Juan R.:
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...

Claiming to have some new theory is one thing. Claiming that one
obtained it by rearranging the terms to get new physics is quite
another.


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)

Tom Roberts:
Bilge wrote:
How about a short excursion here. What do you think happens if
you quantize the field in a curved spacetime? Specifically,
will all of the observers agree on which particles are ``real''
and which are virtual?

You don't need to introduce the complexity of curved spacetime to make
this point. Just introduce an accelerated observer in Minkowski
spacetime. Hint: look up Unruh radiation.


I was trying to not make the answer obvious.

In article . com,
Juan R. wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen ha escrito:

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.

Where is there a complete bound-state theory in Weinberg manual for
example?

It doesn't have to be in Weinberg manual. No single textbook is
comprehensive, or can represent work done after it was published.


R-QFT clearly states that only possible observables are those derived
from S-matrix, which is only valid for independent particles (remember
the cluster decomposition principle). In rigor R-QFT only deal with
free fields.

The S-matrix is a particular method of solving the equations of motion.
Specifically, it's useful when the end states are mostly the free particle
states.

Crank the Lagrangian through Euler-Lagrange equations and you'll get an
equation of motion, like the Dirac equation with electromagnetic
interaction. Solve it any way you like. The S-matrix is one way.

The different is that the single-particle theory has an equation of motion
like

(expression) |psi = 0

where |psi is the wavefunction. The field theory has an equation of
motion like

(expression) PSI |f = 0

where PSI is a field operator and |f is a wave function in Fock space.
|f is an accounting of momentum eigenstates, and any wavefunction that
can be expressed in position space can be expressed in momentum space by a
Fourier transform.

So I haven't specifically seen bound state problems solved in QFT, but I'm
suspicious of claims that they can't be.

....
Bethe-Salpeter and others are incorrect. At one hand, one claims that
two body state is a 16 component wavefunction. At the other hand in the
interaction regime one uses propagators derived from formals series of
QED which clearly state that there is not two body wavefunction for the
two electrons.

The propagators themselves are arbitrary. Greiner makes that clear in his
book "Field Quantization" by delaying the choice of a basis for as long as
possible. Eventually he chooses a basis of momentum eigenstates, like
everyone else does. But I've wondered what you could do with, for
instance, a basis of hydrogen orbitals. I know from condensed matter,
another study where quantum field theory is usefully applied, that the
choice of a basis can make the difference between a practical solution and
a mess, although theoretically the choice of a basis makes no difference.
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson

Bilge ha escrito:
Most people would disgree that a theory based on instantaneous
action at a distance is a better idea, since the instantaneous
part conflicts with observations.

Completely wrong!!!

As proven by many authors retarded LW potentials disagree with many
recent experimental data on Mercury forces on Hg, railguns, tokamaks
anomalies, etc. From a theoretical point of view, several authors have
proven in recent years that LW potentials are theoretically incorrect.
In the PRE article i cited above authors proved 1) LW potentials are
not complete solutions of Maxwell equations 2) The introductions of an
instantaneous action does the solutions complete.

My only criticism to that paper is the dualism concept which is solved
in my approach.

It is another general misuderstanding that an instantaneous interaction
conflicts with wave data or similar. There exist absolutely no
experimental data proving that instantaneous interactions are wrong.

In fact, as proven by members of the Weber electrodynamics school in
recent years if one begins from an instantaneous Weber-like interaction
one can obtain the telegraph equation (retarded action) when one
considers bulk matter.

My own EM theory (direct particle interaction generalizing Fokker,
Dirac, Wheeler, Feynmann, Hoyle, and Narlikar theory) is compatible
with all experimental data of standard EM and also with tests that
classical EM cannot pass. Moreover, there is no renormalization of
mass, there is no divergences, etc.

Moreover, one obtains the full equation of motion for particles.
Remeber that field theory cannot obtain the full equation of motion
even for a single particle!!! The Maxwell-Lorent equation is NOT
complete and violates conservation of energy. The field theoreticians
proposed /AD HOC/ (ad hoc because cannot be derived from the
Lagrangian), the Maxwell-Lorent-Abraham-Dirac equation, which is so
ugly and full of unphysical behavior that practically nobody acept it
as real. Our theory correct all of those!

Moreover the canonical theory explain why one does not observes
aberration in gravity.

Carlip wrote a paper on this, but it is wrong. i) He eliminated all
aberration via chosing a specific example without aberration!!! and
then Carlip obviously obtained not aberration at the final of his
'proof'. ii) He used LW potentials, which as proven in many rigorous
papers are incorrect (see for example above cited PRE article. iiii)
Carlip did not consider first-order terms on Universe backreaction
(when one does that Carlip's conclusion turns wrong). iv) At the best,
Carlip agreed in the conclusions of his paper that van Flandern's
approach (speed of gravity c) WAS compatible with experimental
data on absence of aberration.

One can formulate quantum field theory, e.g., QED, without using fields
as basic concepts. This sounds rather controversial, but it can be done.

Sure. You can rename anything and then claim you've eliminated the
concept. That doesn't make it so. It does, however, make it easier
to make the mistake of treating what is supposed to be unobservable
in field theory as observable.

Colleague, have your hear about Wheeler/Feynmann theory of absortion?
It is a theory withou fields and can be quantized. In fact, in a recent
rev on modern physics has been illustrated that a 'QED' without fields
explains the same experimental data that standard QED and can offer
replies to questions that standard QED cannot even ask.

Read for example Rev Mod. Phys 1995 67(1), 113. The theory
***without*** fields is better than the theory with them!!

Canonical theory is still better and correct some errors of that paper
:-)

Consider a longlived, metastable state. Such a state could be
due to the ground and first excited states being connected by
a forbidden transition. Now, one could arrange to populate a
large number of such states such that the emitted radiation
has a fairly constant intensity. Now, at some distance away,
you set up some apparatus capable of producing a strong electric
field which may be turned on and then turned off very quickly
after being turned on. Since such an electric field will
result in level mixing in the atoms (or nuclei, or whatever),
the transition rate will change due to the pulse of the electric
field. That will change the intensity and spectral characteristics
of the emitted radiation.

According to you, an observer located at the apparatus should
observe the change in intensity in half the time that a more sane
view would allow, since according to you, the electric field
propagates everywhere instantaneously, so that the only delay
observed by the observer in question is the transit of the light,
one way.

Thhe rest of the boring nay-sayers would require the time for the
electric field to propagate to the metastable states to be included.
Since the propagation speed is no greater than c, twice the time
should be required.

well-defined finite Hamiltonian that allows one to go beyond scattering
events and consider the time evolution of interacting systems.

completely WRONG discussion. You have not idea of AAAD theory.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

"Bilge" wrote in message
...

Most people would disgree that a theory based on instantaneous
action at a distance is a better idea, since the instantaneous
part conflicts with observations.

What observations?

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

You need to distinguish between any formal results you might
have obtained and your quirky interpretation which gives physical
status to things which are unobservable. To illustrate the difference,
let's just apply your _interpretation_ of instantaneous propagation
and watch the equivalence vanish.

Consider a longlived, metastable state. Such a state could be
due to the ground and first excited states being connected by
a forbidden transition. Now, one could arrange to populate a
large number of such states such that the emitted radiation
has a fairly constant intensity. Now, at some distance away,
you set up some apparatus capable of producing a strong electric
field which may be turned on and then turned off very quickly
after being turned on. Since such an electric field will
result in level mixing in the atoms (or nuclei, or whatever),
the transition rate will change due to the pulse of the electric
field. That will change the intensity and spectral characteristics
of the emitted radiation.

According to you, an observer located at the apparatus should
observe the change in intensity in half the time that a more sane
view would allow, since according to you, the electric field
propagates everywhere instantaneously, so that the only delay
observed by the observer in question is the transit of the light,
one way.

Thhe rest of the boring nay-sayers would require the time for the
electric field to propagate to the metastable states to be included.
Since the propagation speed is no greater than c, twice the time
should be required.

That's a great idea for an experiment. Have anybody done it already?
Have they observed double propagation time?
What makes you so confident about the outcome of this experiment?

Eugene.

Juan R. wrote:
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".

I should have qualified that by explaining what phi was. My mistake.

The phi obtained is GM/r.


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.

Found it.

2nd times the charm? *shrug*

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...6?dmode=source


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).

["NEWER" ?]

That isn't a proof, that is a statement unsupported by fact.


***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.

*snicker*


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.

How you extend a=0 from just test bodies to ALL bodies is a mystery
beyond my understanding.

I guess it is easier to assume that everyone is wrong and you are
right, I suppose.


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.

I am not going to argue about this when it is all explained on the very
same page which you are referencing.

If you think a = -del*phi isn't the Newtonian potential, your
understanding of Newton is suspect.


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.

It is close enough. If you want authentic Newton, use Newton. I really
don't understand why you are complaining about this...


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.

The details you seek are between 4.4.20 and 4.4.21. Wald simply writes
"phi" because he DID explain it not but a moment before.

But since you have a bit of difficulty reading, I will explain.

phi is dependant on x^i, i=1,2,3. It is explained, as I said, on the
very same page of which you reference. phi is not dependant on time -
it is explained, as I said, on the page of which you reference.

When I said your understanding of Newton is suspect, I was correct. In
Newtonian gravity, phi is dependant on r, not t.


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'"

I would hope Penrose, of all people, understands the utility of an
approximation.


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.

Which is close enough.


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

What is the curvature scalar for the Newtonian limit if you allow c to
go to infinity?


(1 -1 -1 -1)

That isn't the metric that results if c is infinite. Steve Carlip
explained this to you before.

The metric for flat space, with c restored, is diag(-c^2,1,1,1)
assuming the -+++ sign convention.

Now, what is lim -c^2 -- oo? It certaintly isn't -1.


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

That is stupid. Seriously, it is.


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.

Where did your nitpickery go? In Newton there is no 4-anything.


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.

Ooooh.

It all makes sense now. Actually learning and changing your opinions is
impossible for you because you have a vested interest in how you
currently have your theory written - no matter how absurd it is.

I stopped taking you seriously at all right about....here.


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!!!

God, stop whining.

GR isn't Newton because they are fundamentally different. To expect
otherwise is foolish.


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.

Sounds like you are one of those MOND people, except with 100% more
crank.

Your usage of "collapse" is completely unmotivated and confusing.


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.

Get the functional dependance of phi correct and try again.


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

Your "work" on gravitation is based on Newton and GR's Newtonian limit?
Are you kidding?


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

What the hell is a "physical" derivative? It sounds like you are
inventing new terminology as you go along.

The reason the 00 connections are nonzero is because of the metric. If
you wish to argue about that, you will have to dig a little deeper and
complain about how the metric was derived.


covariant = usual partial ones + 00-connection.

Only true in a specific case, not in general.


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

For the love of god, stop whining. This is a different theory. It is
not Newton.


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

...and you get a = 0

Which is....incorrect.


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.

So what are you saying, R *doesn't* go to 0 as r goes to infinity?


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?

*sigh*

GR IS NOT NEWTON.

Say it with me.

GR IS NOT NEWTON.

To expect otherwise is foolish.

Is "your own metric" even a valid solution to Einstein's field
equations and does it even reduce to the Newton at the proper limit?


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.

BFD.

You are looking for something to complain about. The "island
assumption" is perfectly valid because we aren't trying to find the
metric of the universe, just for a specific case under specific
assumptions.


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.

Get the functional dependance of phi right first.

I see it as you are advocating a pet theory of your own and you haven't
dedicated the necessary time to properly learn GR. You keep making
mistakes, and often repeat them even when corrected by others.



Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Bilge wrote:

On the other hand, it's very easy to see how specific diagrams contribute
to observable effects. For example, the diagram,

\ is the first order correction to the magnetic moment.
.\ It is easily interpreted that way, too. The virtual
. \ photon which connects to the ingoing and outgoing
. /~~~~ electron lines carries momentum. That modifies the
/ momentum at the vertex in the middle. A charge which
/ scatters from the electron then sees the modified
momentum present at the middle vertex which connects
the exchanged photon.


Does it bother you that this graph makes infinite contribution to
the scattering amplitude?

Eugene.

Bilge wrote:

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.

I reject your arguments based on Lagrangian, field,or gauges bacause
these concepts are theoretical assumptions that

1. do not have experimentally observed counterparts and
2. do not follow directly from fundamental principles

By "fundamental principles" I mean the postulates of quantum mechanics
and the principle of relativity. In my book I demonstrate that these
two postulates plus generally accepted form of the Hamiltonian in the
renormalized QED plus a few experimentally supported postulates
(e.g., the cluster separability, the triviality of the vacuum and
1-particle states) lead directly to the theory in which interactions are
instantaneous.

Eugene.

I see it as you are advocating a pet theory of your own and you haven't
dedicated the necessary time to properly learn GR. You keep making
mistakes, and often repeat them even when corrected by others.

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

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged."

- Some minor work of fiction.

O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /