FrediFizzx wrote:
"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
[snip]
|
| "Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
| ...
|
| [snip]
| | Most of these experiments involve gravitational effects. Nowhere in
| | my book I speak about gravity. Moreover, all special relativistic
effect
| | related to light and non-interacting particles (Michelson-Morley
| | experiment, transverse Doppler effect, etc.) are EXACTLY valid in
| | my approach. The only disagreement is about relativistic effects with
| | interacting particles. But even here the differences between RQD
| | approach and special relativity is ridiculously small.
| | I think that the highest chance to be vindicated by experiment is
| | for the prediction of instantaneous propagation of interaction
| | (Coulomb and magnetic) between charged particles (see section 12.3
| | of the book).
|
| Since I think the quantum vacuum is a relativistic medium,
|
| What you mean by "quantum vacuum is relativistic medium"?
| In my approach, vacuum is just an empty space, e.g., a "system"
| without particles.

http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf

The above is an article I co-wrote with the concept of the quantum vacuum
*as* as system of quantum objects. I just don't see how empty space could
have any concept of "system" or any particular geometry without quantum
objects defining spacetime.


| I just can't buy
| that the electrostatic and magnetostatic fields can propagate
| instantaneously at a distance. This is also contrary to the concept of
| charge being purely mechanical.
|
| I also do not understand the meaning of "charge being purely
| mechanical"?

Charge has to be purely mechanical even if it is quantum *mechanical*. This
is only possible if the quantum vacuum is a relativistic medium of coupled
oscillators. IOW, all there really is is fermions - real, virtual, and
"less than virtual". Gauge bosons are always composites of these virtual
and "less than virtual" fermions. The coupling is via magnetic-like links.

I don't by you idea of "physical vacuum". What is left if you delete all
particles around you? Nothing. Vacuum. All your measuring apparatuses
will become silent. There is nothing in vacuum, and I do not
understand why you need "quantum objects" to define geometry and
spacetime.


| If I shake an electron at A, it is not
| going to instantaneously shake an electron at B that is a centimeter
away.
|
| As far as I know, there is no relativistic quantum dynamical (i.e.,
| capable of predicting time evolution) theory of interacting particles
| with retarded interactions. Also, there is no satisfactory theory in
| which
| trajectories of interacting particles transform by Lorentz formulas.
| You can find references to such attempts on page 27 in chapter 12
| of my book. But these attempts, like "constraint dynamics" or
| van Dam-Wigner approach, did not achieve much. In my approach, I
| reproduce all famous predictions of quantum electrodynamics
| concerning the S-matrix. In addition, I can describe the time
| evolution, including
| the speed of propagation of interactions. This speed comes out infinite.
|
| You may believe in retarded interactions, but so far there was no clear
| experiment confirming that.

I will take a look at your book and study this, but I think also a medium
theory can handle this.

| However, whatever I am using to shake the electron at A might
simultaneously
| shake the electron at B.
|
| You can shoot at electron A with a high-energy photon, so the electron B
| will not be affected directly. Though, this does not look like a viable
| experimental setup. The main question is how to design an experiment
| to measure the speed of propagation of interaction directly?

Well, electron A has a "static" couloumb field associated with it, so if hit
by a high energy photon, it ought to do something to B also. You claim that
the electron at B would instantaneously "know" that electron A got hit. I
say that it wouldn't know until the time it took for light to travel one
centimeter.

That's exactly where we disagree. Do you have any proof of your idea of
retarded interactions? I warn you not to invoke QED, because QED is not
a dynamical theory. Its Hamiltonian is plagued with infinite
counterterms and cannot be used to predict the time evolution.
QED can only predict S-matrix, i.e., time evolution integrated over
infinite time interval. So, QED has no idea about the speed of
propagation of interactions.
What are your objections to my proof of instantaneous interactions
(see subsection 12.3.3 of the book)?

Eugene.


FrediFizzx

"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...
|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| "Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | FrediFizzx wrote:
| [snip]
| |
| | "Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| | [snip]
| | | Most of these experiments involve gravitational effects. Nowhere
in
| | | my book I speak about gravity. Moreover, all special relativistic
| effect
| | | related to light and non-interacting particles (Michelson-Morley
| | | experiment, transverse Doppler effect, etc.) are EXACTLY valid in
| | | my approach. The only disagreement is about relativistic effects
with
| | | interacting particles. But even here the differences between RQD
| | | approach and special relativity is ridiculously small.
| | | I think that the highest chance to be vindicated by experiment is
| | | for the prediction of instantaneous propagation of interaction
| | | (Coulomb and magnetic) between charged particles (see section 12.3
| | | of the book).
| |
| | Since I think the quantum vacuum is a relativistic medium,
| |
| | What you mean by "quantum vacuum is relativistic medium"?
| | In my approach, vacuum is just an empty space, e.g., a "system"
| | without particles.
|
| http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
|
| The above is an article I co-wrote with the concept of the quantum
vacuum
| *as* as system of quantum objects. I just don't see how empty space
could
| have any concept of "system" or any particular geometry without quantum
| objects defining spacetime.
|
|
| | I just can't buy
| | that the electrostatic and magnetostatic fields can propagate
| | instantaneously at a distance. This is also contrary to the concept
of
| | charge being purely mechanical.
| |
| | I also do not understand the meaning of "charge being purely
| | mechanical"?
|
| Charge has to be purely mechanical even if it is quantum *mechanical*.
This
| is only possible if the quantum vacuum is a relativistic medium of
coupled
| oscillators. IOW, all there really is is fermions - real, virtual, and
| "less than virtual". Gauge bosons are always composites of these
virtual
| and "less than virtual" fermions. The coupling is via magnetic-like
links.
|
| I don't by you idea of "physical vacuum". What is left if you delete all
| particles around you? Nothing. Vacuum. All your measuring apparatuses
| will become silent. There is nothing in vacuum, and I do not
| understand why you need "quantum objects" to define geometry and
| spacetime.

Fortunately for me, HEP tends to agree with the concept of the quantum
vacuum that does have random fluctuations of virtual particles. But that is
OK. You might be able to have a consistent theory without them. But if
spacetime does have a certain geometry to it, then what makes it like that?
The hand of God? Magic? What? I don't think matter can do it. There
isn't enough of it. Cosmology shows us that matter is the exception to the
rule. It is maybe only four percent of the total energy of the Universe.
If you don't look at the big picture, you might be going down the wrong path
for the smal picture.

| | If I shake an electron at A, it is not
| | going to instantaneously shake an electron at B that is a centimeter
| away.
| |
| | As far as I know, there is no relativistic quantum dynamical (i.e.,
| | capable of predicting time evolution) theory of interacting particles
| | with retarded interactions. Also, there is no satisfactory theory in
| | which
| | trajectories of interacting particles transform by Lorentz formulas.
| | You can find references to such attempts on page 27 in chapter 12
| | of my book. But these attempts, like "constraint dynamics" or
| | van Dam-Wigner approach, did not achieve much. In my approach, I
| | reproduce all famous predictions of quantum electrodynamics
| | concerning the S-matrix. In addition, I can describe the time
| | evolution, including
| | the speed of propagation of interactions. This speed comes out
infinite.
| |
| | You may believe in retarded interactions, but so far there was no
clear
| | experiment confirming that.
|
| I will take a look at your book and study this, but I think also a
medium
| theory can handle this.
|
| | However, whatever I am using to shake the electron at A might
| simultaneously
| | shake the electron at B.
| |
| | You can shoot at electron A with a high-energy photon, so the electron
B
| | will not be affected directly. Though, this does not look like a
viable
| | experimental setup. The main question is how to design an experiment
| | to measure the speed of propagation of interaction directly?
|
| Well, electron A has a "static" couloumb field associated with it, so if
hit
| by a high energy photon, it ought to do something to B also. You claim
that
| the electron at B would instantaneously "know" that electron A got hit.
I
| say that it wouldn't know until the time it took for light to travel one
| centimeter.
|
| That's exactly where we disagree. Do you have any proof of your idea of
| retarded interactions? I warn you not to invoke QED, because QED is not
| a dynamical theory. Its Hamiltonian is plagued with infinite
| counterterms and cannot be used to predict the time evolution.
| QED can only predict S-matrix, i.e., time evolution integrated over
| infinite time interval. So, QED has no idea about the speed of
| propagation of interactions.
| What are your objections to my proof of instantaneous interactions
| (see subsection 12.3.3 of the book)?

Why is any proof needed of retarded interactions? It just seems like common
sense. Things that happen on the Sun don't get to us 'til 8 minutes latter.
If you are going to have instantaneous interactions, you have to have some
kind of distance cutoff point or the Universe would be a mess. What is that
distance?

IMHO, the real solution to the problems you are seeing with the infinities
of QED can be solved by invoking a vacuum medium. All the clues are there
already. The only thing missing is the concept of vacuum charge = +,-
sqrt(hbar*c). I believe there really is a tremendous amount of energy in
the quantum vacuum. This is the source of the so-called self-energy of
fermions. It is the only solution or fermions have to be singularities
(magic). An electron doesn't ever "wind down". Why?

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...
|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| "Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | FrediFizzx wrote:
| [snip]
| |
| | "Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| | [snip]
| | | Most of these experiments involve gravitational effects. Nowhere
in
| | | my book I speak about gravity. Moreover, all special relativistic
| effect
| | | related to light and non-interacting particles (Michelson-Morley
| | | experiment, transverse Doppler effect, etc.) are EXACTLY valid in
| | | my approach. The only disagreement is about relativistic effects
with
| | | interacting particles. But even here the differences between RQD
| | | approach and special relativity is ridiculously small.
| | | I think that the highest chance to be vindicated by experiment is
| | | for the prediction of instantaneous propagation of interaction
| | | (Coulomb and magnetic) between charged particles (see section 12.3
| | | of the book).
| |
| | Since I think the quantum vacuum is a relativistic medium,
| |
| | What you mean by "quantum vacuum is relativistic medium"?
| | In my approach, vacuum is just an empty space, e.g., a "system"
| | without particles.
|
| http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
|
| The above is an article I co-wrote with the concept of the quantum
vacuum
| *as* as system of quantum objects. I just don't see how empty space
could
| have any concept of "system" or any particular geometry without quantum
| objects defining spacetime.
|
|
| | I just can't buy
| | that the electrostatic and magnetostatic fields can propagate
| | instantaneously at a distance. This is also contrary to the concept
of
| | charge being purely mechanical.
| |
| | I also do not understand the meaning of "charge being purely
| | mechanical"?
|
| Charge has to be purely mechanical even if it is quantum *mechanical*.
This
| is only possible if the quantum vacuum is a relativistic medium of
coupled
| oscillators. IOW, all there really is is fermions - real, virtual, and
| "less than virtual". Gauge bosons are always composites of these
virtual
| and "less than virtual" fermions. The coupling is via magnetic-like
links.
|
| I don't by you idea of "physical vacuum". What is left if you delete all
| particles around you? Nothing. Vacuum. All your measuring apparatuses
| will become silent. There is nothing in vacuum, and I do not
| understand why you need "quantum objects" to define geometry and
| spacetime.

Fortunately for me, HEP tends to agree with the concept of the quantum
vacuum that does have random fluctuations of virtual particles. But that is
OK. You might be able to have a consistent theory without them. But if
spacetime does have a certain geometry to it, then what makes it like that?
The hand of God? Magic? What? I don't think matter can do it.

There are certain things in physics that we just need to postulate.
For example, that there are 3 dimensions in space, or the value of the
electron's mass. What you call "geometry" is just one of those things.
As we cannot do without postulates, it is much more prefereble to
postulate things simple and obvious. Of course, one can also postulate
complex things (like vacuum fluctuations) and try to derive from them
simple things, like the number of dimensions. But this way doesn't look
very appealing.


There
isn't enough of it. Cosmology shows us that matter is the exception to the
rule. It is maybe only four percent of the total energy of the Universe.
If you don't look at the big picture, you might be going down the wrong path
for the smal picture.

Isn't it amazing? We cannot understand a simple thing: how two electrons
interact with each other, but we are willing to talk about total energy
of the Universe, Big Bang and the rest of it.




| | If I shake an electron at A, it is not
| | going to instantaneously shake an electron at B that is a centimeter
| away.
| |
| | As far as I know, there is no relativistic quantum dynamical (i.e.,
| | capable of predicting time evolution) theory of interacting particles
| | with retarded interactions. Also, there is no satisfactory theory in
| | which
| | trajectories of interacting particles transform by Lorentz formulas.
| | You can find references to such attempts on page 27 in chapter 12
| | of my book. But these attempts, like "constraint dynamics" or
| | van Dam-Wigner approach, did not achieve much. In my approach, I
| | reproduce all famous predictions of quantum electrodynamics
| | concerning the S-matrix. In addition, I can describe the time
| | evolution, including
| | the speed of propagation of interactions. This speed comes out
infinite.
| |
| | You may believe in retarded interactions, but so far there was no
clear
| | experiment confirming that.
|
| I will take a look at your book and study this, but I think also a
medium
| theory can handle this.
|
| | However, whatever I am using to shake the electron at A might
| simultaneously
| | shake the electron at B.
| |
| | You can shoot at electron A with a high-energy photon, so the electron
B
| | will not be affected directly. Though, this does not look like a
viable
| | experimental setup. The main question is how to design an experiment
| | to measure the speed of propagation of interaction directly?
|
| Well, electron A has a "static" couloumb field associated with it, so if
hit
| by a high energy photon, it ought to do something to B also. You claim
that
| the electron at B would instantaneously "know" that electron A got hit.
I
| say that it wouldn't know until the time it took for light to travel one
| centimeter.
|
| That's exactly where we disagree. Do you have any proof of your idea of
| retarded interactions? I warn you not to invoke QED, because QED is not
| a dynamical theory. Its Hamiltonian is plagued with infinite
| counterterms and cannot be used to predict the time evolution.
| QED can only predict S-matrix, i.e., time evolution integrated over
| infinite time interval. So, QED has no idea about the speed of
| propagation of interactions.
| What are your objections to my proof of instantaneous interactions
| (see subsection 12.3.3 of the book)?

Why is any proof needed of retarded interactions? It just seems like common
sense.

Common sense also tells you that the Earth is flat and the Sun is
orbiting around the Earth. It's obvious, just look up in the sky.
I think we need to distinguish clearly what is postulated and what is
derived in our theories. (I tried to follow that in my book). If you
want to postulate the retarded character of interaction, fine.
I would prefer to postulate something less controversial.


Things that happen on the Sun don't get to us 'til 8 minutes latter.

Lihgt propagates with the speed of light. I guess you understand that I
am not disputing that. I am talking about instantaneous Coulomb force
between two charges.

If you are going to have instantaneous interactions, you have to have some
kind of distance cutoff point or the Universe would be a mess. What is that
distance?

Coulomb interaction decreases with the distance, and there are not so
many free charges sticking around. Actually, direct measurement of the
speed of interaction is rather tricky, and so far there was no credible
experiment.


IMHO, the real solution to the problems you are seeing with the infinities
of QED can be solved by invoking a vacuum medium. All the clues are there
already. The only thing missing is the concept of vacuum charge = +,-
sqrt(hbar*c). I believe there really is a tremendous amount of energy in
the quantum vacuum. This is the source of the so-called self-energy of
fermions. It is the only solution or fermions have to be singularities
(magic). An electron doesn't ever "wind down". Why?

I don't quite understand what you are saying. I think the idea of
"physical vacuum" was there since early days of QED. It didn't help
to solve the problem of divergences.

Eugene.


FrediFizzx

"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| "Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
| ...
| | FrediFizzx wrote:
| | "Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | FrediFizzx wrote:
| | [snip]
| | |
| | | "Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | |
| | | [snip]
| | | | Most of these experiments involve gravitational effects.
Nowhere
| in
| | | | my book I speak about gravity. Moreover, all special
relativistic
| | effect
| | | | related to light and non-interacting particles
(Michelson-Morley
| | | | experiment, transverse Doppler effect, etc.) are EXACTLY valid
in
| | | | my approach. The only disagreement is about relativistic
effects
| with
| | | | interacting particles. But even here the differences between
RQD
| | | | approach and special relativity is ridiculously small.
| | | | I think that the highest chance to be vindicated by experiment
is
| | | | for the prediction of instantaneous propagation of interaction
| | | | (Coulomb and magnetic) between charged particles (see section
12.3
| | | | of the book).
| | |
| | | Since I think the quantum vacuum is a relativistic medium,
| | |
| | | What you mean by "quantum vacuum is relativistic medium"?
| | | In my approach, vacuum is just an empty space, e.g., a "system"
| | | without particles.
| |
| | http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
| |
| | The above is an article I co-wrote with the concept of the quantum
| vacuum
| | *as* as system of quantum objects. I just don't see how empty space
| could
| | have any concept of "system" or any particular geometry without
quantum
| | objects defining spacetime.
| |
| |
| | | I just can't buy
| | | that the electrostatic and magnetostatic fields can propagate
| | | instantaneously at a distance. This is also contrary to the
concept
| of
| | | charge being purely mechanical.
| | |
| | | I also do not understand the meaning of "charge being purely
| | | mechanical"?
| |
| | Charge has to be purely mechanical even if it is quantum
*mechanical*.
| This
| | is only possible if the quantum vacuum is a relativistic medium of
| coupled
| | oscillators. IOW, all there really is is fermions - real, virtual,
and
| | "less than virtual". Gauge bosons are always composites of these
| virtual
| | and "less than virtual" fermions. The coupling is via magnetic-like
| links.
| |
| | I don't by you idea of "physical vacuum". What is left if you delete
all
| | particles around you? Nothing. Vacuum. All your measuring apparatuses
| | will become silent. There is nothing in vacuum, and I do not
| | understand why you need "quantum objects" to define geometry and
| | spacetime.
|
| Fortunately for me, HEP tends to agree with the concept of the quantum
| vacuum that does have random fluctuations of virtual particles. But
that is
| OK. You might be able to have a consistent theory without them. But if
| spacetime does have a certain geometry to it, then what makes it like
that?
| The hand of God? Magic? What? I don't think matter can do it.
|
| There are certain things in physics that we just need to postulate.
| For example, that there are 3 dimensions in space, or the value of the
| electron's mass. What you call "geometry" is just one of those things.
| As we cannot do without postulates, it is much more prefereble to
| postulate things simple and obvious. Of course, one can also postulate
| complex things (like vacuum fluctuations) and try to derive from them
| simple things, like the number of dimensions. But this way doesn't look
| very appealing.

To me, a postulate automatically begs for physical explanation. Sure, it
gets into the "turtles all the way down" scenario, and we need to stop every
once in a while until experiment catches up. Right now, the Standard Model
has too many postulates for my tastes. Most of which are masses. I can see
a solution for cutting them down coming from the quantum vacuum. So does
Volovik in his "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" book.

| There
| isn't enough of it. Cosmology shows us that matter is the exception to
the
| rule. It is maybe only four percent of the total energy of the
Universe.
| If you don't look at the big picture, you might be going down the wrong
path
| for the smal picture.
|
| Isn't it amazing? We cannot understand a simple thing: how two electrons
| interact with each other, but we are willing to talk about total energy
| of the Universe, Big Bang and the rest of it.
|
|
|
|
| | | If I shake an electron at A, it is not
| | | going to instantaneously shake an electron at B that is a
centimeter
| | away.
| | |
| | | As far as I know, there is no relativistic quantum dynamical
(i.e.,
| | | capable of predicting time evolution) theory of interacting
particles
| | | with retarded interactions. Also, there is no satisfactory theory
in
| | | which
| | | trajectories of interacting particles transform by Lorentz
formulas.
| | | You can find references to such attempts on page 27 in chapter 12
| | | of my book. But these attempts, like "constraint dynamics" or
| | | van Dam-Wigner approach, did not achieve much. In my approach, I
| | | reproduce all famous predictions of quantum electrodynamics
| | | concerning the S-matrix. In addition, I can describe the time
| | | evolution, including
| | | the speed of propagation of interactions. This speed comes out
| infinite.
| | |
| | | You may believe in retarded interactions, but so far there was no
| clear
| | | experiment confirming that.
| |
| | I will take a look at your book and study this, but I think also a
| medium
| | theory can handle this.
| |
| | | However, whatever I am using to shake the electron at A might
| | simultaneously
| | | shake the electron at B.
| | |
| | | You can shoot at electron A with a high-energy photon, so the
electron
| B
| | | will not be affected directly. Though, this does not look like a
| viable
| | | experimental setup. The main question is how to design an
experiment
| | | to measure the speed of propagation of interaction directly?
| |
| | Well, electron A has a "static" couloumb field associated with it,
so if
| hit
| | by a high energy photon, it ought to do something to B also. You
claim
| that
| | the electron at B would instantaneously "know" that electron A got
hit.
| I
| | say that it wouldn't know until the time it took for light to travel
one
| | centimeter.
| |
| | That's exactly where we disagree. Do you have any proof of your idea
of
| | retarded interactions? I warn you not to invoke QED, because QED is
not
| | a dynamical theory. Its Hamiltonian is plagued with infinite
| | counterterms and cannot be used to predict the time evolution.
| | QED can only predict S-matrix, i.e., time evolution integrated over
| | infinite time interval. So, QED has no idea about the speed of
| | propagation of interactions.
| | What are your objections to my proof of instantaneous interactions
| | (see subsection 12.3.3 of the book)?
|
| Why is any proof needed of retarded interactions? It just seems like
common
| sense.
|
| Common sense also tells you that the Earth is flat and the Sun is
| orbiting around the Earth. It's obvious, just look up in the sky.
| I think we need to distinguish clearly what is postulated and what is
| derived in our theories. (I tried to follow that in my book). If you
| want to postulate the retarded character of interaction, fine.
| I would prefer to postulate something less controversial.

No, anyone can look to the sky and see the round moon and round sun and
other round planets. Common sense would have it that the earth would be
round also.

| Things that happen on the Sun don't get to us 'til 8 minutes latter.
|
| Lihgt propagates with the speed of light. I guess you understand that I
| am not disputing that. I am talking about instantaneous Coulomb force
| between two charges.
|
| If you are going to have instantaneous interactions, you have to have
some
| kind of distance cutoff point or the Universe would be a mess. What is
that
| distance?
|
| Coulomb interaction decreases with the distance, and there are not so
| many free charges sticking around. Actually, direct measurement of the
| speed of interaction is rather tricky, and so far there was no credible
| experiment.

Ok, agree with this.

| IMHO, the real solution to the problems you are seeing with the
infinities
| of QED can be solved by invoking a vacuum medium. All the clues are
there
| already. The only thing missing is the concept of vacuum charge = +,-
| sqrt(hbar*c). I believe there really is a tremendous amount of energy
in
| the quantum vacuum. This is the source of the so-called self-energy of
| fermions. It is the only solution or fermions have to be singularities
| (magic). An electron doesn't ever "wind down". Why?
|
| I don't quite understand what you are saying. I think the idea of
| "physical vacuum" was there since early days of QED. It didn't help
| to solve the problem of divergences.

This is because they didn't ever consider the quantum vacuum to be at tree
level. If you invoke it as a complete medium, it has to be at tree level.
It is easy to see why QED has the infinities. If you integrate over all
time, the electron (or any fermion) does have an infinite amount of energy
(they don't "wind down"). So your approach is OK. But it doesn't explain
why fermions do have an infinite amount of energy over all time or why they
don't "wind down". Now if you explain this as the fermions get their energy
for all time from the quantum vacuum, then you can relate this back to the
big bang or if you don't believe in that, the energy for the entire Universe
was just always existing. The quantum vacuum is a perpetual motion machine
that real fermions get their perpetual energy from. OK, so you want to know
how the quantum vacuum as a medium can solve the infinities problem.
Basically it would be similar to what you are doing but we don't end up with
the instantaneous interactions. Based on vacuum charge "cells" with charge
= +,- sqrt(hbar*c), a rough estimate would be that there are 150 million
cells per hydrogen atom. A big number but not infinite. So I think you can
see from here what is happening.

A "bare" fermion is identical to all other fermions. They are massless or
have a very tiny mass (I haven't decided this yet) and are chargeless. All
the properties of the fermions when they aren't bare, come from the geometry
and energy of the quantum vacuum. A neutrino is as close to a "bare"
fermion that we will ever be able to see. This is the big clue.

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:

|
| There are certain things in physics that we just need to postulate.
| For example, that there are 3 dimensions in space, or the value of the
| electron's mass. What you call "geometry" is just one of those things.
| As we cannot do without postulates, it is much more prefereble to
| postulate things simple and obvious. Of course, one can also postulate
| complex things (like vacuum fluctuations) and try to derive from them
| simple things, like the number of dimensions. But this way doesn't look
| very appealing.

To me, a postulate automatically begs for physical explanation. Sure, it
gets into the "turtles all the way down" scenario, and we need to stop every
once in a while until experiment catches up. Right now, the Standard Model
has too many postulates for my tastes. Most of which are masses. I can see
a solution for cutting them down coming from the quantum vacuum. So does
Volovik in his "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" book.

I just want to be causious and postulate more or less obvious things,
better yet if they are observed experimentally. Masses are not so bad,
if they belong to real observable particles, not to hypothetical Higgs.
"Quantum vacuum" doesn't look good to my taste, because nobody have seen
it and your postulate can be way off.


|
| Common sense also tells you that the Earth is flat and the Sun is
| orbiting around the Earth. It's obvious, just look up in the sky.
| I think we need to distinguish clearly what is postulated and what is
| derived in our theories. (I tried to follow that in my book). If you
| want to postulate the retarded character of interaction, fine.
| I would prefer to postulate something less controversial.

No, anyone can look to the sky and see the round moon and round sun and
other round planets. Common sense would have it that the earth would be
round also.

Here you are talking more like science, because drawing the analogy
between the shape of the moon and the shape of the earth requires pretty
high level ob abstract thinking.


|
| I don't quite understand what you are saying. I think the idea of
| "physical vacuum" was there since early days of QED. It didn't help
| to solve the problem of divergences.

This is because they didn't ever consider the quantum vacuum to be at tree
level. If you invoke it as a complete medium, it has to be at tree level.
It is easy to see why QED has the infinities. If you integrate over all
time, the electron (or any fermion) does have an infinite amount of energy
(they don't "wind down"). So your approach is OK. But it doesn't explain
why fermions do have an infinite amount of energy over all time or why they
don't "wind down". Now if you explain this as the fermions get their energy
for all time from the quantum vacuum, then you can relate this back to the
big bang or if you don't believe in that, the energy for the entire Universe
was just always existing. The quantum vacuum is a perpetual motion machine
that real fermions get their perpetual energy from. OK, so you want to know
how the quantum vacuum as a medium can solve the infinities problem.
Basically it would be similar to what you are doing but we don't end up with
the instantaneous interactions. Based on vacuum charge "cells" with charge
= +,- sqrt(hbar*c), a rough estimate would be that there are 150 million
cells per hydrogen atom. A big number but not infinite. So I think you can
see from here what is happening.

A "bare" fermion is identical to all other fermions. They are massless or
have a very tiny mass (I haven't decided this yet) and are chargeless. All
the properties of the fermions when they aren't bare, come from the geometry
and energy of the quantum vacuum. A neutrino is as close to a "bare"
fermion that we will ever be able to see. This is the big clue.

FrediFizzx

Good luck with your studies. It looks like you have an idea and you
strongly believe in it. That's all that needed. I hope you'll get to
some interesting physical (I mean, observable) predictions.

Eugene

"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...
|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| |
| | There are certain things in physics that we just need to postulate.
| | For example, that there are 3 dimensions in space, or the value of the
| | electron's mass. What you call "geometry" is just one of those things.
| | As we cannot do without postulates, it is much more prefereble to
| | postulate things simple and obvious. Of course, one can also postulate
| | complex things (like vacuum fluctuations) and try to derive from them
| | simple things, like the number of dimensions. But this way doesn't
look
| | very appealing.
|
| To me, a postulate automatically begs for physical explanation. Sure,
it
| gets into the "turtles all the way down" scenario, and we need to stop
every
| once in a while until experiment catches up. Right now, the Standard
Model
| has too many postulates for my tastes. Most of which are masses. I can
see
| a solution for cutting them down coming from the quantum vacuum. So
does
| Volovik in his "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" book.
|
| I just want to be causious and postulate more or less obvious things,
| better yet if they are observed experimentally. Masses are not so bad,
| if they belong to real observable particles, not to hypothetical Higgs.
| "Quantum vacuum" doesn't look good to my taste, because nobody have seen
| it and your postulate can be way off.

Well, you aren't really being so cautious by invoking instantaneous
interactions. That is pretty bold in my book. ;-) Volovik is a contender
for the top physics' prize so I think I will keep on that path and see where
it takes me.

| | Common sense also tells you that the Earth is flat and the Sun is
| | orbiting around the Earth. It's obvious, just look up in the sky.
| | I think we need to distinguish clearly what is postulated and what is
| | derived in our theories. (I tried to follow that in my book). If you
| | want to postulate the retarded character of interaction, fine.
| | I would prefer to postulate something less controversial.
|
| No, anyone can look to the sky and see the round moon and round sun and
| other round planets. Common sense would have it that the earth would be
| round also.
|
| Here you are talking more like science, because drawing the analogy
| between the shape of the moon and the shape of the earth requires pretty
| high level ob abstract thinking.
|
|
| |
| | I don't quite understand what you are saying. I think the idea of
| | "physical vacuum" was there since early days of QED. It didn't help
| | to solve the problem of divergences.
|
| This is because they didn't ever consider the quantum vacuum to be at
tree
| level. If you invoke it as a complete medium, it has to be at tree
level.
| It is easy to see why QED has the infinities. If you integrate over all
| time, the electron (or any fermion) does have an infinite amount of
energy
| (they don't "wind down"). So your approach is OK. But it doesn't
explain
| why fermions do have an infinite amount of energy over all time or why
they
| don't "wind down". Now if you explain this as the fermions get their
energy
| for all time from the quantum vacuum, then you can relate this back to
the
| big bang or if you don't believe in that, the energy for the entire
Universe
| was just always existing. The quantum vacuum is a perpetual motion
machine
| that real fermions get their perpetual energy from. OK, so you want to
know
| how the quantum vacuum as a medium can solve the infinities problem.
| Basically it would be similar to what you are doing but we don't end up
with
| the instantaneous interactions. Based on vacuum charge "cells" with
charge
| = +,- sqrt(hbar*c), a rough estimate would be that there are 150 million
| cells per hydrogen atom. A big number but not infinite. So I think you
can
| see from here what is happening.
|
| A "bare" fermion is identical to all other fermions. They are massless
or
| have a very tiny mass (I haven't decided this yet) and are chargeless.
All
| the properties of the fermions when they aren't bare, come from the
geometry
| and energy of the quantum vacuum. A neutrino is as close to a "bare"
| fermion that we will ever be able to see. This is the big clue.
|
| FrediFizzx
|
| Good luck with your studies. It looks like you have an idea and you
| strongly believe in it. That's all that needed. I hope you'll get to
| some interesting physical (I mean, observable) predictions.

Good luck with your project also. I think we can use some of your ideas to
help ours along. You have a good approach but I think you will meet much
resistance on the instantaneous interactions. I am not actually opposed to
near instantaneous interactions if the "distance" is very very small on the
order of a fermi or less. For me, since spacetime is being defined at that
level, then solutions I see do require speeds higher than c. Again since
spacetime is being defined, then how do you even specify a velocity? Tough
situation. Yeah, observable predictions are tough also. We are predicting
goldstone-like bosons of about 15 MeV, 22 MeV, 46 MeV, etc. but very hard if
not impossible to detect them directly. They are very cool things though.
They can "store" energy and are undetectable. But are not ever "free"
particles. Well, for that matter, even real particles in our model are
never truely free either. An electron neutrino is as free as we will ever
see.

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...

|
| I just want to be causious and postulate more or less obvious things,
| better yet if they are observed experimentally. Masses are not so bad,
| if they belong to real observable particles, not to hypothetical Higgs.
| "Quantum vacuum" doesn't look good to my taste, because nobody have seen
| it and your postulate can be way off.

Well, you aren't really being so cautious by invoking instantaneous
interactions. That is pretty bold in my book. ;-)

You may notice that I haven't postulated instantaneous interaction.
This came as a result of consistent application of my approach. The
postulates which I use are very simple, and not that controversial.
In this book I just faithfully followed these postulates to derive
all predictions. Just for the reference, I will list these postulates
here along with subsections of the book where the postulates can
be found:

Postulate A: The principle of relativity (1.1.1)
Postulate H: Poincare group properties of inertial transformations
(2.2.1)
Postulates of quantum mechanics: I, J, K1- K11, K13, L, M.
They are summarized in statement N (4.3.2 and 4.3.7)
Statement N in subsection 5.2.4 (oops! I have two statements N):
Representation of inertial transformations by
unitary operators in the Hilbert space.
Postulate O: Hilbert space of compound system (8.1.1)
Postulate P: Kinematical character of space translations and boosts.
(8.2.3)
Postulate R: Cluster separability of interactions (8.3.3)
To study a particular theory I postulate in subsection (11.1.2)
the form of interaction in the Hamiltonian and boost,
which is exactly the same is in normal QED
(see, for example eqs (8.4.22) - (8.4.25) in
Weinberg's book vol. 1)
Postulate U: Charge renormalization condition (11.3.4)
Postulate V: Stability of vacuum and one-particle states (12.1.1)

The instantaneous interactions just follow from these postulates by
straightforward logic. I agree, that this claim is bold, but it is not
wrong.

If somebody wants to challenge the results of this theory, I can suggest
two ways: either challenge
the above postulates or challenge the logic and calculations
which I used to derive my predictions. I am ready to discuss both
these challenges. So far, I haven't seen much discussion
along these lines. I mostly see objections of the sort:
"Well, your predictions (in particular, the instantaneous propagation of
interactions) disagree with the old theory, so they must be wrong".
My answer is that in order to predict the retarded character of
interactions, old theory must introduce one additional postulate to the
above list:

Assertion D: the universality of Lorentz transformations (1.2.1)

I demonstrate in my book that this "postulate" is not needed. Moreover,
it contradicts other postulates. So, Assertion D should be discarded.
Then, fully consistent unification of relativity and quantum mechanics
becomes possible without ultraviolet divergences and paradoxes.

This is my book in a nutshell.

|
| Good luck with your studies. It looks like you have an idea and you
| strongly believe in it. That's all that needed. I hope you'll get to
| some interesting physical (I mean, observable) predictions.

Good luck with your project also. I think we can use some of your ideas to
help ours along. You have a good approach but I think you will meet much
resistance on the instantaneous interactions.
[...]

FrediFizzx


Thank you for your kind words.

Eugene.