Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
Uncle Al wrote:
Most of these experiments involve gravitational effects. Nowhere in
my book I speak about gravity. Moreover, all special relativistic effect
related to light and noninteracting particles (MichelsonMorley
experiment, transverse Doppler effect, etc.) are EXACTLY valid in
my approach. The only disagreement is about relativistic effects with
interacting particles. But even here the differences between RQD
approach and special relativity is ridiculously small.
I think that the highest chance to be vindicated by experiment is
for the prediction of instantaneous propagation of interaction
(Coulomb and magnetic) between charged particles (see section 12.3
of the book).
Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
Eugene Stefanovich <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...
[...]
A few comments in respect to your new book...
1) I'm uncertain whether this length of book is required to
introduce an idea that Lorentz transformations are "inexact".
 by writing a controversial chapter, the entire book's
credibility is based solely on a few pages.
2) Is this intended to be a reference, if so a chapter by
chapter collaborating opinion would be good. I doubt anyone
can review this entire book to ascertain it's quality, because
it cover's so much territory.
If it's intended as a reference, second party certification
helps.
3) I've noticed other authors clearly delineate convention and
speculation, H. Weyl's "Space Time Matter" for example.
4) The objective and purpose of the book are vague, if you are
introducing a new theory or concept do you need >400 pages ?!
5) It is my impression you have a superficial exposure to
relativity on the basis of excluding how General Relativity
forms the basis of "Relativistic Quantum Dynamics".
IMO Special Relativity and Quantum Theory are based on GR,
the latter being more difficult and in more need of understanding.
6) There's alot of detail in your equations, perhaps too much!
Once after completing a lengthy calculation I presented my
hard work to a Prof. It was filled with trig, derivatives etc.
He said get to the point, and pointed to E=hv, KISS.
7) Are you imparting understanding, or showing off?
8) Check out Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo". It's highly sophisticated
but he has the benefit of being a lecturer and knows how to
deliver complex ideas and sustain understanding. That's a hallmark
of a successful author. John Baez does this with a different
style, adding a bit more entertainment.
9) Never deliberately talk "over somebodies head", avoid that.
The author is a leader, and the lead cannot be lead faster than
they can be lead!
10) Lot's of potential, get more opinions.
Ken S. Tucker
Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Thank you for your comments. They are very helpful.
The inexactness of Lorentz transformations is only part of
my story. Another part is elimination of infinities from
QFT and derivation of instantaneous interaction between
particles.
I am fighting against the most sacred idea of modern physics 
Minkowski spacetime. All textbooks are based on this idea. I
cannot fight a textbook with journal papers. This is like
fighting against tank with a rifle. So, I decided to build my own
tank  write my own textbook.
I hope to publish this book and go through normal review
process. Would you agree to be a referee?
I tried to do that by distinguishing between Postulates,
Statements, and Assertions. Probably, I wasn't too good
at that. Do you have any specific suggestions how to improve
style?
All ideas from the book were published in 3 papers in major
journals. You can get online copies on my website [Only registered users see links. ]. Unfortunately, these papers went
largely unnoticed.
This is just another example that when it comes to relativistic
quantum theory everyone has his/her own ideas. This just emphasises
the need for a book with consistent and logical explanation
how relativity and quantum mechanics can coexist together.
I disagree with you
that GR forms the basis of "Relativistic Quantum Dynamics".
I think that we can safely ignore gravity in the absence of
large gravitating masses.
You are right, there are probably too much details in derivations of
formulas. I wanted to make all proofs crystal clear even for less
prepared readers. There is an easy fix for this deficiency  just
cross out extra lines. Or just write "it is easy to show that...".
Probably, I'll do that in the final version of the book.
I am desperately seeking understanding.
I wouldn't consider myself a great lecturer or writer. I always
admired "Feynman's lectures in physics". Weinberg and Baez are also
among my favorite authors. I tried to
do my best, but it could be not good enough. Besides, English is a
second language for me.
Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
"Eugene Stefanovich" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...


 Androcles wrote:
 > "Eugene Stefanovich" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
 > news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
 > 
 > 
 >  Androcles wrote:
 >  > "Eugene Stefanovich" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
 >  > news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
 >  >  Einstein rigorously
 >  >
 >  > LOL! That is so funny! I guess your definition of "rigorous"
 >  > is "sloppy".
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >  derived linear Lorentz transformations
 >  >  of special relativity (and all their consequences,
 >  >  like time dilation and length contraction)
 >  >  for freely propagating light pulses.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > For quotations following, reference:
 >  > [Only registered users see links. ]
 >  > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
 >  >
 >  > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c
 >  > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
 >  > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
 >  >
 >  > 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
 >  > 2AB/(t'AtA) = c to be a universal constant the velocity of light
in
 > empty
 >  > space.",
 >  > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
 >  > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of
the
 >  > remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
 >  >
 >  > 3) The equation
 >  > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(cv)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(cv))
 > ,
 >  > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
 >  > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
 >  >
 >  > 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = xvt, hence 0' =
0vt,
 >  > and the equation should be
 >  > ½[tau(vt,0,0,t)+tau(vt,0,0,t+x'/(cv)+x'/(c+v))] =
 > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(cv))
 >  > at the very least.
 >  >
 >  > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = xvt ... " without
 > considering
 >  > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's
method)
 >  > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2)
 >  > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2)" Paul B. Andersen
 >  >
 >  > 6) The statements
 >  > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
 >  > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity cv..."
 >  > and
 >  > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered
by
 >  > composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case
we
 > obtain
 >  > V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
 >  > which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
 >  > contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector
 > space.
 >  >
 >  > 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is selfconsistent by
 > feeding
 >  > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
 > total
 >  > failure.
 >  > Check:
 >  > (t1t)/(t2t)*[tau(vt,0,0,t)+tau(vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
 > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
 >  >
 >  > Androcles.
 >  >
 >  The number of experiments confirming validity of special relativity
for
 >  light pulses and free particles is overwhelming.
 >
 > I'm very much underwhelmed.
 >
 > See, for
 >  example [Only registered users see links. ]
 >  So, I consider this part of relativity theory proven beyond doubt.
 >
 > You have a strange idea of what 'rigorous' means. Providing a list of
 > experiments you do not understand doesn't make a proof.
 > 
 >  There are much fewer experiments dealing with interacting systems.
 >  Actually, the only clear experiment of this kind is observation of
 >  the increased lifetime of fast moving unstable particles (e.g.,
muons).
 >
 > Muons are the proof that relativity is hopelessly wrong.
 > Travelling from the upper atmosphere to sea level, a distance of 50,000
 > metres,
 > in 2 microseconds means they are moving at 80 times the speed of light.
 > Relativity says they can't exceed c. Therefore relativity is wrong.

 Ever heard about time dilation?
Yeah... it's a load of nonsense.
Ever heard of time compression?
 This has been confirmed for fast moving
 muons in accelerator experiments: J. Bailey, et al. Nature 268 (1977)
p.301
In your dreams. Pretending the muon only goes along at c means
you have to pretend the muon doesn't have so far to go and takes
longer that it's natural lifetime, which is ridiculous. Muons exceed c,
PROVING relativity is bullshit.
Also anyone that snips and ignores the evidence I've presented, to wit,
==============================
Einstein predicted: "Thence we conclude that a balanceclock at the equator
must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
It doesn't happen. Therefore relativity is wrong.
==============================
cannot possibly be any kind of scientist. He has to be as cracked as George
Hammond's pot.
Androcles.
Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
Uncle Al <[Only registered users see links. ].net> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ].net>...
[snip]
Both have G = 0. The only difference is with h and c. The former has
h=0 the later c = infinity.
Certainly they can be united. Just determine the point at which there
is an impulse from c = c to c =infinity and from h = 0 to h = h.
Develop a theory for that singularity only. That's your unification.
Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
Eugene Stefanovich:
I don't think you're there yet. I scanned through chapter 3. Some of
your definitions are misleading and if your first potulate has any bearing
on the rest of the theory, you're theory was falsified a long time ago.
In particular, you define an observable as ``an attribute or property
[that] can be assigned a numerical value''. You then give your first
postulate as: ``Each observable can be measured with any prescribed
accuracy[sic]''.
That is false on it's face. As you've defined observable, the
components of the angular momentum, j_x, j_y and j_z are are all
observables. I can certainly measure each of those, but in measuring
one, the other two are completely indeterminate. Also, if those
are _all_ observable, the j itself is observable, which is manfestly
false. j^2 and only _one_ component can be the observables of a system.
Now you postulate that I can measure each of these with unlimited
``accuracy'' (I think you meant precision, which doesn't make your
statement right, but at least it's the right word). Obviously, I
cannot do that. Take the basis j,j_z>. What's the value of,
j_xj,j_z>
Recall that the meaning of j,j_z> is that the state which was
prepared has the projection of j along the z axis. j_x is indeterminate
in that basis. You have also mistaken quantum mechanics for statistical
mechanics. It is possible to prepare a system without preparing an
entire ensemble. Take the two photons from the decay of a pi_0.
The photon is a spin 1. The pair is in an S=0 singlet state. Regardless
of how many of those pairs you produce and measure, you will _never_
be able to predict the polarization of each of those photons when they reach
the detectors.
He didn't. He developed general relativity by explicitly considering
the effect of matter on spacetime.
Unfortunately, you've attributed the dependence incorrectly and
mistaken the freedom to make a gauge transformation for a physical
degree of freedom. How do you explain the fact that when writing the
equations in a form which is manifestly invariant, no such problem
arises?
Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
tadchem wrote:
Thanks for a good advice. This sounds strangely similar to what
my former sci. advisor told me. There should be some truths to it
then. Let me say some words in defense of my book though. I have
published three regular papers on the subject. I don't think many
people read those papers. I noticed that people are just too busy
with their own affairs to read somebody else's papers, unless
you wave that paper right in front of their nose. Especially,
if the paper looks "controversial", only the bravest read beyond
abstract. I know that, because I am guilty myself.
In a paper, one is constrained by the size. So one
uses shortcuts: puts a reference on a paper which one haven't
fully understood, writes "it is easy to show that...", etc. Again,
I know that from experience. I wrote this book partly for myself,
to convince myself that I got it right, that there are no holes
in logics, and all proofs are correct. I don't care if somebody
pokes holes. If the idea is correct, it just becomes stronger
when you poke holes in it.