FrediFizzx wrote:

"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...
|
|
| wrote:
| Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
|
| Hello everybody,
|
| I am pleased to announce that a new book
| is available for download on my web-site www.meopemuk.com.
| The title of the book is "Relativistic quantum dynamics"
| It describes a successful attempt to unite relativity
| and quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes and divergences.
| Some of these topics were already discussed on this
| newsgroup. Many thanks to those who participated.
| Especially to Bill Hobba and Bilge.
|
| The key difference of my approach
| is in correct understanding
| of the principle of relativity and Lorentz transformations.
| Yes, I am correcting Einstein! Einstein rigorously
| derived linear Lorentz transformations
| of special relativity (and all their consequences,
| like time dilation and length contraction)
| for freely propagating light pulses. His mistake was to generalize
| these formulas for all physical systems independent on their
| composition and interactions. In my approach, the
| multiplication law of the Poincare group of inertial
| transformations requires that both time translations
| and transformations to the moving frame (boosts) must
| depend on interaction. Then, universal and linear Lorentz
| transformations of special relativity are just an approximation
| (not a bad one, though).
|
| I used these ideas to construct fully relativistic quantum theory
| of charged particles and photons. As in quantum electrodynamics,
| particles may be created and annihilated. In contrast to QED,
| I do not use fields. My approach operates with particle
| observables (position, momentum, spin projections) and with
| direct instantaneous interactions between particles.
| There are several interesting features of this theory which
| are discussed in detail in the book:
| 1. The instantaneous propagation of interaction does not
| contradict causality (there is no "grandfather paradox"), if
| dynamical character of boost transformations (see above)
| is properly taken into account.
| 2. Ultravolet divergences of QFT are completely eliminated
| from both Hamiltonian and the S-matrix. The S-matrix in
| my approach is exactly the same as in renormalized QED,
| so all QED predictions (electron's magnetic moment, Lamb's
| shifts, etc) are still valid.
| 3. In contrast to QED which is interested only in the S-matrix
| and scattering
| processes (the connection between observables in the distant past
| and the distant future), my approach has well-defined finite
| Hamiltonian, which allows to study time dynamics during interaction.
|
| The book is about 450 pages long. I tried to write it on
| elementary, but rigorous level. I also tried to avoid phrases
| like "one can show that...". All central results have detailed proofs,
| or, at least, references to papers/books where such proofs can be
| found. The book covers rotations in 3D
| space, the renormalized QED, and everything in between.
| In two last chapters I presented new (and surely controversial)
| developments:
| 1) the elimination of ultraviolet infinities in quantum field
| theory using "dressed particle" approach.
| 2) calculation of corrections to the Einstein's time dilation
| law in the case of fast moving unstable particle.
|
| I hope you will find this book not boring and thought-provoking.
| I would be glad to read your comments either on these newsgroups
| or at my e-mail address
| You can also visit my web-site www.geocities.com/meopemuk
|
| Thank you.
| Eugene Stefanovich.
|
|
| Thanks for your contribution. I would be more thankfull
| if it were peer reviewed.
|
| You are welcome. I am going to publish this book in due course.
| You can witness the peer review process "live" on this newsgroup.
|
| Eugene.
|
|
| Uckfay Offway.
|
| John Anderson

Eugene, the above comments by Anderson are pig-latin. He was not being nice
but his usual ass_ole self. If he was paying attention, he would have seen
that you do have some peer-reviewed content.

Why would I "pay attention" to "book" on physics
that isn't supported by experiment or that hasn't
been successfully peer reviewed. The fact that someone
commented on it doesn't cut it.

But besides that, don't expect
these newsgroups to any kind of "official" peer review process.

That's what I was trying to tell the original poster.

But I'm not very patient, am I?

John Anderson