Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.

Hello everybody,

I am pleased to announce that a new book
is available for download on my web-site [Only registered users see links. ].
The title of the book is "Relativistic quantum dynamics"
It describes a successful attempt to unite relativity
and quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes and divergences.
Some of these topics were already discussed on this
newsgroup. Many thanks to those who participated.
Especially to Bill Hobba and Bilge.

The key difference of my approach
is in correct understanding
of the principle of relativity and Lorentz transformations.
Yes, I am correcting Einstein! Einstein rigorously
derived linear Lorentz transformations
of special relativity (and all their consequences,
like time dilation and length contraction)
for freely propagating light pulses. His mistake was to generalize
these formulas for all physical systems independent on their
composition and interactions. In my approach, the
multiplication law of the Poincare group of inertial
transformations requires that both time translations
and transformations to the moving frame (boosts) must
depend on interaction. Then, universal and linear Lorentz
transformations of special relativity are just an approximation
(not a bad one, though).


I used these ideas to construct fully relativistic quantum theory
of charged particles and photons. As in quantum electrodynamics,
particles may be created and annihilated. In contrast to QED,
I do not use fields. My approach operates with particle
observables (position, momentum, spin projections) and with
direct instantaneous interactions between particles.
There are several interesting features of this theory which
are discussed in detail in the book:
1. The instantaneous propagation of interaction does not
contradict causality (there is no "grandfather paradox"), if
dynamical character of boost transformations (see above)
is properly taken into account.
2. Ultravolet divergences of QFT are completely eliminated
from both Hamiltonian and the S-matrix. The S-matrix in
my approach is exactly the same as in renormalized QED,
so all QED predictions (electron's magnetic moment, Lamb's
shifts, etc) are still valid.
3. In contrast to QED which is interested only in the S-matrix
and scattering
processes (the connection between observables in the distant past
and the distant future), my approach has well-defined finite
Hamiltonian, which allows to study time dynamics during interaction.

The book is about 450 pages long. I tried to write it on
elementary, but rigorous level. I also tried to avoid phrases
like "one can show that...". All central results have detailed proofs,
or, at least, references to papers/books where such proofs can be
found. The book covers rotations in 3D
space, the renormalized QED, and everything in between.
In two last chapters I presented new (and surely controversial)
developments:
1) the elimination of ultraviolet infinities in quantum field
theory using "dressed particle" approach.
2) calculation of corrections to the Einstein's time dilation
law in the case of fast moving unstable particle.

I hope you will find this book not boring and thought-provoking.
I would be glad to read your comments either on these newsgroups
or at my e-mail address [Only registered users see links. ]
You can also visit my web-site [Only registered users see links. ]

Thank you.
Eugene Stefanovich.

"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'A-tA) = 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'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
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' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^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 c-v..."
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 self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

Androcles.

"Androcles" <[Only registered users see links. ].uk> wrote in message news:0al3d.355$[Only registered users see links. ]...

Rigorous a la Androcles:
[Only registered users see links. ]
and more of the same all over the place
[Only registered users see links. ]

Dirk Vdm

"Eugene Stefanovich" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Had a quick peek. You claim Einstein did not justify the assertion that the
Lorentz transformation is valid for all space-time events. Now I am not a
historian, I am better versed in modern treatments of relativity. And in
those treatments no assumption is made about the nature of the space-time
events. Thus, as a possible hidden assumption, such a statement is, well to
put it bluntly, without any foundation.

I know I have given the following ancient post by Tom Roberts many times,
but I will give it again to ensue people can see no such hidden assumption
is made:

[Only registered users see links. ].

Bill



*>

Androcles wrote:
The number of experiments confirming validity of special relativity for
light pulses and free particles is overwhelming. See, for
example [Only registered users see links. ]
So, I consider this part of relativity theory proven beyond doubt.

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).
My theory predicts that Einstein's time dilation formula is not accurate
in this case. However, corrections are 10 orders of magnitude less than
accuracy of available experiments.

Eugene.

Bill Hobba wrote:


I am not pretending to be historically correct. You can substitute word
"Einstein" with the phrase "most modern treatments of special
relativity" there.
In three paragraphs after that, I briefly discuss why existing attempts
(including Tom Robert's paper; by the way, thanks for sending this
paper to me) to justify universality and linearity of Lorentz
transformations for interacting systems are not sufficient.
We discussed this point with you quite extensively. You do not agree
with me, I know that.

Let us agree about our disagreement: we have two competing theories:
One (commonly accepted) theory is based on the assumption of
universality of Lorentz transformations. This theory has serious
troubles in description of dynamics of interacting particles
(I mentioned Currie-Jordan-Sudarshan theorem many times).
Another theory (described in the book) does not assume the
universality of Lorentz
transformations, or you can say it assumes dynamical character of
boosts. In this approach, the unification of relativity with quantum
mechanics is seemless, and dynamics of interacting systems
is consistently described.

So, if we look not just at foundations of the theories
(they may be interpreted subjectively) but also at the results
delivered by the two theories, we should give preference to
my approach.

Eugene.

Eugene Stefanovich wrote:

Wrong. The former has h=0; the latter has c=infinity and Newton's
G=0. No unification is possible.


Riiight. You found the problem.


[snip]


You empirically lose in (2).

[Only registered users see links. ]
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment

[Only registered users see links. ]
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
[Only registered users see links. ]
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
Relativity in the GPS system

--
Uncle Al
[Only registered users see links. ]
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
[Only registered users see links. ]

"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'A-tA) = 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'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
,
| > 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' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
| > and the equation should be
| > ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > at the very least.
| >
| > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without
considering
| > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
| > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^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 c-v..."
| > 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 self-consistent by
feeding
| > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
total
| > failure.
| > Check:
| > (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[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.
Einstein predicted: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock 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.
You have no proof at all. All you have is your personal conviction.



| My theory predicts that Einstein's time dilation formula is not accurate
| in this case. However, corrections are 10 orders of magnitude less than
| accuracy of available experiments.

YOUR theory? Join George Hammond and Len Gaasenbeek, they have theories too.
If you had any theory worthwhile you'd be able to analyze Einstein's paper
as I have and find what is wrong with it.

Androcles.

|
| Eugene.
|
|

Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
On a second thought I think I was too generous to your approach.
I cannot agree that space looks homogeneous and isotropic for particle A
if there is particle B nearby. Different directions in space definitely
do not look equivalent for A. So, I reject Robert's "proof" of
Lorentz transformations.

In my book you can find a proof of inverse statement (Statement G in
subsection 1.2.2): "boosts are dynamical". I would be glad to know
about any holes in my postulates and the logic I use to derive
this statement.

Eugene.

Uncle Al wrote:

Did you read the book? If no unification is possible,
then how are we supposed to describe microscopic processes
with energetic particles?


No, I do not lose here, because the corrections I predict are
more than 10 orders of magnitude less than the experimental
accuracy.


The accuracy of the Hafele-Keating experiment is much too low to detect
corrections I am talking about.


Thanks for the references. I guess I have a lot of reading to do.

Eugene.