Bilge wrote:

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.

Thank you for this accurate but rather sketchy description of my
approach. I would like to add that above statements have proofs based
on axioms of quantum mechanics and the principle of relativity.
The details are in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062
It's easy to not take me seriously, it's a bit harder to reject
the proofs.

Eugene.

"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Bilge wrote:
|
| 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.
|
| Thank you for this accurate but rather sketchy description of my
| approach. I would like to add that above statements have proofs based
| on axioms of quantum mechanics and the principle of relativity.
| The details are in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062
| It's easy to not take me seriously, it's a bit harder to reject
| the proofs.

It's really quite simple. If the quantum "vacuum" is not a medium, then
you are right. If the quantum "vacuum" is a medium, then you are wrong.
Grigori Volovik says you are wrong which is good enough for me.

http://ltl.tkk.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html
http://ltl.tkk.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik/book.pdf

FrediFizzx

Bilge wrote:

[snip]

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.

[snip]

"Of the following, which does not belong...?"

Bilge ha escrito:

Juan R.:
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.

Of course was a typo "abut nonrelativistic quantum mechanics" would
read "abOut Relativistic quantum mechanics" Sorry.

However, you have replied just as i wait you would do. Since you read
"Relativistic Quantum Mehanics" printed in the cover you think that
those is correct. But is NOT because the theory inside is incorrect as
already noted Dirac, and Landau, and etc.

As an example of how wrong that book is, please, to explain to us, for
example, with is the relativistic interaction between two electrons at
second order in c and e. for example how did Breit studie the level
shift in the Helium atom?

You would leave serious stuff to prepared people (premier leage) and
you would focus only in elementary stuff (undergraduate stuff and
similar).

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.

It is a very simple question -somewhat like "what is the curvature of
spacetime on the nonrelativisitc limit of GR?" and that nobody replied
still-.

I am not asking to you advanced stuff. I am asking elementary stuff.

/What is the relativistic quantum wave equation for a electron?/

If Bjorken & Drell, Volume I is about relativistic quantum mechanics,
my question would be easily replied. No?



[...]
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.

How i explained several times in spr and also here I do not support all
of Eugene theory, but at least i recognize that he is doing intersting
stuff. Have you a better theory?

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.

I find more ironic still the attitude of some guys to believe that
'mainstraim physics' is complete or rigorous. Those guys ignore the
history of physics when many times mainstraim physics was proved to be
incorrect and newer theories arised. In Newtonian epoque, for example,
physicists believed that all was already well known. Mainstraim physics
was perfect. In fact, Newton was durely attacked by his colleagues:
mainstraim physicists. The history of physics is recursive.

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.

I do not reply this because you are incorrectly begining your
discussion, please do not wrote nonrelativistic stuff in a thread about
relativistic stuff.

[p,x] = -i\hbar is valid for nonrelativistic QM.

Correct this and try again.

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.

Again elementary stuff? Where (2) and (3) are incompatible. Please cite
references.

[...]
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?

Curious. Yes references were cited. References i had read and pointed
why and WHERE were wrong. Nobody replied to points i said were wrong.
Is it supposed that i may admit that are correct because were cited by
Carlip?

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.

What? I know perfectly why nonrelativistic QM cannot be obtained from
relativisitc QFT. I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived
from GR.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Juan R. wrote:

[snip]

.. I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived
from GR.

You are wrong.

Any book that touches on linearized GR will mention this. Such as
"Spacetime and Geometry", "Gravitation", or Wald's "General
Relativity".


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Juan R.:

Bilge ha escrito:

Juan R.:
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.

Of course was a typo "abut nonrelativistic quantum mechanics" would
read "abOut Relativistic quantum mechanics" Sorry.

However, you have replied just as i wait you would do.

If you mean that I didn't assume anything about what you mean, then
you were right. I don't assume anything once it becomes obvious that
someone is only going to exploit that to digress on semantics bull****
just as you've done below:

Since you read "Relativistic Quantum Mehanics" printed in the cover
you think that those is correct.

Basically, your point is nothing but a semantics argument over a
definition. Tough. I'm not about to waste time trying to reconcile
your personal definition of relativistic quantum mechanics with the
definition everyone else uses. I also have no interest in arguing
over your personal semantics issues just because I assume that
relativistic quantum mechanics refers to a theory called relativistic
quantum mechanics, which just happens to be the same theory found
in bjorken & drell. If you don't like the theory, then make an
objection about something other than the words.

But is NOT because the theory inside is incorrect as already noted Dirac,
and Landau, and etc.

That should make it simple for you to post what you think is
incorrect. But so far, the most you've managed to do is argue
about the words.

As an example of how wrong that book is, please, to explain to us, for
example, with is the relativistic interaction between two electrons at
second order in c and e. for example how did Breit studie the level
shift in the Helium atom?

I'm sorry, but ``please, to explain to us,...'' is not an example of
anything, incorrect or not. It's a request to explain something and
what you've requested isn't even in the book, so you can't possibly
consider it to be an incorrect example from the book. Instead of
asserting something is incorrect and then telling me to go find your
example for you, post it yourself.

You would leave serious stuff to prepared people (premier leage) and
you would focus only in elementary stuff (undergraduate stuff and
similar).

I guess your idea of serious stuff is a semantics argument, so that's
fine with me.

[...]

I am not asking to you advanced stuff. I am asking elementary stuff.

In which case, it should be elementary for you to just post your
argument instead of relying on me to do it for you. You'll excuse
me if I don't waste my time trying to decipher your vaguely worded
objections. If you have some objection, post your argument, not a
road map with hints as to where I can find instrutions on mind reading.

/What is the relativistic quantum wave equation for a electron?/

If Bjorken & Drell, Volume I is about relativistic quantum mechanics,
my question would be easily replied. No?

It is easy. In fact, you can see for yourself by reading from page
6 on in the first chapter. Then, work problem 3. So far, your entire
argument amounts to some bizarre objection to calling the content
of bjorken & drell, ``relativistic quantum mechanics,'' without even
bothering to explain your objection or why your objection is anything
but a personal objection to terminology.

[...]
How i explained several times in spr and also here I do not support all
of Eugene theory, but at least i recognize that he is doing intersting
stuff. Have you a better theory?

qed

[...]
which is only true if an equation is written in whatever quirky fashion
they can misunderstand best.

I find more ironic still the attitude of some guys to believe that
'mainstraim physics' is complete or rigorous.

We aren't talking about ``those guys'', whomever ``those guys'' might be.
I suggest you talk to ``those guys,'' if you want to debate their attitude.

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.

I do not reply this because you are incorrectly begining your
discussion, please do not wrote nonrelativistic stuff in a thread about
relativistic stuff.

Excuse me? Since when does relativity say momentum or position
measurements are impossible?

[p,x] = -i\hbar is valid for nonrelativistic QM.

Correct this and try again.

Oh excuse me, I thought you were talking about relativistic quantum
mechanics where the quantum replacements for E and p are given by
E = i\hbar\d/dt and p = -i\hbar\grad. I was led astray by your use
of the term ``relativsitic quantum mechanics.''

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.

Again elementary stuff? Where (2) and (3) are incompatible. Please cite
references.

Stop playing your citation game. If you can demonstrate that (2) and
(3) are compatible, just do so. Its rather obvious to me that lorentz
invariance is required for light to propagate at a constant velocity and
by definition, spacelike events cannot be time ordered, which rules out
any causal connection between spacelike separated events. I'm not really
sure why you need a citation for that or why you think that isn't obvious.


Are you claiming that electromagnetic interactions aren't casullay
connected to the interactions of the charges interacting? If so, then the
reason for that is also obvious. You've chosen use two inconsistent
descriptions of the interaction, which is what eugene does. Feel free to
prove otherwise, just don't expect me to read your mind and waste time
trying to figure out what you are babbling about.

[...]
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?

Curious. Yes references were cited. References i had read and pointed
why and WHERE were wrong. Nobody replied to points i said were wrong.

Well, for one, you said you weren't interested in the ``covariant
version'' of galilean relativity. Classical physics is galilean
covariant. Whatever point you had was irrelevant as far as classical
physics and general relativity is concerned, so it's irrelevant to
your argument.

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

What?

I said, ``Even more `interestingly,' you didn't bother to write down
an equation and point out this difficulty.'' It appears you still haven't
done so.

I know perfectly why nonrelativistic QM cannot be obtained from
relativisitc QFT.
I also know why Newtonian gravity cannot be derived from GR.

No one has held a gun to your head to keep you posting your proof
of those claims. You haven't posted such a proof and I don't plan on
begging you to post it nor do I plan to play 20 questions.

Eric Gisse:

Bilge wrote:

[snip]

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.

[snip]

"Of the following, which does not belong...?"

Think about what those mean physically. If X causes Y, then the
events X and Y are time ordered. So, if interactions are instantaneous,
then moving a charge at event X is causally related to the motion of a
charge at Y and X and Y are time ordered. Conversely, events which are
simultaneous cannot be time ordered. By definition, simutaneous events
happen at the same time.

If some interaction propagates a distance \delta x in a time interval
delta t, i.e., v = \delta x/(\delta t), simultaneous events must be
separated by a distance, d v\delta t.

You have two possibilities:

If a theory is poincare invariant,(i.e., relativistic) then
the `v' above is `c', and spacelike events have separations
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx.dx 0. Since simultaneous events are not
causally related, an interaction cannot propagate faster than
`c'. In addition, only massless particles propagate at `c'.

If the theory galilean invariant, then simultaneity is absolute and
interactions can propagate at arbitrarily large velocities, but no
object can have a frame independent velocity, otherwise its kinetic
energy would be frame independent, since E = (1/2)mv^2.

If you choose the theory to be poincare invariant, then the
following are compatible.

If light propagates at a constant velocitym then it propagtes at
`c'. Then E&M is poincare invariant and the photon is massless. The
interactions cannot propagate faster since that isn't consistent with
the definition of poincare invariance or simultaneity. In addition,
if light propagates at `c', charge is conserved.

If light doesn't propagate at `c', then obviously, the photon is
massive. As a consequence, charge isn't conserved, but the theory
can still be poincare invariant.

Bilge wrote:
Eric Gisse:

Bilge wrote:

[snip]

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.

[snip]

"Of the following, which does not belong...?"

Think about what those mean physically.

[snip good argument]

I was simply thinking in terms of photons being the mediators of
electromagnetic interactions.

Eric Gisse:

I was simply thinking in terms of photons being the mediators of
electromagnetic interactions.

That is the easiest way to think of it and I probably would have said
something along those lines, except for the fact that a couple of others
posting in this thread try to leverage terminology by objecting to the
words to avoid dealing directly with the physics. You've probably noticed
at this point that the objection juan made to the reference you gave him
on relativistic quantum mechanics was nothing but his personal issue with
the terminology disguised to look like a deep technical subtlety, since he
also decided that bjorken & drell's textbook, ``Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics'' wasn't about relativistic quantum mechanics. Unfortunately,
the language lawyers make it impossible to discuss anything without first
trying to figure out which of the N equivalent ways to say something
is likely to draw the fewest knee-jerk objections.

Eugene Stefanovich:


Bilge wrote:

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.

Thank you for this accurate but rather sketchy description of my
approach. I would like to add that above statements have proofs based
on axioms of quantum mechanics and the principle of relativity.

No, they don't. The principles and axioms to which you refer
prove exactly the opposite.

The details are in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062
It's easy to not take me seriously, it's a bit harder to reject
the proofs.

But you have no such proofs. What you have proven is that any
inconsistent assumptions can be glossed over by a superficial argument
that asserts the existence of a physical effect due to unphysical degrees
of freedom and/or attempting to bury the inconsistency in technical jargon.
All you are doing is fooling yourself.