wrote:





The website that you "published" on is your own.

No one reviewed it except yourself.

John Anderson

The papers posted on this website (www.geocities.com/meopemuk)
were published in Int. J. Theor. Phys; Ann. Phys; and Found. Phys.
They were peer reviewed, if that's that important for you.

Eugene.

Eugene Stefanovich wrote:

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. But besides that, don't expect
these newsgroups to any kind of "official" peer review process. But you
might get some fine-tuning hints.

Thank you for good advice. You are quite right, all major results from
this book were published in peer-reviewed journals (see
http://www.geocities.com/meopemuk). I don't care if comments come from
a bold-headed professor or from a newsgroup novice. If the point is
valid, I'll give it a thought. Besides, I would expect about the same
kind of attacks from "official" peers. So, I should better be prepared.


The website that you "published" on is your own.

No one reviewed it except yourself.

John Anderson

Eugene Stefanovich wrote:

wrote:




The website that you "published" on is your own.

No one reviewed it except yourself.

John Anderson

The papers posted on this website (www.geocities.com/meopemuk)
were published in Int. J. Theor. Phys; Ann. Phys; and Found. Phys.
They were peer reviewed, if that's that important for you.


Where was your paper posted?

Please cite a peer-reviewed paper where your paper was posted.

John Anderson

wrote in message ...
| Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
|
| wrote:
|
|
|
|
| The website that you "published" on is your own.
|
| No one reviewed it except yourself.
|
| John Anderson
|
| The papers posted on this website (www.geocities.com/meopemuk)
| were published in Int. J. Theor. Phys; Ann. Phys; and Found. Phys.
| They were peer reviewed, if that's that important for you.
|
|
| Where was your paper posted?
|
| Please cite a peer-reviewed paper where your paper was posted.

E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Field Theory without Infinities, Ann. Phys. 292 ,
139-156 (2001).
E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Effects in Relativistic Decays, Int. J. Theor.
Phys. 35 , 2539-2554 (1996).
E.V. Stefanovich, Is Minkowski Space-Time Compatible with Quantum Mechanics?
Found. Phys. 32 , 673-703 (2002).

I think you owe Eugene an apology. He does have a Ph.D in physics and his
main ideas have been peer-reviewed published. Some of which I like and may
help me in my quest for the "truth".

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:
wrote in message ...
| Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
|
| wrote:
|
|
|
|
| The website that you "published" on is your own.
|
| No one reviewed it except yourself.
|
| John Anderson
|
| The papers posted on this website (www.geocities.com/meopemuk)
| were published in Int. J. Theor. Phys; Ann. Phys; and Found. Phys.
| They were peer reviewed, if that's that important for you.
|
|
| Where was your paper posted?
|
| Please cite a peer-reviewed paper where your paper was posted.

E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Field Theory without Infinities, Ann. Phys. 292 ,
139-156 (2001).
E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Effects in Relativistic Decays, Int. J. Theor.
Phys. 35 , 2539-2554 (1996).
E.V. Stefanovich, Is Minkowski Space-Time Compatible with Quantum Mechanics?
Found. Phys. 32 , 673-703 (2002).

I think you owe Eugene an apology. He does have a Ph.D in physics and his
main ideas have been peer-reviewed published. Some of which I like and may
help me in my quest for the "truth".

FrediFizzx


Thank you, FrediFizzx!

wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:

wrote in message ...
| Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
|
| wrote:
|
|
|
|
| The website that you "published" on is your own.
|
| No one reviewed it except yourself.
|
| John Anderson
|
| The papers posted on this website (www.geocities.com/meopemuk)
| were published in Int. J. Theor. Phys; Ann. Phys; and Found. Phys.
| They were peer reviewed, if that's that important for you.
|
|
| Where was your paper posted?
|
| Please cite a peer-reviewed paper where your paper was posted.

E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Field Theory without Infinities, Ann. Phys. 292 ,
139-156 (2001).
E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Effects in Relativistic Decays, Int. J. Theor.
Phys. 35 , 2539-2554 (1996).
E.V. Stefanovich, Is Minkowski Space-Time Compatible with Quantum Mechanics?
Found. Phys. 32 , 673-703 (2002).

I think you owe Eugene an apology. He does have a Ph.D in physics and his
main ideas have been peer-reviewed published. Some of which I like and may
help me in my quest for the "truth".



Okay, I owe him an apology for implying that his ideas haven't
been peer reviewed.

On the other hand, if he needs to distribute his book this
way, he's not exactly publishing the book in the way that scientists
do things. There are lots of peer reviewed publications that are
controversial and don't lead to accepted results.

John Anderson

I accept your apology.
I am going to publish this book through normal channels. You may
consider my posting of the book on the Internet as preprint.
I thought, this has mutual benefits. You have first-hand access to new
ideas without going to the bookstore and paying money. I have
so much needed feedback to make the final published version of the
book better.

If you want to wait when the book is certified by referees,
that's OK with me.

Eugene.

FrediFizzx wrote:

wrote in message ...
| Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
|
| wrote:
|
|
|
|
| The website that you "published" on is your own.
|
| No one reviewed it except yourself.
|
| John Anderson
|
| The papers posted on this website (www.geocities.com/meopemuk)
| were published in Int. J. Theor. Phys; Ann. Phys; and Found. Phys.
| They were peer reviewed, if that's that important for you.
|
|
| Where was your paper posted?
|
| Please cite a peer-reviewed paper where your paper was posted.

E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Field Theory without Infinities, Ann. Phys. 292 ,
139-156 (2001).
E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Effects in Relativistic Decays, Int. J. Theor.
Phys. 35 , 2539-2554 (1996).
E.V. Stefanovich, Is Minkowski Space-Time Compatible with Quantum Mechanics?
Found. Phys. 32 , 673-703 (2002).

I think you owe Eugene an apology. He does have a Ph.D in physics and his
main ideas have been peer-reviewed published. Some of which I like and may
help me in my quest for the "truth".


Okay, I owe him an apology for implying that his ideas haven't
been peer reviewed.

On the other hand, if he needs to distribute his book this
way, he's not exactly publishing the book in the way that scientists
do things. There are lots of peer reviewed publications that are
controversial and don't lead to accepted results.

John Anderson