All you are doing is fooling yourself.

**************

Well, at least that's self-reference, Hofstadter's key to infinite
human advancement.

Eric Gisse ha escrito:

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".

Eric, in the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) we are doing rigorous
stuff. You would focus on undergraduate questions or at least study
topics and bit before strong claims as "you are wrong".

Almost all textbooks on GR claim that GR reduces to NG in the linear
regime. Is this true? NO because GR-textbooks are wrong in many, many,
many aspects.

If you read carefully the Wald you discover that in the linear regime
one CANNOT derive Newtonian equation of motion, and Wald explain why
one may go beyond the linear regime. In fact Wald explain why in the
linear regime one obtains a = 0.

Then does GR reduces to NG in the nonlinear regime? Again NO.

Research on the Newtonian limit follows ways very far from textbooks.

Schutz, Bernard F. The Newtonian Limit (1984) Lecture Notes in Physics,
205, 367-391. In his page 368 says

"there are at least two reasons why the simple textbook extractions of
the newtonian limit are not rigorous"

"At least two reasons", but one can prove that there is no posibility
for a consistent derivation of the limit (in fact Schutz approach is
not correct one). That was addressed here in sci.physics.relativity and
also on sci.physics.research at one basic level. Advanced stuff is
addressed in article i am preparing.

The best attemp to reply my 'unortodox' view has been from specialist
Carlip. He has used a completely wrong metric with dimensions that
forces to us to change all of standard stuff -e.g. there is not EM four
currents in his nonstandard approach-. Finally he derives wrong
temporal dependence, wrong functional dependence of potentials,
incorrect equation of motion -moreover he just obtain the
nonrelativistic limit of the trajectory in a relativistic spacetime,
newer GR trajectory in a NONrelativistic spacetime-, he obtains zero
curvature -due to c^2 term into g_00 one has R = R_00 / g_00 -- 0- of
spacetime which reinforces my view that in the nonrelativistc regime
the causality structure of GR break -if gravity was spacetime curvature
then zero curvature would imply zero gravity which is wrong according
to Newtonian limit-.

Moreover, Carlip obtains all a couple of wrong results. for example he
obtains a nonzero 00-connection which implies that full physical
derivatives in the Newtonian limit are covariant ones WHICH is wrong.
In the Newtonian limit one, physical derivatives are partial and total
ones NEWER covariant ones.

According to Carlip derivatives as partial v / partial t that one find
in Newtonian textbooks are NON physical because he uses a non zero
00-connection.

Moreover, Carlip does not know what is the difference between a
potential and a field and he still unknow why Penrose (like other
specialists) has claimed that Ehlërs boundary is unphysical. and
therefore Ehlërs attempt to derive Newtonian limit of spacetime is
nonrigorous and experimentally unphysical, etc.

Etc, Etc.


Why do you think that still today people continue publishing articles
on the Newtonian limit, why question has been not solved still guy?

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Bilge ha escrito:
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.

It is not so simple. There is an complete research field on the search
of one relativistic quantum mechanics. But i will not cite here since
you are well-versed in the topic :-)

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.

It is really simple. Take the book you claim is about relativistic
quantum mechanics (i claim is about a completely inconsistent stuff)
and reply my question:

With is the relativistic interaction between two electrons at second
order in c and e?

I also ask tou you, what is the relativisitic quantum equation for one
electron?

You have just cited a page, please to wrote down the equation or just
write its name. (Dirac?)

Sorry i do not understand. Eugere is working a relativisitic quantum
mechanics. You arec laimed that a better theory is QED. Are you
claiming that QED is a relativisitc quantum MECHANICS?

If yes, then you have absolutely no idea of relativisitic quantum
mechanics and relativisitic quantum field theory.

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?

WHAT? Colleague have you studied something?

OF COURSE, relativity claims that position is NOT an observable. This
was proven by Landau many, many time ago. It is called relativistic
uncertainty. THIS is the reason that x in relativistic quantum field
theory is NOT an observable. It is a parameter because cannot be a
dynamical variable.

In fact, relativistic quantum uncertainty also claim that p is not in
general an observable. BUT in the asymptotic regime one can apply the
principle of decompostion of cluster and prove that p is conserved in
free particles. This is reason that only asymptotic regimes are
observable in relativisitc QFT. Eugene is trying to formulate a
relativistic quantum MECHANICS.

Our Center has formulated a relativistic quantum mechanics with
relativisitc quantum field theory as an especial limited stuff valid
only for scattering experiments.

[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.''


[p,x] = -i\hbar is valid for nonrelativistic QM. Please to write the
relativistic uncertainty relationships. (Trick: were obtained by Landau
in the early 30s).

Since you are proving your profound ignorance in those topics it is
clear my initial suggestion that you cannot valuate Eugene proposal.
You has no idea even of most elementary undergraduate stuff.

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.

Again you have absolutely idea of nothing. Idea that interactions
propagate at c and are retarded is a completel nonsense obtained by
guys like you who study topics superfitially. I, of course, will not
cite useful references for a guy as you who attack people and ideas
that does not understand. But i will ofer to you a basic work on why
instantaneous action at a distance is NOT incompatible with light
propagation.

PRE 1996 53(5) 5373-5381.

Our own formulation at the Center corrects some flaws of those work and
generalizes on several ways (for example to gravity).

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.

WRONG

[...]
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.

A point: GR is also classical physics. Moreover, the best Carlip did
was obtain a nonzero 00-connection which implies that Newtonian
derivatives like partial v / partial t are non physical. Great!

Do you know the diference between a field and a potential?

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Bilge ha escrito:

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.

Large but WRONG argument. You know nothing except more elementary
stuff. There is not problem with that -all of us are ignorant-, the
problem is your arrogance on "all this is known", "Eugene's claim is
imposible", etc.

In FIELD theory one work with models of independent particles. for
example asymptotic regimes on QED or local potentials in CED (for
example, potentials in field theory are A = A (x,t) ). Then one needs a
mediator transporting interaction: photons or waves.

In Action at a distance theory, one NEWER works with models of
independent particles. One does not work with quantum asymptotic
unphysical regimes, one works with the full N-body problem. electrons
are not uncorrelated and one does not need introduce a mediator
transporting correlations from a free electron to other free electron
as is done in QEd. At the classical level one does NOT work with local
potentials. In fact, A = A(R(t)), etc. Then there is not need for
waves.

Your discussion is already wrong at this elementary level. You do not
know that AAAD theory is and believe that in AAAD theory one needs a
'mediator' like in field theory.

Therefore there is no need for travelling at 'c'.

Moreover as proven in the article i cited above field theory and its
mediators travelling at 'c' are inconsistent and are not a complete and
consistent solution of Maxwell equations.

What is not correct in that article is the introduction of the dualism
concept. Which is well founded mathematically but is not physically
suitable. That IS solved in our Center via an advanced formulation that
solves it and moreover explains all new recent experimental data NOT
explained by field theory: ampere forces in mercury, longitudinal
forces in railguns, anomalous behavior of quark-gluon plasma on
tokamaks, etc, etc.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Hey, you ****ing village idiot! You've been seeking me out for years now even
though I've ignored you, so because that hasn't worked, I'm gonna give you more
attention than you ever wanted.

So now, everyone, let's watch as this Guppy of mine takes the bait once again.

Let's watch as this regular poster to alt.local.village.idiot responds to this
post. As my bitch, he can't help himself.

Guppy response here---------


"Bilge" wrote in message
...
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.

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. If X causes Y, then the
events X and Y are time ordered.

Not necessarily. X and Y can be instantaneous and still X is a cause
of Y.

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',

Do you have a proof that in Poincare invariant theories the speed of
propagation of interactions is 'c'? or this is simply your belief?

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 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'.

True.

Then E&M is poincare invariant and the photon is massless.

True.

The
interactions cannot propagate faster since that isn't consistent with
the definition of poincare invariance or simultaneity.

Not true.

In addition,
if light propagates at `c', charge is conserved.

I don't see a connection between charge conservation and the speed of
light. I can easily derive a relativistically invariant theory in which
charge is not conserved.


If light doesn't propagate at `c', then obviously, the photon is
massive.

True.

As a consequence, charge isn't conserved,

Not related.

but the theory
can still be poincare invariant.

True.

Eugene.

Eric Gisse wrote:
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.

This often repeated statement can be easily disproved experimentally.
Take a van der Graaf generator with two highly charged balls in
evacuated room. There is certainly a strong electrostatic force
acting between the two balls. Now try to catch any of those
photons that supposedly mediate this interaction. You can fill the
room with photomultipliers, photographic plates, cameras, whatever,
but you will not detect a single real photon.

So, if there is something that mediates EM interaction it is not
the real observable photon. Some people call this mediator
"virtual photon" pointing to the fact that these "photons"
cannot be directly observed. This means that there exists a substance
that penetrates everywhere, effects real things, but cannot be
directly observed. This looks very much like long forgotten aether.
As history showed us, physics is doing much better if such
unobservable "substances" like aether or virtual photons are removed
from the theory and the theory is formulated in terms of directly
observable things, like real physical photons, electrons, etc.

Eugene.

Bilge wrote:

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.

Can you point to a specific place in the book where I do that?
Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Eugene.

In article ,
Eugene Stefanovich wrote:


Eric Gisse wrote:

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

This often repeated statement can be easily disproved experimentally.
Take a van der Graaf generator with two highly charged balls in
evacuated room. There is certainly a strong electrostatic force
acting between the two balls. Now try to catch any of those
photons that supposedly mediate this interaction. You can fill the
room with photomultipliers, photographic plates, cameras, whatever,
but you will not detect a single real photon.

So, if there is something that mediates EM interaction it is not
the real observable photon. Some people call this mediator
"virtual photon" pointing to the fact that these "photons"
cannot be directly observed. This means that there exists a substance
that penetrates everywhere, effects real things, but cannot be
directly observed. This looks very much like long forgotten aether.
As history showed us, physics is doing much better if such
unobservable "substances" like aether or virtual photons are removed
from the theory and the theory is formulated in terms of directly
observable things, like real physical photons, electrons, etc.

And this is one reason that I think that virtual particles are a source of
all evil. It's not because there's really anything wrong with the
concept, when it's understood. But because it leads to such staggering
misunderstandings, even among the studied. When they read that particles
pop into existence for a brief time, people naturally think of particles
popping into existence for a brief time. And then they think of all kinds
of things that particles do, like transfer energy and momentum, and run
into other particles. E.g. why don't electrons in a LINAC scatter from
those vacuum particles?

Quantum field theory is a theory of fields. It has a particle
interpretation, but the fundamental entity is the field. Virtual
particles are the expression of the field in momentum eigenstates. When
momentum is transferred from the field to an electron, we say a virtual
photon was exchanged. The virtual photons are the interactions that the
field could be involved in, they're not an accounting of the interactions
that have been completed.

The electrostatic field created by your Van de Graaf has virtual photons
because that's the way a field is represented in quantum field theory.
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin

In article .com,
Juan R. wrote:

Eric Gisse ha escrito:

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".

Eric, in the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) we are doing rigorous
stuff. You would focus on undergraduate questions or at least study
topics and bit before strong claims as "you are wrong".

Almost all textbooks on GR claim that GR reduces to NG in the linear
regime. Is this true? NO because GR-textbooks are wrong in many, many,
many aspects.

"Why is everyone stupid except for me?"


If you read carefully the Wald you discover that in the linear regime
one CANNOT derive Newtonian equation of motion, and Wald explain why
one may go beyond the linear regime. In fact Wald explain why in the
linear regime one obtains a = 0.

What effect does the 00 component of the metric have on a test particle?
How does that compare with the effect of a Newtonian gravitational
potential? In the weak field limit, how large, and how important, are the
other components of the metric compared with the 00 component?
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby