In article . com,
Eric Gisse wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article .com,
Nick wrote:
Probability waves would contract and
dilate as particles sped up and slowed
down in space.

Yes.


Anybody know the theory?
Probably just amateurs.

It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book "Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive treatment that
doesn't involve field theories.

I know little about either, so I ordered a book on relativistic quantum
field theory.

Bad choice?

I suppose it depends on what you were looking for. Most physics programs
send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it was a
bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new concepts
on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back and said
"What the hell just happened?"

--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet

Juan R. wrote:

I am sure. Most of is said in quantum field theory books is completely
wrong.

I wouldn't use such strong words, after all, all these books eventually
calculate correctly the electron's magnetic moment and other goodies.
However, I agree that modern presentation of quantum field theory is
rather confusing, to put it mildly. The book that makes most sense to me
is Weinberg's "The quantum theory of fields" vol. 1. He starts from
particles described as irreducible unitary representations of the
Poincare group. Then he builds the Fock space as a direct sum of
n-particle Hilbert spaces. Then he tries to build an interacting
representation of the Poincare group in this Fock space. In this
approach, quantum fields appear as purely formal combinations of
particle creation and annihilation operator whose only role is
to simplify the construction of relativistically invariant
interactions. It makes more sense
to consider particles, rather than fields, as "the fundamental
ingredients of nature".

Eugene.

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Most physics programs
send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it was a
bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new concepts
on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back and said
"What the hell just happened?"

I had the same feeling for many years. Not anymore. I think I finally
got what QFT is about, But the answer is different from what is written
in most textbooks. So, I wrote my own textbook
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062 . Hope you like it.

Eugene.

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article . com,
Eric Gisse wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article .com,
Nick wrote:
Probability waves would contract and
dilate as particles sped up and slowed
down in space.

Yes.


Anybody know the theory?
Probably just amateurs.

It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book "Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive treatment that
doesn't involve field theories.

I know little about either, so I ordered a book on relativistic quantum
field theory.

Bad choice?

I suppose it depends on what you were looking for. Most physics programs
send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it was a
bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new concepts
on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back and said
"What the hell just happened?"

I am yet to decide what I am looking for. I will know it when I find
it. But, for example, I would *love* to truly understand the Casimir
effect, at least in the context of QFT. I am sure there are more subtle
effects that I haven't been told about yet, though which amuse me
greatly to learn about.

The "new concept" bit happens so often I am used to it at this point.
"Killing vector? What the **** is that? few days later ooohhh...."


--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
| In article . com,
| Eric Gisse wrote:
|
| Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
| In article
.com,
| Nick wrote:
| Probability waves would contract and
| dilate as particles sped up and slowed
| down in space.
|
| Yes.
|
|
| Anybody know the theory?
| Probably just amateurs.
|
| It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book
"Relativistic Quantum
| Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive
treatment that
| doesn't involve field theories.
|
| I know little about either, so I ordered a book on relativistic
quantum
| field theory.
|
| Bad choice?
|
| I suppose it depends on what you were looking for. Most physics
programs
| send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it
was a
| bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new
concepts
| on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back
and said
| "What the hell just happened?"
|
| I am yet to decide what I am looking for. I will know it when I find
| it. But, for example, I would *love* to truly understand the Casimir
| effect, at least in the context of QFT. I am sure there are more
subtle
| effects that I haven't been told about yet, though which amuse me
| greatly to learn about.

Try Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum
Electrodynamics" for a few different approaches to the Casimir stuff.
And the Lamb shift, etc.

FrediFizzx

In article .com,
Eric Gisse wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article . com,
Eric Gisse wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article .com,
Nick wrote:
Probability waves would contract and
dilate as particles sped up and slowed
down in space.

Yes.


Anybody know the theory?
Probably just amateurs.

It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book "Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive treatment that
doesn't involve field theories.

I know little about either, so I ordered a book on relativistic quantum
field theory.

Bad choice?

I suppose it depends on what you were looking for. Most physics programs
send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it was a
bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new concepts
on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back and said
"What the hell just happened?"

I am yet to decide what I am looking for. I will know it when I find
it. But, for example, I would *love* to truly understand the Casimir
effect, at least in the context of QFT. I am sure there are more subtle
effects that I haven't been told about yet, though which amuse me
greatly to learn about.

The "new concept" bit happens so often I am used to it at this point.
"Killing vector? What the **** is that? few days later ooohhh...."

Well, no single book will do it for QFT, and you have to start somewhere.
You'll probably have a better idea what the next one should be after you
spend some time in the first.

The standard evolution of learning seems to be:

1. Eager anticipation.
2. Impressed with your own knowledge of the subject.
3. Some WTF moments uncovered when you return to parts you'd blipped over.
4. Desperate search through sundry other materials to try to figure out
what the hell just happened.
6. You are wiser than other men because you know that you know nothing.

Have fun with it.

--
"Yes, I revere you much, honored ones, and wish to fart in response." --
Aristophanes, Clouds

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
| In article . com,
| Eric Gisse wrote:
|
| Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
| In article
.com,
| Nick wrote:
| Probability waves would contract and
| dilate as particles sped up and slowed
| down in space.
|
| Yes.
|
|
| Anybody know the theory?
| Probably just amateurs.
|
| It's been written about extensively. Greiner's book
"Relativistic Quantum
| Mechanics: Wave Equations" may be the most comprehensive
treatment that
| doesn't involve field theories.
|
| I know little about either, so I ordered a book on relativistic
quantum
| field theory.
|
| Bad choice?
|
| I suppose it depends on what you were looking for. Most physics
programs
| send the student straight into relativistic field theories, so if it
was a
| bad choice you're in good company. But that dumps a lot of new
concepts
| on the student simultaneously-- after two semesters I looked back
and said
| "What the hell just happened?"
|
| I am yet to decide what I am looking for. I will know it when I find
| it. But, for example, I would *love* to truly understand the Casimir
| effect, at least in the context of QFT. I am sure there are more
subtle
| effects that I haven't been told about yet, though which amuse me
| greatly to learn about.

Try Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum
Electrodynamics" for a few different approaches to the Casimir stuff.
And the Lamb shift, etc.

I don't know anything about QED and it still makes my head hurt. o_O

GR has been treating me right...


FrediFizzx

In article ,
Eugene Stefanovich wrote:


Juan R. wrote:

I am sure. Most of is said in quantum field theory books is completely
wrong.

I wouldn't use such strong words, after all, all these books eventually
calculate correctly the electron's magnetic moment and other goodies.
However, I agree that modern presentation of quantum field theory is
rather confusing, to put it mildly. The book that makes most sense to me
is Weinberg's "The quantum theory of fields" vol. 1. He starts from
particles described as irreducible unitary representations of the
Poincare group. Then he builds the Fock space as a direct sum of
n-particle Hilbert spaces. Then he tries to build an interacting
representation of the Poincare group in this Fock space. In this
approach, quantum fields appear as purely formal combinations of
particle creation and annihilation operator whose only role is
to simplify the construction of relativistically invariant
interactions. It makes more sense
to consider particles, rather than fields, as "the fundamental
ingredients of nature".

Eugene.



I've been more at peace with the field as "the fundamental ingredients of
nature", and particles as an interpretation of the field. And they're an
interpretation that doesn't generalize to arbitrary spacetimes, which I
think makes them REALLY more fundamental-- if there's no natural particle
interpretation in arbitrary spacetimes then particles aren't fundamental.
Quantum field theory really is a theory of fields, and Greiner's "Field
Quantization" is an excellent book from that point of view. That is, he
starts with field theory. Plain old, non-quantum field theory, with
physical quantities defined through the stress-energy tensor the way you
would in any other field theory. And he quantizes the fields once.

But one way or the other, yes, the presentation is confusing, to put it
mildly.


--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson

Eugene Stefanovich ha escrito:

Juan R. wrote:

I am sure. Most of is said in quantum field theory books is completely
wrong.

I wouldn't use such strong words, after all, all these books eventually
calculate correctly the electron's magnetic moment and other goodies.

That 'depends' of the concept of physics one has. For an 'enginneering'
-wrote down and compute- view, QFT is fantastic. From a fundamental
point of view and if your objetive is the development of an advanced
unified and CONSISTENT theory of universe, then QFT is rather, rather
wrong.

Experimental verification? One can prove with very rigorous and
advanced theorems developed at the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) and
by other people in an independent manner, that almost all agreement
between experimental result and certain QFT predictions has been a
luckly coincidence. Similar views were said by the pioonering father of
QED. In one of his last works Mathematical Foundations of Quantum
Theory. (Academic Press, Inc., 1978) Dirac claimed:

Most physicists are very satisfied with this situation. They argue that
if one has rules for doing calculations and the results agree with
observation, that is all that one requires. But it is not all that one
requires. One requires a single comprehensive theory applying to all
physical phenomena. Not one theory for dealing with non-relativistic
effects and a separate disjoint theory for dealing with certain
relativistic effects. Furthermore, the theory has to be based on sound
mathematics, in which one neglects only quantities that are small. One
is not allowed to neglect infinitely large quantities [...]

The agreement [QED] with observation is presumably a coincidence, just
like the original calculation of the hydrogen spectrum with Bohr
orbits. Such coincidences are no reason for turning a blind eye to the
faults of a theory. One must seek a new relativistic quantum mechanics"


The theory developed at the Center proves with rigorous matht Dirac's
belief that "The agreement [QED] with observation is presumably a
coincidence".

However, I agree that modern presentation of quantum field theory is
rather confusing, to put it mildly. The book that makes most sense to me
is Weinberg's "The quantum theory of fields" vol. 1. He starts from
particles described as irreducible unitary representations of the
Poincare group. Then he builds the Fock space as a direct sum of
n-particle Hilbert spaces. Then he tries to build an interacting
representation of the Poincare group in this Fock space. In this
approach, quantum fields appear as purely formal combinations of
particle creation and annihilation operator whose only role is
to simplify the construction of relativistically invariant
interactions. It makes more sense
to consider particles, rather than fields, as "the fundamental
ingredients of nature".

Eugene.

Our Center has proved that fields are approximations arising in special
cases. Our work generalizes Hoyle/Narlikar and Wheeler/Feynman
theories. It has been extended to gravitation and now i am quantizing
it. We already obtain a non perturbative finite full causal structure.
None other approach to quantum gravity has obtained this: string theory
'work' -so say- only in perturbative regime, LQG and HQG continues
without classical limit and with the famous problem of time -all of
that solved in our approach-, etc.

Moreover experimental results on Marinov motor, longitudinal forces in
tokamaks, Ampere forces in mercury, the causality problems of standard
LW potentials, etc. are not pased by clasical field theory but passed
by our theory. Literature on problems of field theory is very large.

Do not forget that Weinberg manual does NOT work on chemistry. I
already cited for you a recent Physical review article where is
rigorusly proven that the S-matrix theory and the use of Hilbert-Fock
space -you use- are valid as a first approximation. The canonical
theory, of course, has none of those problems, since work directly with
both L and S-spaces.

It goes beyond...


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Juan R.:

Bilge wrote:
Juan R.:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Nick wrote:
Probability waves would contract and
dilate as particles sped up and slowed
down in space.

Anybody know the theory?
Probably just amateurs.

http://store.yahoo.com/doverpublicat...486442284.html

Eric you have pointed to a book on relativistic quantum FIELD theory
which is *different* from relativistic quantum MECHANICS.

Bjorken & Drell, Volume I.

Sure that those is abut nonrelativistic quantum mechanics?

What kind of a stupid question is that? On the contrary, I'm quite
sure that bjorken & drell vol I, is NOT about non-relativistic quantum
mechanics. The title, ``Relativistic Quantum Mehanics'' printed on
the cover of the book shold be the first clue.

Congratualtions. I don't recall anyone ever asking if a reference
I provided is about something other than the subject for which
the reference was requested.

What is the relativistic quantum wave equation for a electron?

Following your logic above, does that mean you want me to supply
a non-relativistic equation from shiff so you can object that it
isn't a field theoretic expression from a book on relativistic
quantum mechanics or what? I'll tell you what. You go figure out
what you're question is and ask yourself in all seriousness if you're
really just trolling.

[...]
No, eugene only thinks that's what he's doing. In reality, he trying
trying to use quantum theory to evade quantum theory.

Metaphysical claims?

Yes - eugene's metaphysical claims.

If you cannot distinguhes between relativistic qwuantum mechanics
Bjorken & Drell, Volume I

WTF does that mean?

why would i believe that you can correctly valuate Eugene own proposal?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that eugene's conclusions are
blatantly inconsistent with his assumptions, so you don't have to believe
me. Ask ayone who has the ability to connect mathematics to the physics it
represents.

I find it extremely ironic that the kooks who constantly chant their
mantra about the importance of physics over mathematics are the very
same kooks who rearrange the terms in equations until the physics
is sufficiently obscured that they think they've discovered new physics
which is only true if an equation is written in whatever quirky fashion
they can misunderstand best.

In any theory that might be called a quantum theory, things like
[p,x] = -i\hbar appear in one form or another. In a poincare invariant
theory, the observables p' and x commute if the measurements they
represent made by observers in S and S' are separated by a spacelike
interval. It simply isn't possible to claim that interactions can
propagate between those two events without contradicting either
the quantum mechanics or the poincare invariance.

He also claims that all three of the following are compatible: (1)
poincare invariance, (2) light which propagates at `c', (3) electro-
magnetic interactions which propagate instanantaneously, (4) charge
conservation. Since he admits to not understanding gauge invariance
or the point of a gauge theory (yet rejects gauge theories out-of-hand),
it's easy to not take him seriously.

[...]
Since you weren't able to grasp the idea of a non-relativistic
limit, I don't see how you could really claim to be doing anything
more subtle.

Have you computed the nonrelativistic limit of GR. Where?

You've been given a number of references already in a previous
thread. You simply reject everything by reflex, so why should I
bother repeating what you've been told, much less assume any effort
on my part to clarify it for you would be anything but a waste
of effort?

Interestingly Dirac wrote similar thoughts about the failure for
obtaining the nonrelativistic limit of QED. Probably you unknown
both...

Even more ``interestingly,'' you didn't bother to write down
an equation and point out this difficulty.