Eric Gisse ha escrito:
Juan R. wrote:
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.

Continue being true.


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.

I will explain to you again. Almost all books on GR CLAIM that NG is
/obtained/ in the linear regime. That is, almost all textbooks on GR
claim that in the linear regime the geodesic equation reduces to
Newtonian law.

Textbooks 'prove' that. Is this true? NO. As explained in Wald, in the
linear regime a = 0 therefore Wald proves JUST the ***contrary*** to
usual textbooks. Wald claim that for obtaining Newton law one may go
beyond the linear regime.

I am treating to explain is that textbooks are wrong and in the same
manner that Wald proves just the contrary that other textbooks -i.e.
Wald proves that in the linear regime GR does NOT reduce to Newton- i
am saiyng that there is other incorrections on the derivations and that
GR does NOT reduces to NG.

The line of reasoning is next 'detailed'. From less rigorous to more
ones. At each stage are corrected the errors of previous stages.
Therefore, it is proved as 'correct' at one stage can be proven
*incorrect* when more rigorous treatment is done.

Typical textbooks: In the linear regime one obtains Newton law

Wald textbook: the 'proofs' of others textbook are WRONG because in the
linear regime there is no gravitational description: a=0. The correct
proof is nonlinear one.

Basic literature on Newtonian limit: textbooks 'proofs' including Wald
are WRONG. The nonlinear Wald proof is not correct. Derivation may be
done via NC theory and specific boundary conditions. For example,
Ehlërs boundaries. Those kind of approaches are usually called
'post-Newtonian' (textbook derivation is usually called
'post-Minkowskian').

More advanced literatu Ehërls and others spacetime approaches
(weak-NC. strong-NC etc.) are, in rigor, wrong, theoretically flawed,
and experimentally incorrect. Correct derivation can be done via
aditional equations, for example using Christian restriction for
curvature tensor.

Juan R: Derivation via Christian restriction for curvature tensor and
others similar approaches are also wrong.

Etc.

When one is not rigorous one claim as in John Baez webpage that "the
theorem that GR reduces to NG is proven in any textbook", which is,
obviously, false. You are still in the first stage. But people doing
research is in the two last stages.

[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.*

Perhaps is was only in my head. but i thought was real one.

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.

Yes, good reply but i was refering to publications on OBTAIN the
Newtonian limit instead of publications using the Newtonian limit in
astronomy.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

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

I already expresed my doubts on you understanding of Eugene theory and
your real capacity for evaluating it...

Since Eugene already replied to you i will say nothing more

Advice: please study topics a bit before claim that work of others is
nonsense.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Juan R. wrote:
Eric Gisse ha escrito:
Juan R. wrote:
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.

Continue being true.


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.

I will explain to you again. Almost all books on GR CLAIM that NG is
/obtained/ in the linear regime. That is, almost all textbooks on GR
claim that in the linear regime the geodesic equation reduces to
Newtonian law.

Textbooks 'prove' that. Is this true? NO. As explained in Wald, in the
linear regime a = 0 therefore Wald proves JUST the ***contrary*** to
usual textbooks. Wald claim that for obtaining Newton law one may go
beyond the linear regime.

I am treating to explain is that textbooks are wrong and in the same
manner that Wald proves just the contrary that other textbooks -i.e.
Wald proves that in the linear regime GR does NOT reduce to Newton- i
am saiyng that there is other incorrections on the derivations and that
GR does NOT reduces to NG.

The line of reasoning is next 'detailed'. From less rigorous to more
ones. At each stage are corrected the errors of previous stages.
Therefore, it is proved as 'correct' at one stage can be proven
*incorrect* when more rigorous treatment is done.

Typical textbooks: In the linear regime one obtains Newton law

Wald textbook: the 'proofs' of others textbook are WRONG because in the
linear regime there is no gravitational description: a=0. The correct
proof is nonlinear one.

Wald obtains the correct potential and the correct definition of
acceleration (a = -del*phi) on page 77.

MTW and "Spacetime and Geometry" obtain the same metrics as Wald.

I fail to see what you are complaining about.


Basic literature on Newtonian limit: textbooks 'proofs' including Wald
are WRONG. The nonlinear Wald proof is not correct. Derivation may be
done via NC theory and specific boundary conditions. For example,
Ehlërs boundaries. Those kind of approaches are usually called
'post-Newtonian' (textbook derivation is usually called
'post-Minkowskian').

More advanced literatu Ehërls and others spacetime approaches
(weak-NC. strong-NC etc.) are, in rigor, wrong, theoretically flawed,
and experimentally incorrect. Correct derivation can be done via
aditional equations, for example using Christian restriction for
curvature tensor.

Juan R: Derivation via Christian restriction for curvature tensor and
others similar approaches are also wrong.

Etc.

When one is not rigorous one claim as in John Baez webpage that "the
theorem that GR reduces to NG is proven in any textbook", which is,
obviously, false. You are still in the first stage. But people doing
research is in the two last stages.

[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.*

Perhaps is was only in my head. but i thought was real one.

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.

Yes, good reply but i was refering to publications on OBTAIN the
Newtonian limit instead of publications using the Newtonian limit in
astronomy.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Eugene Stefanovich:
Bilge wrote:

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.

Only because you failed to think that statement through. It should
be obvious that your assertion is wrong, even for a gailiean invariant
theory, in which signals can propagate arbitrarily fast, but not
instantaneously in the sense you mean.

[...]

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

Do you have proof that will convince me that 1+1=2, if I refuse
to accept anything anyone says? Sure, I can give such a proof, but
I can't give a proof you won't reject out of hand to keep from having
to admit you're entire ``discovery'' is the result of mistaking the
ability to perform a unitary transform for two real degrees of freedom
that didn't exist until you made the unitary transform.

For example, you reject any explanation, proof or argument in which
the words lagrangian, field, phase, or gauge are used as well as some
I probably omitted because I don't recall all of your quirks. In short,
the only point in trying to explain it to you, _again_ in a different
way would be to help you add more items to your knee-jerk rejection
list. If you got in a real bind trying to reject it, I expect you
would just ``discover'' some new physics and then repeat the request,
ad infinitum.

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

Not true.

That's like trying to say it's possible to perform a rotation on the
unit circle by more than 2\pi without going all the way around the
circle. Even in a galilean universe, simultaneous events have to be
separated in a way which in some sense is further than can be reached
by a signal propagating at an arbitrarily large velocity.

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 know you don't. You've made that clear by declaring your choice
to work in the coulonb gauge, physically significant due to your
inability to understand a gauge transformation, and then calling the
unphysical result a discovery.

Wow! I never would have guessed that by choosing a non-covariant gauge,
to make a noncovariant separation of the potentials into transverse,
scalar and longitudinal compoenents, the result would be an equally
non-covariant coordinate transformation to fix it.

To phrase it in terms you really hate, you've taken the photon four-
polarization and separated the transverse part into the photon and
turned the longitudinal and scalar polariztions into a separate
phenomenon. I don't think anyone but you is surprised by the fact
that you ``dicovered'' instantaneous propagation of the interaction.
The surprise is that you attributed it to new physics rather than
attributing it to the physics you left out in the first place.

I can easily derive a relativistically invariant theory in which
charge is not conserved.

So can I, but the difference between your concept of relativistically
invariant and everyone else's idea of relativistically invariant,
is that yours makes a mockery of the word invariant, while the theory
everyone might end up with describes superconductors. In addition,
your idea of ``proving'' conservation of charge amounts to declaring
it to be true by fiat. I've already pointed that out more than once.

[...]
As a consequence, charge isn't conserved,

Not related.

It's amazing how every single misconception you have can be traced
back to a single origin - your inability and/or unwillingness to try
and grasp the idea of gauge invariance and the cascade of patches you
need as a result.

Eugene Stefanovich:


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?

I've done that on previous occasions. Your goodwill credit is
already overextended.

Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Based on prior experience and an occasional glance at the threads
on sci.physics.research, I doubt it. I'm fairly certain that you
are immune to reason.

Eric Gisse ha escrito:

Wald obtains the correct potential and the correct definition of
acceleration (a = -del*phi) on page 77.

MTW and "Spacetime and Geometry" obtain the same metrics as Wald.

I fail to see what you are complaining about.


Exactly! You see page 77 of Wald and you think "equation (4.4.21) of
Wald is Newtonian law".

But it is NOT.

I already detailed just some of most basic points on why is NOT
Newtonian gravity law in both sci.physics.relativity and
sci.physics.research.

Since you appear unable to find the posts -including discussion with
Carlip- i detail some of post next.

The derivation is incorrect as i will prove AGAIN.

1) Derivation in the linear regime is WRONG.

In the linear regime a=0; newer (repeat NEWER) a=-grad (Phi). In fact,
you see Wald derivation and you believe because you have not revised
details -see below- that derivation is correct -just as you cite the
MTW- but derivation is INCORRECT. The linear regime predicts a=0 and
Newtonian gravity predicts a = - grad(Phi).

***Therefore GR does not reduce to NG in the linear regime***. Usual
textbooks are wrong.

Then if you cannot understand an elementary derivation WHY are you
doing wrong claims? Note i would be not as hard with you if you had
claimed "Hey Juan R. I think that you are not correct by this and
this". But you categorically claimed "you wrong" even without the most
basic understanding of the topic!

Again, I remember you that we are doing serious stuff, this is not
string theory or general relativity, this is canonical science.

If you have time you would read pag 78 of Wald:

"If one stays consistently within the linear approximation, one
predicts that test bodies are unaffected by gravity. Thus, in obtaining
equation (4.4.21) we actualy have gone beyond the linear
approximation".

That is the reason why i said that Wald derivation is NON-linear, since
in the strict rigorous linear regime a=0. All textbooks claiming that
in the linear regime a is different from zero are wrong and simply are
modifing *reality* for consistency with Newtonian law. Ok, then next
Wald claims that in the non-linear regime, the derivation is already
correct, but, again, that is not true.

2) Wald (4.4.21) is not Newton equation. The 'Phi' in (4.4.21) is not
Newtonian potential it is a retarded LW potential. The 'a' in (4.4.21)
is not Newton aceleration because 'x' is not Newtonian 'x'. Moreover
't' in (4.4.21) is not Newtonian time.

What is more, (4.4.21) is not a nonrelativistic equation because it
contains c in both terms left and right and this is an authentic
absurdity. Non relativistic equations do not contain c. Moreover, the
metric used by Wald also contains c and does not correspond with
Newtonian physics.

3) Moreover functional dependence is wrong. In (4.4.21), phy = phi(x,
t). In Newtonian physics, phi = phi(R(t)). Wald simply writes 'phy',
without details, and then it appears that one has derived Newtonian
law.

4) The fixing of the gauge of the GR phi is done via asymptotic regime.
This regime is called 'island universe asumption' and it is wrong,
because it is not verified by experimental data. In Christian's own
words:

"However, physical evidence clearly suggests that we are not living in
an 'island
universe' "

In Penrose's own words:

"universe is not 'an island of matter surrounded by emptiness'"

Etc.

Wald derivation is a complete nonsense. If GR is consistent, the
Newtonian limit may BE the c-- infinite limit of GR. But Wald did NOT
the c-- infinite limt. Wald only took the slow motion weak field
limit.

I repeat again that people doing research does not follow textbook
wrong derivation.

If you take the c-- infinite limit you discover that gravity breaks
down and cannot explain Newtonian gravity. This is not so difficult to
understand in the c--infinite limit there is no curvature. The metric
is

(1 -1 -1 -1)

Therefore if GR was a consistent theory would have no gravity.

Carlip has done an attempt to derive Newtonian limit on both
sci.physics.resesarch and sci.physics.relativity but:

i) He uses a wrong metric that forces to us to rewritte all relativity.
For example, in his nonstandard approach there is no four currents and
there is not four space. The EM four 'current' is a strange mixture of
densities and true currents in Carlip nonstandard approach.

My metric is standard, verifies all experimental data and is consistent
with particle physics, special relativity and Maxwell EM. Moreover my
chossing of metric is recommended by Astronomical societies.

ii) Carlip takes the wrong spacetime (t, x) which looks like (t, x) in
the nonrelativisitc limit. That is, Carlip think that in Newtonian
physics time is a dimension which violates the most basic understanding
of Newtonian physics!!!

In my own spacetime (ct, x), the limit is the correct (infinite, x).
The zeroth dimension of spacetime collapse, doing time as dimension a
wrong concept, and this is good. One recovers time as an evolution
parameter (x^0 collapses by t does NOT collapse), WHICH is the correct
Newtonian concept of time. In any elementary textbook of mechanics one
can verify that the state of the system is (p,q) parametrized for one
single evolution parameter t called absolute Newtonian time.

iii) By taking the wrong spacetime and wrong limit, Carlip obtains the
functional dependence Phi(x,t) when the correct dependence in
Newtonian physics is Phi(R(t)) because time is NOT a dimension in
Newtonian physics and interactions are not field-theoretic ones.
Moreover, there are difficulties with the use of Phi(x,t) for example
violation of causality in the transition to stationary regimes, etc.

My work on gravity corrects this and one obtains the correct functional
dependence without lack of continuity, etc.

iv) Carlip choosing of wrong spacetime and wrong metric does that he
obtains a nonzero 00-connection. This is wrong. In GR, the covariant
derivatives are physical derivatives, therefore in Carlip approach the
only measured (physical) derivatives are

covariant = usual partial ones + 00-connection.

This is of course WRONG, any textbook of Newtonian mechanics explains
that the correct derivatives are usual partial ones.

In my own work, the 00-connection is zero therefore Newtonian
derivatives are partial ones. This is correct.

v) The scalar curvature in Carlip approach is R = R_00/g_00. Since he
introduces the c^2 term into g_00, in the limit he obtains R -- 0.
That is, in GR, gravity is spacetime curvature, even ignoring all four
points of above doing Carlip derivation just wrong, one obtains that in
the nonrelativistic limit the curvature of spacetime is ZERO. If A is
the cause of B, then elimination of A may eliminate B. The curvature
interpretation of GR is not only artificial (as proved by teleparallel
gravity or FTG) is also incorrect.

In my own metric, the curvature is zero as correspond to Newtonian
physics. Are you heard in some textbook of Newtonian physics that
spacetime, time, or space is curved?

vi) In the derivation from GR one may fix the 'gauge'. Carlip uses
asymptotic limit. This is again wrong. As explained by Christian,
Penrose and others, the island asumptions is ***experimentally***
false.

Other people, as Christian, does use of aditional equations and
constraints do NOT derived from GR.

There is still more points and very very sophisticated that i do not
discuss with Carlip, but since he is unable to recognize difference
between a Newtonian potential (R(t)) and the nonrelativistic limit of a
retarded LW field (x, t), i consider unnecesary to discuss advanced
stuff with him.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Eugene Stefanovich:
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.

Duh. Now that your misreprentation of a virtual photon explains why
your misreprentation is wrong, try your argument again within the
context of the actual theory.


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.

Oddly enough, the ONLY part of ``virtual photon'' that you really
have an issue with is the word virtual. If you'll recall, I asked
you to explain how you thought it was possible for the neutron to
decay, given that the mass of the W is 83 GeV, and your reply was
exactly the same as the popularized explanation of a virtual particle,
i.e., the uncertainty relations permitting the short term violation
of conservation of energy. After I pointed that out, you simply
denied that had any connection to a virtual W.

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.

Only to you.

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.

Please explain precisely how to observe a real electron. Every
signal which is observed from a detector is observed through the
forces produced by virtual interactions, i.e., the motion of an
indicator on a meter, the chemical reactions in ones retina
which propagate via more chemical reactions through the visual
cortex, etc. I could claim the exact opposite with greater
veracity. Give me a single example of any observation in which
the final step in the observation involves any of the free
particles you call real.

Bilge your words sound as when D'Alemembert 'proved' that Newton was
wrong.

Or perhaps as when Feynman sure in public that parity violation
phenomena was imposible, just after was found.

I do not believe on all of Eugene theory, but he is correct in several
ways. I unknow what kind of discussions were maintained in the past,
but i know recent dicussion on quantum fields on sci.physics.research
and nobody here provided serious stuff. Only i dislike...

which is not a scientific argument.

Seeing the couple of mistakes you have done here in just a few posts. I
am rather skeptic you can valuate Eugene's proposal in deep.

In fact, you continue to believe that instantaneous interaction, in the
sense of AAAD, needs of a signal travelling faster than c and therefore
violating special relativity, which is, excuseme the 'hard' words, an
authentic absurdity.

How can you accuse to Eugene of 'do not hear criticism of others' if
you still has not replied none of questions i did to you.

You have not proved that PRE article cited above is wrong.

You have not write relativisitc uncertainty

You have not write relativistic wave equation for an electron

Etc.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

In article .com,
Juan R. wrote:

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).

Not possible in bounded states? I'm suspicious of that claim! When you
churn the Lagrangian through the Euler-Lagrange equations you get an
equation of motion like the Dirac equation with electromagnetic
interaction. There's nothing inherently S-matrix about it until you
specialize to high energies.

--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11

In article om,
Juan R. wrote:

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.

And I trust that you'd demonstrated an acceleration proportional to the
mass of the source, and inversely proportional to the square of the
distance.


--
"I fart for joy and I laugh more than if I had cast my old age, as a
serpent does its skin." -- Aristophanes, Peace, 421 BC