, as specified by SR.

The whole point of my book is that rigorous understanding of
relativity (without Einstein's arbitrary assumption of universality
of Lorentz transformations) requires instantaneous propagation
of interactions (see section 12.3).


Paraphrased...(1)

"The whole point of my book ... requires instantaneous propagation
of interactions."

In your paraphrase you forgot to include "rigorous understanding of
relativity requires..." I think this part is important. Instantaneous
propagation is not an assumption it is a result.


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!



My claim is that Einsteinian
presentation of
relativity (with universal tensor transformations of observables
and Minkowski space-time) is approximate.


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.



It can only be
justified for systems with weak interactions. In general case,
boost transformations of observables depend on the interaction
and on the state of the system. 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've found better ways to do the fundamental mathematics
of GR, but in no way changed the General Theory of Relativity.
I understand I had an opportunity to learn tensors at age 16.
while Einstein didn't study them until age 30+, and even then
applications to dynamic systems were in the infancy.

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.




The space-time just becomes
curved and twisted, still retaining its status as universal
"background".


For this reason I reject GR treatment of gravity (2)
right from the beginning.


However, I do not want to open this can
of worms.


Your statement (1) above rejects SR,

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, 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.


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.



then you pronounce GR a "can of worms",

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.




please recall this NG consists of many experts on relativity,
do you really expect your book to be warmly embraced?

I don't expect it to be warmly embraced. I do wish that the
arguments I put forward are seriously considered, discussed,
and judged on their merits. If you have some arguments related
to the substance of the book, rather than to "political correctness"
I am happy to discuss them.





Let us stay away from GR and gravity, and focus
on pure electromagnetic effects.


That's hard to do. How can one have a "pure" electromagnetic
effect" when unification is considered? And why are we
avoiding GR. GR IS NOT GRAVITY...IT is the foundation of
relativity!

Do we need GR to predict Lamb's shifts or scattering cross-sections
of charged particles?



Well, by invoking instanteous propagation, you're suggesting
a return to a pre-SR/GR point of view, you should care, a lot
has happened since then.

Well, science sometimes make unexpected turns and returns
to long forgotten ideas. My book should convince you that I
am well familiar with SR and QM developments in the 20th
century (could we stay away from GR, please?).


Sir, I will reiterate. We looked long and hard for 3 centuries
on how to make instanteous force work, (Newtons Gravity), defects
occurred, and GR helped to explain why. Albiet some subtle and even now
controversial problems exist with the mathematics of GR, that's why GP-b
and LIGO are being done, to refine the math and theory.

Can we skip discussion of gravity, please?

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? after time R/c
or immediately. I know several papers where this problem is approached,
but in my view they are not correct. If you like I can give you
references. I suppose you know other better works, because you
are so confident that QED predicts retarded propagation of interactions.

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.

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.

Note that the absence of well-defined Hamitonian in QED does not
prevent it from obtaining very accurate S-matrix (in which the
time evolution is integrated over infinite time interval). This
is all in my book


and while I find virtual
particles distasteful, it fills the gap in our theoretical ignorance,

The virtual particles are not just distasteful, they are useless.
I built alternative QED formalism which
1) does not have virtual particles
2) does not have ultraviolet divergences heither in the S-matrix
nor in the Hamiltonian
3) predicts exactly the same S-matrix (=all experimental observations
to date) as standard QED.
4) Has well defined Hamiltonian and can predict time evolution.

until a good QT field theory or something else clears things up,
if ever that will happen.

That just happened! Read my book.



And still, I
maintain that SR view of the world must be corrected and
Newtonian instantaneous interactions restored in their
respected status.


How to lose friends and gain enemies in an NG entitled
"Relativity". If you're half as intelligent as we think
you are, then the least you could do is understand GR,
then shoot down the dead wood.

Could we discuss my arguments in the book rather than
my intelligence?



That's practically a denial of much of relativity, the title
of your book "relativistic..." implies accepting the usual
principles of relativity.

You may notice that
I respect the principle of relativity (This is Postulate A in
subsection 1.1.1), I even derive the invariance of the speed of light
(Statement B in subsection 1.1.2). So, I consider my approach
perfectly relativistic. What I do not accept is the
assumption (Assertion D in subsection 1.2.1) tacitly made in each
textbook since Einstein. This assertion claims that Lorentz
transformations (rigorously derived for light pulses, and probably
for non-interacting particles) can be exactly and universally
applied to all kinds of systems. I do not accept this assertion,
and build my theory without it, and prove it wrong.

My claim is that usual approach postulating kinematical character
of boosts is not relativistic, because it violates the commutation
relations of the Poincare group.



However, I do not want to discuss gravity here.
I am not ready to do that yet.


Are you very familiar with GR?

Yes, I am familiar with GR, but I do not want to discuss it here,
because it would just complicate the matter without adding much
insight. Let us first deal with what you call "flat space-time".


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.



Yes I did read that, would you to comment on this post,

From: Ken S. Tucker )
Subject: 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.

Thanks.
Eugene.


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.

Regards
Ken S. TUcker

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...

[...]

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 )
Subject: 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

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...


[...]


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

As I wrote in the preceding posting, FTL interactions contradict j
ust one
"postulate" of the old theory, i.e., the universality of Lorentz
transformations. I also listed there all postulates I used in my book,
and mentioned that the "Lorentz universality" postulate contradicts
other postulates and not needed to construct viable theory. Without this
postulate, a fully consistent theory of particles and their interactions
can be constructed which agrees with all experimental measurements
performed so far and predicts a great deal of new effects
(everything related to time-dependent dynamics is completely omitted in
standard QED, and can be represented in my approach)

and experiment.

I looked very hard for credible experiment which directly proves the
retarded character of interactions between charged particles. Couldn't
find one. If you know such an experiment, please let me know as well.
The measurement of the speed of propagation of the Coulomb and magnetic
forces is not as simple as it appears. So, I believe, it has not been
done yet. Of course, the speed of propagation of electromagnetic
waves is c. Nobody disputes that. But in my approach, electromagnetic
wave is just a flow of photons, and it is not directly related to
the (Coulomb and magnetic) interaction between charged particles.

You would need
some hard data or some experiment to prove that. You're theory is on
very unsafe grounds without that.

That's right. That's the weakest point of my theory. So, far there
is no experiment in which the differences between my approach and
traditional QFT can be seen. My best bet is the measurements of
the speed of propagation of interaction between charged particles.
I think it is doable, if experimentalists really jump on it.
There are other new experimental predictions. For example,
corrections to the Einstein's formula in the decay law of fast moving
unstable particles. But these corrections are ridiculously small,
and I don't see a chance for them to be measured in the near future.





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.

So?



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.

[...]

This is very interesting, and doesn't look like conventional approach.



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.

But I believe you agree that far from massive bodies all inertial
frames of reference are equivalent and related to each other
by transformations forming the Poincare group? If you agree with
that than I do not need any extra input to my theory. I just need
this and postulates of quantum mechanics. I believe, you do not
dispute postulates of quantum mechanics?

If what you are saying is true and we can derive the principle of
relativity and the Poincare group and quantum mechanics from GR,
then my book demonstrates that there is fundamental contradiction,
because the principle of
relativity + the Poincare group + quantum mechanics require
instantaneous interaction (as I have shown) and GR requires
retarded interaction (as you claim). Something somewhere is wrong.
I believe the problem is not on my side.



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.

The definition of "refined" is rather subjective. If theory
does not have many adjustable parameters and postulates,
can predict many observable effect, and all effects predicted
by the theory are, at least in principle, observable, this theory
looks good to me. Note that the last requirement is often violated,
e.g., in QED predicting virtual particles.



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.

Not necessarily, we can take A and B as two specks of dust with equal
charges separated by 1 cm, so all quantum efects are out of the picture.
Then we can concentrate photons in a narrow laser beam, much smaller
than 1 cm, and shoot at particle A, so particle B is not directly
affected by the photons.




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.

I disagree. But this is probably a topic for another thread.



From: Ken S. Tucker )
Subject: 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.

Some of them, esp. Dirac, expressed deep concerns about logical
inconsistency of existing quantum field theory, in particular
regarding ultraviolet divergences.

You may find it surprising, but
FTL interaction IS based on Einstein's work, because the principle
of relativity and the Poincare group of inertial transformations
are essential ingredients of my approach. Special relativity is
perfectly correct when it considers non-
interacting systems. Einstein's mistake was to extend
(without proper justification) the same formulas to
interacting systems. I just corrected this mistake.


Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Eugene Stefanovich

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in message ...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I'm suggesting your FTL requirement/prediction (FTL=Faster Than Light)
contradicts a great deal of theory

As I wrote in the preceding posting, FTL interactions contradict j
ust one
"postulate" of the old theory, i.e., the universality of Lorentz
transformations. I also listed there all postulates I used in my book,
and mentioned that the "Lorentz universality" postulate contradicts
other postulates and not needed to construct viable theory. Without this
postulate, a fully consistent theory of particles and their interactions
can be constructed which agrees with all experimental measurements
performed so far and predicts a great deal of new effects
(everything related to time-dependent dynamics is completely omitted in
standard QED, and can be represented in my approach)

and experiment.

I looked very hard for credible experiment which directly proves the
retarded character of interactions between charged particles. Couldn't
find one. If you know such an experiment, please let me know as well.
The measurement of the speed of propagation of the Coulomb and magnetic
forces is not as simple as it appears. So, I believe, it has not been
done yet. Of course, the speed of propagation of electromagnetic
waves is c. Nobody disputes that. But in my approach, electromagnetic
wave is just a flow of photons, and it is not directly related to
the (Coulomb and magnetic) interaction between charged particles.

You're attempting to *disintegrate* Maxwell's equations into
"(Coulomb and magnetic)" as separate entities. However Einstein's
1905 SR paper explained why that shouldn't be done. I think you're
taking a mechanistic and reductionist view of physics that pre-dated
Maxwell, relativity and QT. My interpretation of your statement
suggest you're questioning basic Maxwell's Equations.

You would need
some hard data or some experiment to prove that. You're theory is on
very unsafe grounds without that.

That's right. That's the weakest point of my theory. So, far there
is no experiment in which the differences between my approach and
traditional QFT can be seen. My best bet is the measurements of
the speed of propagation of interaction between charged particles.
I think it is doable, if experimentalists really jump on it.
There are other new experimental predictions. For example,
corrections to the Einstein's formula in the decay law of fast moving
unstable particles. But these corrections are ridiculously small,
and I don't see a chance for them to be measured in the near future.

Experimentalists would jump at it if there was a shot in hell.

[...]

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.

[...]

This is very interesting, and doesn't look like conventional approach.

Glad you saw that, and you're right, GRist's are quite confused when
Lorentz force is considered in GR. Let me explain a bit...

Einstein was very instrumental in the developement of QT, indeed
I would say he really had a very deep understanding of the relation
of QT to relativity. For reference please see, Dover's "Principle
of Relativity", the 1916 Foundation of GR, page 155.
Check out Eq.(65) and Eq.(20b and c), please note the
kappa_sigma used refers to a geodesic that vanishes. Following
Eq.(65a) please read, "electric masses...kappa_sigma will vanish."

Please note Eq.(65) is equivalent to Lorentz force (density)
and that vanishes in the text that follows as I quoted.

Einstein went into a level of depth and detail that seems to be
confusing to GRist's where GR unifies QT and EM theory, but it's
right there in 1916 print as I paraphrased in my GR/QT demo.

I used that ref so you may more securely consider my demo.

[...]

SR has been superseded by GR in 1914.
((should have been 1916))

But I believe you agree that far from massive bodies all inertial
frames of reference are equivalent and related to each other
by transformations forming the Poincare group? If you agree with
that than I do not need any extra input to my theory. I just need
this and postulates of quantum mechanics. I believe, you do not
dispute postulates of quantum mechanics?

If what you are saying is true and we can derive the principle of
relativity and the Poincare group and quantum mechanics from GR,
then my book demonstrates that there is fundamental contradiction,
because the principle of
relativity + the Poincare group + quantum mechanics require
instantaneous interaction (as I have shown) and GR requires
retarded interaction (as you claim). Something somewhere is wrong.
I believe the problem is not on my side.

That's why we're talking.

[...]

The definition of "refined" is rather subjective. If theory
does not have many adjustable parameters and postulates,
can predict many observable effect, and all effects predicted
by the theory are, at least in principle, observable, this theory
looks good to me. Note that the last requirement is often violated,
e.g., in QED predicting virtual particles.

It depends on the footings, and the principles of their design.

[...]

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.

Not necessarily, we can take A and B as two specks of dust with equal
charges separated by 1 cm, so all quantum efects are out of the picture.
Then we can concentrate photons in a narrow laser beam, much smaller
than 1 cm, and shoot at particle A, so particle B is not directly
affected by the photons.

Interesting, Am I correct to interpret what you said as...

So A receives a momentum impulse from the high frquency laser and
that varies - in turn - the