Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

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.

Then you change one unobservable entity (virtual particles) for another
unobservable entity (quantum fields). I think I have a better idea.
One can formulate quantum field theory, e.g., QED, without using fields
as basic concepts. This sounds rather controversial, but it can be done.
QED can be formulated entirely in terms of observable (not "bare", not
"virtual", but "real", "physical", or "dressed") particles - photons and
electrons and their interactions. Quantum fields are needed only as
temporary formal crutches for writing down the interparticle
interactions and proving that they are relativistically invariant.

The approach I am talking about is completely equivalent to the old
renormalized QED as far as the S-matrix is concerned. In contrast
to the old theory, it has a
well-defined finite Hamiltonian that allows one to go beyond scattering
events and consider the time evolution of interacting systems.
In this approach, the interaction between charged particles is
instantaneous (rather than retarded), but I am not aware of any
experiment that unambiguosly demonstrates the (usually presumed)
retarded character of interaction between electrons.

Eugene.

Juan R.:

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 :-)

I suppose you would really be impressed if you ever got to the
point of being able to discuss the subect. I'm going to save myself
some time here. Since all you've done is repeat yourself, just reply
with the same content to this sentence recursively, so I don't have
to stay in the loop.



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)

Juan R.:

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.

Can the crap. Eugene starts with the same theory. All he does is
perform a unitary transform. Changing representations doesn't
change any physics.


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)

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".

Why does that feel like someone is again taking potshots at my
intelligence?


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.

A bold claim.


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.

I haven't been reading Wald much. Just "Spacetime and Geometry" with an
occasional look at MTW.

One would obtain "a=0" if one was solving the geodesic equation. But
since you didn't explain further, I can only guess as to your mening.


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

That is because I wasn't talking about the nonlinear regime. It is an
approximation for slow moving particles, "small" amounts of mass-energy
and a "weak" field which I would not expect to hold under all, most,
many, or even a few circumstances.


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"

....because its an approximation in the 3 cases I stated above, and
second-order terms and higher are dropped because it is assumed they
are small. Or perhaps because the extractions, as he says, are simple.


"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.

Why does consistancy matter?

For example: MTW, to my amusement, details 6 ways to obtain Einstein's
field equations. There is more than one route to which you desire, no
one is more "correct" than the other.

[waka waka Carlip waka waka]

All very nice, but this supposed conversation between you and Steve
Carlip does not appear on any of my searching on google groups in
sci.physics.*

I am not going to address your complaints about his interpretations
because all I have to look at is what you say he said. If history is
any indication, that is not enough.



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

Probably because the universe in most cases is pretty decently served
by the Newtonian limit.

Plus the MOND people and their die-hard love with Newton needs a little
corrospondance between itself and GR.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message oups.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".

Why does that feel like someone is again taking potshots at my
intelligence?


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.

A bold claim.

Sounds like Sirvent, don't you think?

Dirk Vdm

Bilge wrote:

Eugene starts with the same theory. All he does is
perform a unitary transform. Changing representations doesn't
change any physics.

Your statements are formally correct. However they misrepresent the
idea of the dressing transformation. "Changing representation"
implies that you transform unitarily both operators of
observables and state vectors. Then, of course, physics is not
changed.

In the "dressing transformation" only the Hamiltonian is transformed.
State vectors are not touched. Then physics IS different.

Consider two Hamiltonians H and H' that are related by a unitary
transformation (U does not commute with H)

H' = U H U^{-1}

Take an arbitrary state vector |Psi at time t=0 and consider its
time evolution described by the two Hamiltonians

|Psi(t) = exp(iHt) |Psi
|Psi'(t) = exp(iH't) |Psi

Apparently |Psi(t) and |Psi'(t) are different states, so unitary
transformation of the Hamiltonian DOES change physics.
That's exactly what is done in the dressing transformation approach:
A unitary transformation U is found that transforms the Hamiltonian
of QED H (with infinite counterterms) to a finite well-defined
Hamiltonian H' which can be used for time evolution calculations.

Eugene.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message oups.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".

Why does that feel like someone is again taking potshots at my
intelligence?


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.

A bold claim.

Sounds like Sirvent, don't you think?

Dunno.

Arrogance isn't a unique trait among those who say everything written
about GR is wrong.


Dirk Vdm

Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:
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.

Precisely Weinberg begins from particles and then obtains the fields.
Weinberg does not claim that the field was fundamental as many
textbooks incorrectly does. However, the field approach is not posible
in bounded states and this is the reason that quantum field theory is
defined only for isolated particles (S-matrix).

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:

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?

That was addressed both here and in sci.physics.research.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Bilge, it is easy, you simply are arrogantly attacking people without
subtanting your discourse.

In fact you are still not replied to

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?)


Are you
claiming that QED is a relativisitc quantum MECHANICS?

Please write also the relativistic uncertainty relations.

Please prove also why (2) light which propagates at `c', and (3)
electromagnetic interactions which propagate instantaneously are
incompatible.
Or at least proves that PRE 1996 53(5) 5373-5381 is wrong.

Write also the diference between a field and a potential?

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)