Re: QFT in the language of ordinary quantum mechanics [Archive]

Arnold Neumaier

Dec10-04, 05:00 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n> Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>\n>>Of course. Your rule is too simple. in the point form, the rules for\n>>Lorentz transformations are simple, since they respect the kinematical\n>>object (the past hyperboloid). Space translations move off the\n>>hyperboloid, hence have to be more complicated.\n>\n> Exactly. My point is that these complicated effects of space\n> translations have never been observed in experiments,\n\nThey cannot be observed, since it is just a coordinate transformation in\nHilbert space. But this doesn\'t make them wrong.\n\nYour arguments are of the kind that polar coordinates are wrong since their\neffects are not measurable and things look different in cartesina\ncoordinates.\n\n\n>>That different observers see the same trajectories.\n\nRejecting this assumption is the only reasonable conclusion from CJS.\n\n\n> This is the assumption made in Einstein\'s special relativity:\n> In the moving frame of reference all observables must transform\n> according to universal and linear Lorentz transformation.\n> If you reject this assumption, then I am with you! The CJS theorem\n> is not a problem then.\n\nWell, according to my view, there are still universal and linear\nLorentz transformations. But they are used to transform fields,\nnot trajectories. If one wnats a trajectory picture one needs to\nfocus on a 3-surface, which breaks mainfest invariance, and this\ncan be done in multiple ways.\n\n\n> Then "several generations of physicists" silently (or with some\n> incomprehensible mumble) make a huge logical jump and declare that\n> from now\n> on Lorentz transformations will be applied to all events, because\n> they are just properties of the spacetime.\n\nYes, because they are more interested with contact to experiment than\nwith logical derivations from foundations whose form depends on the\ntaste of those discussing it. Experiemnt proved them right!\n\n\n>>If you would work without approximations, you\'d find that all\n>>predictions of the new theory are identical to the old one.\n>>If they aren\'t you are in trouble. QED is extremely well tested.\n>\n> My prediction that interactions between charged particles propagate\n> instantaneously does not depend on any approximation.\n\nGood luck! To turn this theoretical instantaneousness in your particular\nframe of representation into a measurable effect will be impossible.\n\n\n\n>>>>There are exactly the same logical contradictions as in QED, namely the\n>>>>missing mathematical foundations that make sense nonperturbatively.\n>>>>Without that, there is no logical basis to decide about consistency.\n>>>\n>>>I agree that this problem is not solved neither in QED nor in my\n>>>approach. I don\'t think you expect me to solve all problems in\n>>>theoretical physics.\n>>\n>>No. But I expect you to moderate your claims to match what you actually\n>>did. If you claim \'the absence of logical contradictions\' in your approach\n>>while its presence in the traditional approach, you\'d make sure that\n>>you work at a higher level of logical coherence than those you criticise.\n>\n> The convergence of the perturbation series is the problem common to both\n> traditional QED and to my approach. I even did not attempt to solve this\n> problem. Another place where I haven\'t contributed anything is the problem\n> of infrared divergences. However, I solved a couple of other contradictions\n> characteristic to QED. First, in my formulation there are no ultraviolet\n> divergences neither in the Hamiltonian nor in the S-matrix.\n\nThere are no divergences in the renormalized S-matrix of standard QED.\nAlso, there is the similarity renormalization program of Glazek and Wilson\nthat has renormalized Hamiltonians, though not as explicitly as you.\n\n\n\n>>Your construction is on the perturbative level only, too - so you have\n>>no right to claim that all is bad with tradition, and all has become\n>>corrected with your work.\n>\n> I regret that you accepted my work in this way. Probably that\'s my\n> fault: some of my claims were too arrogant. However, I never said that\n> all is bad with tradition, and I never claimed that I solved all the\n> problems\n\nOf course, my statement was a bit exaggerated. I referred to your\nclaim that Minkowski space has to go, and with it a century of successful\nphysics...\n\nI fight your philosophy, not your technical achievements.\nConventional physics is almost correct, and to make it fully correct\nis not a matter of speculation but of conceptual advances that integrate\nthe old instead of throwing it away!\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
>>Of course. Your rule is too simple. in the point form, the rules for
>>Lorentz transformations are simple, since they respect the kinematical
>>object (the past hyperboloid). Space translations move off the
>>hyperboloid, hence have to be more complicated.
>
> Exactly. My point is that these complicated effects of space
> translations have never been observed in experiments,

They cannot be observed, since it is just a coordinate transformation in
Hilbert space. But this doesn't make them wrong.

Your arguments are of the kind that polar coordinates are wrong since their
effects are not measurable and things look different in cartesina
coordinates.

>>That different observers see the same trajectories.

Rejecting this assumption is the only reasonable conclusion from CJS.

> This is the assumption made in Einstein's special relativity:
> In the moving frame of reference all observables must transform
> according to universal and linear Lorentz transformation.
> If you reject this assumption, then I am with you! The CJS theorem
> is not a problem then.

Well, according to my view, there are still universal and linear
Lorentz transformations. But they are used to transform fields,
not trajectories. If one wnats a trajectory picture one needs to
focus on a 3-surface, which breaks mainfest invariance, and this
can be done in multiple ways.

> Then "several generations of physicists" silently (or with some
> incomprehensible mumble) make a huge logical jump and declare that
> from now
> on Lorentz transformations will be applied to all events, because
> they are just properties of the spacetime.

Yes, because they are more interested with contact to experiment than
with logical derivations from foundations whose form depends on the
taste of those discussing it. Experiemnt proved them right!

>>If you would work without approximations, you'd find that all
>>predictions of the new theory are identical to the old one.
>>If they aren't you are in trouble. QED is extremely well tested.
>
> My prediction that interactions between charged particles propagate
> instantaneously does not depend on any approximation.

Good luck! To turn this theoretical instantaneousness in your particular
frame of representation into a measurable effect will be impossible.

>>>>There are exactly the same logical contradictions as in QED, namely the
>>>>missing mathematical foundations that make sense nonperturbatively.
>>>>Without that, there is no logical basis to decide about consistency.
>>>
>>>I agree that this problem is not solved neither in QED nor in my
>>>approach. I don't think you expect me to solve all problems in
>>>theoretical physics.
>>
>>No. But I expect you to moderate your claims to match what you actually
>>did. If you claim 'the absence of logical contradictions' in your approach
>>while its presence in the traditional approach, you'd make sure that
>>you work at a higher level of logical coherence than those you criticise.
>
> The convergence of the perturbation series is the problem common to both
> traditional QED and to my approach. I even did not attempt to solve this
> problem. Another place where I haven't contributed anything is the problem
> of infrared divergences. However, I solved a couple of other contradictions
> characteristic to QED. First, in my formulation there are no ultraviolet
> divergences neither in the Hamiltonian nor in the S-matrix.

There are no divergences in the renormalized S-matrix of standard QED.
Also, there is the similarity renormalization program of Glazek and Wilson
that has renormalized Hamiltonians, though not as explicitly as you.

>>Your construction is on the perturbative level only, too - so you have
>>no right to claim that all is bad with tradition, and all has become
>>corrected with your work.
>
> I regret that you accepted my work in this way. Probably that's my
> fault: some of my claims were too arrogant. However, I never said that
> all is bad with tradition, and I never claimed that I solved all the
> problems

Of course, my statement was a bit exaggerated. I referred to your
claim that Minkowski space has to go, and with it a century of successful
physics...

I fight your philosophy, not your technical achievements.
Conventional physics is almost correct, and to make it fully correct
is not a matter of speculation but of conceptual advances that integrate
the old instead of throwing it away!

Arnold Neumaier

Eugene Stefanovich

Dec11-04, 03:07 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n>\n>>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>>\n>>\n>>>Of course. Your rule is too simple. in the point form, the rules for\n>>>Lorentz transformations are simple, since they respect the kinematical\n>>>object (the past hyperboloid). Space translations move off the\n>>>hyperboloid, hence have to be more complicated.\n>>\n>>Exactly. My point is that these complicated effects of space\n>>translations have never been observed in experiments,\n>\n>\n> They cannot be observed, since it is just a coordinate transformation in\n> Hilbert space. But this doesn\'t make them wrong.\n>\n> Your arguments are of the kind that polar coordinates are wrong since their\n> effects are not measurable and things look different in cartesina\n> coordinates.\n\nThere is no analogy between space translations of observers and change\nto polar coordinates. The observer translated in space is a real\nobserver, and the differences in observations of two observers shifted\nwrt to each other are just as real.\n\nYou are translated in space with respect to me. You and I are two\nobservers connected by a space translation and a rotation.\n(I am in California, and you are in Austria, I believe) When both of\nus measure properties of the same object (let\'s take the Moon as an\nexample) we obtain different results. For example, we assign different\nx, y, and z coordinates to the Moon. One of the major tasks of physics\nis to connect the results of measurements of different observers.\nI.e., if my results for x, y, and z are known, and the transformation\nbetween my reference frame and your reference frame is known,\nwhat will be the values x\' y\', z\' measured by you?\nSome of these transformations are rather trivial. It is easy to find\nsuch transformations in the case of space translations and rotations.\nThey are kinematical. It is very difficult (but possible) to find\nthe transformations of observables wrt time translations and boosts.\nThey are dynamical.\n\n\n>\n>\n>\n>>>That different observers see the same trajectories.\n>>\n>\n> Rejecting this assumption is the only reasonable conclusion from CJS.\n>\n>\n>\n>>This is the assumption made in Einstein\'s special relativity:\n>>In the moving frame of reference all observables must transform\n>>according to universal and linear Lorentz transformation.\n>>If you reject this assumption, then I am with you! The CJS theorem\n>>is not a problem then.\n>\n>\n> Well, according to my view, there are still universal and linear\n> Lorentz transformations. But they are used to transform fields,\n> not trajectories. If one wnats a trajectory picture one needs to\n> focus on a 3-surface, which breaks mainfest invariance, and this\n> can be done in multiple ways.\n\nBut in experiment we do not measure fields. We always measure\nparticles (their positions, momenta, spins, etc.). If you\ninsist on the field description of nature, you need to provide\na translation to the language of individual particles, and their\ntrajectories in the classical limit. Modern QFT does not have\nsuch a translation. The best it can do is to provide numbers\nfor the S-matrix of interacting particles.\n\nI gave you an\nexample how measurements of particle properties can be performed\ninstantaneously in entire space (detectors connected by wires\nof equal length with the central switch). When I talk about\nparticle trajectories x(t), v(t), or wavefunctions \\psi(x,t),\nI am using observables obtained by such an array of detectors.\n\n\n\n>\n>\n>\n>>Then "several generations of physicists" silently (or with some\n>>incomprehensible mumble) make a huge logical jump and declare that\n>>from now\n>>on Lorentz transformations will be applied to all events, because\n>>they are just properties of the spacetime.\n>\n>\n> Yes, because they are more interested with contact to experiment than\n> with logical derivations from foundations whose form depends on the\n> taste of those discussing it. Experiemnt proved them right!\n\nBut experiment confirms my approach just as well, or even better.\nAlmost all experiments confirming special relativity refer to\nfree particles. There are no differences between my approach and special\nrelativity in these cases. The only experiment involving interacting\nparticles\nis the observation of the decay law of moving muons or pions\n(I do not consider experiments involving gravity here). The corrections\noffered by my approach are 10 orders of magnitude less than\nexperimental precision.\n\nThere is experimental area where my approach is doing much better.\nYou are probably familiar with experiments by Nimtz, Chiao, Ranfagni,\nand others concerning superluminal propagation of evanescent light\nand microwaves. Any kind of superluminal propagation is forbidden\nby Einstein\'s special relativity. So, there is a clear contradiction.\n\nThough I do not have any quantitative description, I think my\napproach can qualitatively explain these experiments. In my view,\nthe "evanescent light" or "near-field light" is nothing but\ninstantaneous Coulomb and magnetic potentials generated by\noscillating particles of the substance in with the "real"\n(transverse) light propagates. These potentials propagate\ninstantaneously, and if the dynamical character of boosts is\naccepted, such superluminality does not contradict causality.\n\n>\n>\n>\n>>>If you would work without approximations, you\'d find that all\n>>>predictions of the new theory are identical to the old one.\n>>>If they aren\'t you are in trouble. QED is extremely well tested.\n>>\n>>My prediction that interactions between charged particles propagate\n>>instantaneously does not depend on any approximation.\n>\n>\n> Good luck! To turn this theoretical instantaneousness in your particular\n> frame of representation into a measurable effect will be impossible.\n>\n>\n\nI think, this effect was measured already as superluminal propagation\nof evanescent radiation. See above.\n\n>\n>\n>>>>>There are exactly the same logical contradictions as in QED, namely the\n>>>>>missing mathematical foundations that make sense nonperturbatively.\n>>>>>Without that, there is no logical basis to decide about consistency.\n>>>>\n>>>>I agree that this problem is not solved neither in QED nor in my\n>>>>approach. I don\'t think you expect me to solve all problems in\n>>>>theoretical physics.\n>>>\n>>>No. But I expect you to moderate your claims to match what you actually\n>>>did. If you claim \'the absence of logical contradictions\' in your approach\n>>>while its presence in the traditional approach, you\'d make sure that\n>>>you work at a higher level of logical coherence than those you criticise.\n>>\n>>The convergence of the perturbation series is the problem common to both\n>>traditional QED and to my approach. I even did not attempt to solve this\n>>problem. Another place where I haven\'t contributed anything is the problem\n>>of infrared divergences. However, I solved a couple of other contradictions\n>>characteristic to QED. First, in my formulation there are no ultraviolet\n>>divergences neither in the Hamiltonian nor in the S-matrix.\n>\n>\n> There are no divergences in the renormalized S-matrix of standard QED.\n> Also, there is the similarity renormalization program of Glazek and Wilson\n> that has renormalized Hamiltonians, though not as explicitly as you.\n\nI heard about Glazek and Wilson approach, but I haven\'t studied it well.\nCould you recommend some reading for a beginner? Thanks.\n\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>>>Your construction is on the perturbative level only, too - so you have\n>>>no right to claim that all is bad with tradition, and all has become\n>>>corrected with your work.\n>>\n>>I regret that you accepted my work in this way. Probably that\'s my\n>>fault: some of my claims were too arrogant. However, I never said that\n>>all is bad with tradition, and I never claimed that I solved all the\n>>problems\n>\n>\n> Of course, my statement was a bit exaggerated. I referred to your\n> claim that Minkowski space has to go, and with it a century of successful\n> physics...\n>\n> I fight your philosophy, not your technical achievements.\n> Conventional physics is almost correct, and to make it fully correct\n> is not a matter of speculation but of conceptual advances that integrate\n> the old instead of throwing it away!\n\nI am not throwing away 100 years of development. All I am saying is\nthat Minkowski spacetime and Einstein\'s special relativity are\napproximate (though very accurate!) concepts. Unfortunately,\nthe standard formulation of these\nconcepts is so rigid that I need to break it completely in order to\nintroduce small corrections.\n\nEugene Stefanovich.\n\n>\n>\n> Arnold Neumaier\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Of course. Your rule is too simple. in the point form, the rules for
>>>Lorentz transformations are simple, since they respect the kinematical
>>>object (the past hyperboloid). Space translations move off the
>>>hyperboloid, hence have to be more complicated.
>>
>>Exactly. My point is that these complicated effects of space
>>translations have never been observed in experiments,
>
>
> They cannot be observed, since it is just a coordinate transformation in
> Hilbert space. But this doesn't make them wrong.
>
> Your arguments are of the kind that polar coordinates are wrong since their
> effects are not measurable and things look different in cartesina
> coordinates.

There is no analogy between space translations of observers and change
to polar coordinates. The observer translated in space is a real
observer, and the differences in observations of two observers shifted
wrt to each other are just as real.

You are translated in space with respect to me. You and I are two
observers connected by a space translation and a rotation.
(I am in California, and you are in Austria, I believe) When both of
us measure properties of the same object (let's take the Moon as an
example) we obtain different results. For example, we assign different
x, y, and z coordinates to the Moon. One of the major tasks of physics
is to connect the results of measurements of different observers.
I.e., if my results for x, y, and z are known, and the transformation
between my reference frame and your reference frame is known,
what will be the values x' y', z' measured by you?
Some of these transformations are rather trivial. It is easy to find
such transformations in the case of space translations and rotations.
They are kinematical. It is very difficult (but possible) to find
the transformations of observables wrt time translations and boosts.
They are dynamical.

>
>
>
>>>That different observers see the same trajectories.
>>
>
> Rejecting this assumption is the only reasonable conclusion from CJS.
>
>
>
>>This is the assumption made in Einstein's special relativity:
>>In the moving frame of reference all observables must transform
>>according to universal and linear Lorentz transformation.
>>If you reject this assumption, then I am with you! The CJS theorem
>>is not a problem then.
>
>
> Well, according to my view, there are still universal and linear
> Lorentz transformations. But they are used to transform fields,
> not trajectories. If one wnats a trajectory picture one needs to
> focus on a 3-surface, which breaks mainfest invariance, and this
> can be done in multiple ways.

But in experiment we do not measure fields. We always measure
particles (their positions, momenta, spins, etc.). If you
insist on the field description of nature, you need to provide
a translation to the language of individual particles, and their
trajectories in the classical limit. Modern QFT does not have
such a translation. The best it can do is to provide numbers
for the S-matrix of interacting particles.

I gave you an
example how measurements of particle properties can be performed
instantaneously in entire space (detectors connected by wires
of equal length with the central switch). When I talk about
particle trajectories x(t), v(t), or wavefunctions \psi(x,t),I am using observables obtained by such an array of detectors.

>
>
>
>>Then "several generations of physicists" silently (or with some
>>incomprehensible mumble) make a huge logical jump and declare that
>>from now
>>on Lorentz transformations will be applied to all events, because
>>they are just properties of the spacetime.
>
>
> Yes, because they are more interested with contact to experiment than
> with logical derivations from foundations whose form depends on the
> taste of those discussing it. Experiemnt proved them right!

But experiment confirms my approach just as well, or even better.
Almost all experiments confirming special relativity refer to
free particles. There are no differences between my approach and special
relativity in these cases. The only experiment involving interacting
particles
is the observation of the decay law of moving muons or pions
(I do not consider experiments involving gravity here). The corrections
offered by my approach are 10 orders of magnitude less than
experimental precision.

There is experimental area where my approach is doing much better.
You are probably familiar with experiments by Nimtz, Chiao, Ranfagni,
and others concerning superluminal propagation of evanescent light
and microwaves. Any kind of superluminal propagation is forbidden
by Einstein's special relativity. So, there is a clear contradiction.

Though I do not have any quantitative description, I think my
approach can qualitatively explain these experiments. In my view,
the "evanescent light" or "near-field light" is nothing but
instantaneous Coulomb and magnetic potentials generated by
oscillating particles of the substance in with the "real"
(transverse) light propagates. These potentials propagate
instantaneously, and if the dynamical character of boosts is
accepted, such superluminality does not contradict causality.

>
>
>
>>>If you would work without approximations, you'd find that all
>>>predictions of the new theory are identical to the old one.
>>>If they aren't you are in trouble. QED is extremely well tested.
>>
>>My prediction that interactions between charged particles propagate
>>instantaneously does not depend on any approximation.
>
>
> Good luck! To turn this theoretical instantaneousness in your particular
> frame of representation into a measurable effect will be impossible.
>
>

I think, this effect was measured already as superluminal propagation
of evanescent radiation. See above.

>
>
>>>>>There are exactly the same logical contradictions as in QED, namely the
>>>>>missing mathematical foundations that make sense nonperturbatively.
>>>>>Without that, there is no logical basis to decide about consistency.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that this problem is not solved neither in QED nor in my
>>>>approach. I don't think you expect me to solve all problems in
>>>>theoretical physics.
>>>
>>>No. But I expect you to moderate your claims to match what you actually
>>>did. If you claim 'the absence of logical contradictions' in your approach
>>>while its presence in the traditional approach, you'd make sure that
>>>you work at a higher level of logical coherence than those you criticise.
>>
>>The convergence of the perturbation series is the problem common to both
>>traditional QED and to my approach. I even did not attempt to solve this
>>problem. Another place where I haven't contributed anything is the problem
>>of infrared divergences. However, I solved a couple of other contradictions
>>characteristic to QED. First, in my formulation there are no ultraviolet
>>divergences neither in the Hamiltonian nor in the S-matrix.
>
>
> There are no divergences in the renormalized S-matrix of standard QED.
> Also, there is the similarity renormalization program of Glazek and Wilson
> that has renormalized Hamiltonians, though not as explicitly as you.

I heard about Glazek and Wilson approach, but I haven't studied it well.
Could you recommend some reading for a beginner? Thanks.

>
>
>
>
>>>Your construction is on the perturbative level only, too - so you have
>>>no right to claim that all is bad with tradition, and all has become
>>>corrected with your work.
>>
>>I regret that you accepted my work in this way. Probably that's my
>>fault: some of my claims were too arrogant. However, I never said that
>>all is bad with tradition, and I never claimed that I solved all the
>>problems
>
>
> Of course, my statement was a bit exaggerated. I referred to your
> claim that Minkowski space has to go, and with it a century of successful
> physics...
>
> I fight your philosophy, not your technical achievements.
> Conventional physics is almost correct, and to make it fully correct
> is not a matter of speculation but of conceptual advances that integrate
> the old instead of throwing it away!

I am not throwing away 100 years of development. All I am saying is
that Minkowski spacetime and Einstein's special relativity are
approximate (though very accurate!) concepts. Unfortunately,
the standard formulation of these
concepts is so rigid that I need to break it completely in order to
introduce small corrections.

Eugene Stefanovich.

>
>
> Arnold Neumaier
>

Arnold Neumaier

Dec12-04, 03:51 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n> Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>\n>>Your arguments are of the kind that polar coordinates are wrong since their\n>>effects are not measurable and things look different in cartesina\n>>coordinates.\n>\n> There is no analogy between space translations of observers and change\n> to polar coordinates. The observer translated in space is a real\n> observer, and the differences in observations of two observers shifted\n> wrt to each other are just as real.\n>\n> You are translated in space with respect to me.\n\nI am talking about different descriptions of the same physical situation,\nnot about a physical rotation of one observer. All observers in my\ndiscussion are fictitious, just there to fix a coordinate system.\n\n\n> Some of these transformations are rather trivial. It is easy to find\n> such transformations in the case of space translations and rotations.\n> They are kinematical. It is very difficult (but possible) to find\n> the transformations of observables wrt time translations and boosts.\n> They are dynamical.\n\n> But in experiment we do not measure fields. We always measure\n> particles (their positions, momenta, spins, etc.).\n\nWe think differently about these things and are only repeating ourselves.\nNo point to continue.\n\n\n>>There are no divergences in the renormalized S-matrix of standard QED.\n>>Also, there is the similarity renormalization program of Glazek and Wilson\n>>that has renormalized Hamiltonians, though not as explicitly as you.\n>\n> I heard about Glazek and Wilson approach, but I haven\'t studied it well.\n> Could you recommend some reading for a beginner? Thanks.\n\nIt is a mistake not to study closely competing approaches, especially\nif you want to revolutionize physics...\n\nType \'similarity renormalization\' into http://scholar.google.com/\nand look at the frequently cited papers and the citing papers.\nOne of the first few located is the seminal paper\nS.D. Glazek and K.G. Wilson,\nPhys. Rev. D 48, 5863=965872 (1993).\nIt pays to make some thorough literature searches...\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
>>Your arguments are of the kind that polar coordinates are wrong since their
>>effects are not measurable and things look different in cartesina
>>coordinates.
>
> There is no analogy between space translations of observers and change
> to polar coordinates. The observer translated in space is a real
> observer, and the differences in observations of two observers shifted
> wrt to each other are just as real.
>
> You are translated in space with respect to me.

I am talking about different descriptions of the same physical situation,
not about a physical rotation of one observer. All observers in my
discussion are fictitious, just there to fix a coordinate system.

> Some of these transformations are rather trivial. It is easy to find
> such transformations in the case of space translations and rotations.
> They are kinematical. It is very difficult (but possible) to find
> the transformations of observables wrt time translations and boosts.
> They are dynamical.

> But in experiment we do not measure fields. We always measure
> particles (their positions, momenta, spins, etc.).

We think differently about these things and are only repeating ourselves.
No point to continue.

>>There are no divergences in the renormalized S-matrix of standard QED.
>>Also, there is the similarity renormalization program of Glazek and Wilson
>>that has renormalized Hamiltonians, though not as explicitly as you.
>
> I heard about Glazek and Wilson approach, but I haven't studied it well.
> Could you recommend some reading for a beginner? Thanks.

It is a mistake not to study closely competing approaches, especially
if you want to revolutionize physics...

Type 'similarity renormalization' into http://scholar.google.com/
and look at the frequently cited papers and the citing papers.
One of the first few located is the seminal paper
S.D. Glazek and K.G. Wilson,
Phys. Rev. D 48, 5863=965872 (1993).
It pays to make some thorough literature searches...

Arnold Neumaier

Eugene Stefanovich

Dec13-04, 09:12 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n>\n>>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>>\n>>\n>>>Your arguments are of the kind that polar coordinates are wrong since their\n>>>effects are not measurable and things look different in cartesina\n>>>coordinates.\n>>\n>>There is no analogy between space translations of observers and change\n>>to polar coordinates. The observer translated in space is a real\n>>observer, and the differences in observations of two observers shifted\n>>wrt to each other are just as real.\n>>\n>>You are translated in space with respect to me.\n>\n>\n> I am talking about different descriptions of the same physical situation,\n> not about a physical rotation of one observer. All observers in my\n> discussion are fictitious, just there to fix a coordinate system.\n\nThat could be the reason of our disagreements. I was always talking\nabout real observers performing measurements of real observables on\nphysical systems. It seems that you were talking about fictitious\nobservers and non-observable space-time coordinates in the Minkowski\nspace.\n\n\n>\n>\n>\n>>Some of these transformations are rather trivial. It is easy to find\n>>such transformations in the case of space translations and rotations.\n>>They are kinematical. It is very difficult (but possible) to find\n>>the transformations of observables wrt time translations and boosts.\n>>They are dynamical.\n>\n>\n>>But in experiment we do not measure fields. We always measure\n>>particles (their positions, momenta, spins, etc.).\n>\n>\n> We think differently about these things and are only repeating ourselves.\n> No point to continue.\n>\n>\n>\n>>>There are no divergences in the renormalized S-matrix of standard QED.\n>>>Also, there is the similarity renormalization program of Glazek and Wilson\n>>>that has renormalized Hamiltonians, though not as explicitly as you.\n>>\n>>I heard about Glazek and Wilson approach, but I haven\'t studied it well.\n>>Could you recommend some reading for a beginner? Thanks.\n>\n>\n> It is a mistake not to study closely competing approaches, especially\n> if you want to revolutionize physics...\n>\n> Type \'similarity renormalization\' into http://scholar.google.com/\n> and look at the frequently cited papers and the citing papers.\n> One of the first few located is the seminal paper\n> S.D. Glazek and K.G. Wilson,\n> Phys. Rev. D 48, 5863=965872 (1993).\n> It pays to make some thorough literature searches...\n\nThanks for the reference and good advice.\n\nEugene.\n\n>\n>\n> Arnold Neumaier\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Your arguments are of the kind that polar coordinates are wrong since their
>>>effects are not measurable and things look different in cartesina
>>>coordinates.
>>
>>There is no analogy between space translations of observers and change
>>to polar coordinates. The observer translated in space is a real
>>observer, and the differences in observations of two observers shifted
>>wrt to each other are just as real.
>>
>>You are translated in space with respect to me.
>
>
> I am talking about different descriptions of the same physical situation,
> not about a physical rotation of one observer. All observers in my
> discussion are fictitious, just there to fix a coordinate system.

That could be the reason of our disagreements. I was always talking
about real observers performing measurements of real observables on
physical systems. It seems that you were talking about fictitious
observers and non-observable space-time coordinates in the Minkowski
space.

>
>
>
>>Some of these transformations are rather trivial. It is easy to find
>>such transformations in the case of space translations and rotations.
>>They are kinematical. It is very difficult (but possible) to find
>>the transformations of observables wrt time translations and boosts.
>>They are dynamical.
>
>
>>But in experiment we do not measure fields. We always measure
>>particles (their positions, momenta, spins, etc.).
>
>
> We think differently about these things and are only repeating ourselves.
> No point to continue.
>
>
>
>>>There are no divergences in the renormalized S-matrix of standard QED.
>>>Also, there is the similarity renormalization program of Glazek and Wilson
>>>that has renormalized Hamiltonians, though not as explicitly as you.
>>
>>I heard about Glazek and Wilson approach, but I haven't studied it well.
>>Could you recommend some reading for a beginner? Thanks.
>
>
> It is a mistake not to study closely competing approaches, especially
> if you want to revolutionize physics...
>
> Type 'similarity renormalization' into http://scholar.google.com/
> and look at the frequently cited papers and the citing papers.
> One of the first few located is the seminal paper
> S.D. Glazek and K.G. Wilson,
> Phys. Rev. D 48, 5863=965872 (1993).
> It pays to make some thorough literature searches...

Thanks for the reference and good advice.

Eugene.

>
>
> Arnold Neumaier
>

Arnold Neumaier

Dec14-04, 01:19 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>go out of business if it permitted its employees to\nact otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system,\nworkers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise,\notherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the\nsystem. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible\nfor most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in\nindustrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only\nlimited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation,\nhe is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system\nand conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a\nnew technology, the small-business person often has to use that\ntechnology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.\n\n\n\nTHE \'BAD\' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE \'GOOD\' PARTS\n\n\n\n121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in\nfavor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in\nwhich all parts are dependent on one another. You can\'t get rid of the\n"bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take\nmodern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on\nprogress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other\nfields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech\nequipment that can be made available only by a technologically\nprogressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can\'t have much\nprogress in medicine without the whole technological system and\neverything that goes with it.\n\n122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of\nthe technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils.\nSuppose for example th\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>go out of business if it permitted its employees to
act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system,
workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise,
otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the
system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible
for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in
industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only
limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation,
he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system
and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a
new technology, the small-business person often has to use that
technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.

THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS

121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in
favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in
which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the
"bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take
modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on
progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other
fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech
equipment that can be made available only by a technologically
progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much
progress in medicine without the whole technological system and
everything that goes with it.

122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of
the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils.
Suppose for example th

Eckard Blumschein

Dec16-04, 08:09 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On 12/11/2004 10:07 AM, Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n\n> There is experimental area where my approach is doing much better.\n> You are probably familiar with experiments by Nimtz, Chiao, Ranfagni,\n> and others concerning superluminal propagation of evanescent light\n> and microwaves. Any kind of superluminal propagation is forbidden\n> by Einstein\'s special relativity. So, there is a clear contradiction.\n>\n> Though I do not have any quantitative description, I think my\n> approach can qualitatively explain these experiments. In my view,\n> the "evanescent light" or "near-field light" is nothing but\n> instantaneous Coulomb and magnetic potentials generated by\n> oscillating particles of the substance in with the "real"\n> (transverse) light propagates. These potentials propagate\n> instantaneously, and if the dynamical character of boosts is\n> accepted, such superluminality does not contradict causality.\n\nNimtz et al. refer to so called precursors which were perhaps first\ndescribed by Arno Sommerfeld. Similar effects in numerics gave rise to\nupwind differencing. In signal processing, a portion of output appearing\nbefore the belonging input is also called a precursor.\nIt is the elusive freedom to perform any time-shift that makes ideal\nfilters non-causal. Actually, shift into future contradicts causality.\n\nIn other words: Improper use of complex Fourier transform and wrong\ninterpretation is to blame for apparent superluminality. Evanescent\ncomponents are just fictitious ones. In order to get his self-deceiving\nresults, Nimtz needs complex components. Try an equivalent real-valued\ndescription, and all superluminality will disappear.\n\nEckard Blumschein\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On 12/11/2004 10:07 AM, Eugene Stefanovich wrote:

> There is experimental area where my approach is doing much better.
> You are probably familiar with experiments by Nimtz, Chiao, Ranfagni,
> and others concerning superluminal propagation of evanescent light
> and microwaves. Any kind of superluminal propagation is forbidden
> by Einstein's special relativity. So, there is a clear contradiction.
>
> Though I do not have any quantitative description, I think my
> approach can qualitatively explain these experiments. In my view,
> the "evanescent light" or "near-field light" is nothing but
> instantaneous Coulomb and magnetic potentials generated by
> oscillating particles of the substance in with the "real"
> (transverse) light propagates. These potentials propagate
> instantaneously, and if the dynamical character of boosts is
> accepted, such superluminality does not contradict causality.

Nimtz et al. refer to so called precursors which were perhaps first
described by Arno Sommerfeld. Similar effects in numerics gave rise to
upwind differencing. In signal processing, a portion of output appearing
before the belonging input is also called a precursor.
It is the elusive freedom to perform any time-shift that makes ideal
filters non-causal. Actually, shift into future contradicts causality.

In other words: Improper use of complex Fourier transform and wrong
interpretation is to blame for apparent superluminality. Evanescent
components are just fictitious ones. In order to get his self-deceiving
results, Nimtz needs complex components. Try an equivalent real-valued
description, and all superluminality will disappear.

Eckard Blumschein

Eugene Stefanovich

Dec17-04, 07:51 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Eckard Blumschein wrote:\n> On 12/11/2004 10:07 AM, Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n>\n>\n>>There is experimental area where my approach is doing much better.\n>>You are probably familiar with experiments by Nimtz, Chiao, Ranfagni,\n>>and others concerning superluminal propagation of evanescent light\n>>and microwaves. Any kind of superluminal propagation is forbidden\n>>by Einstein\'s special relativity. So, there is a clear contradiction.\n>>\n>>Though I do not have any quantitative description, I think my\n>>approach can qualitatively explain these experiments. In my view,\n>>the "evanescent light" or "near-field light" is nothing but\n>>instantaneous Coulomb and magnetic potentials generated by\n>>oscillating particles of the substance in with the "real"\n>>(transverse) light propagates. These potentials propagate\n>>instantaneously, and if the dynamical character of boosts is\n>>accepted, such superluminality does not contradict causality.\n>\n>\n> Nimtz et al. refer to so called precursors which were perhaps first\n> described by Arno Sommerfeld. Similar effects in numerics gave rise to\n> upwind differencing. In signal processing, a portion of output appearing\n> before the belonging input is also called a precursor.\n> It is the elusive freedom to perform any time-shift that makes ideal\n> filters non-causal. Actually, shift into future contradicts causality.\n>\n> In other words: Improper use of complex Fourier transform and wrong\n> interpretation is to blame for apparent superluminality. Evanescent\n> components are just fictitious ones. In order to get his self-deceiving\n> results, Nimtz needs complex components. Try an equivalent real-valued\n> description, and all superluminality will disappear.\n>\n> Eckard Blumschein\n>\n\nThe fact that light or microwave pulses propagate through photonic gaps\nfaster than through the air is an experimental fact, which does not\ndepend on what Fourier transforms are used. I think, nobody questions\nthe validity of experiments by Nimtz and others. The debate rages around\nthe question what constitutes a signal. Is it the front of the pulse,\nor its maximum, or whatever. I do not have any desire to participate in\nthis debate.\n\nAll I am saying is that according to my approach, the light front\n*must* jump superluminally across the gap in FTIR experiment.\nI am also saying that there is no contradiction with causality,\nbecause in my approach Lorentz transformations become\ninteraction-dependent, and simple "proof" of the "grandfather paradox"\ndoes not work.\n\nOn the other hand, I understand that the notion of the "light front"\nis not well-defined in quantum mechanics. There is a well-known effect\nof superluminal spreading of wave packets. So, if a photon was localized\ninside some restricted volume at time t=0, then at next time instant\nthere is a nonzero probability to find it anywhere in the Universe.\n\nEugene.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Eckard Blumschein wrote:
> On 12/11/2004 10:07 AM, Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>
>>There is experimental area where my approach is doing much better.
>>You are probably familiar with experiments by Nimtz, Chiao, Ranfagni,
>>and others concerning superluminal propagation of evanescent light
>>and microwaves. Any kind of superluminal propagation is forbidden
>>by Einstein's special relativity. So, there is a clear contradiction.
>>
>>Though I do not have any quantitative description, I think my
>>approach can qualitatively explain these experiments. In my view,
>>the "evanescent light" or "near-field light" is nothing but
>>instantaneous Coulomb and magnetic potentials generated by
>>oscillating particles of the substance in with the "real"
>>(transverse) light propagates. These potentials propagate
>>instantaneously, and if the dynamical character of boosts is
>>accepted, such superluminality does not contradict causality.
>
>
> Nimtz et al. refer to so called precursors which were perhaps first
> described by Arno Sommerfeld. Similar effects in numerics gave rise to
> upwind differencing. In signal processing, a portion of output appearing
> before the belonging input is also called a precursor.
> It is the elusive freedom to perform any time-shift that makes ideal
> filters non-causal. Actually, shift into future contradicts causality.
>
> In other words: Improper use of complex Fourier transform and wrong
> interpretation is to blame for apparent superluminality. Evanescent
> components are just fictitious ones. In order to get his self-deceiving
> results, Nimtz needs complex components. Try an equivalent real-valued
> description, and all superluminality will disappear.
>
> Eckard Blumschein
>

The fact that light or microwave pulses propagate through photonic gaps
faster than through the air is an experimental fact, which does not
depend on what Fourier transforms are used. I think, nobody questions
the validity of experiments by Nimtz and others. The debate rages around
the question what constitutes a signal. Is it the front of the pulse,
or its maximum, or whatever. I do not have any desire to participate in
this debate.

All I am saying is that according to my approach, the light front
*must* jump superluminally across the gap in FTIR experiment.
I am also saying that there is no contradiction with causality,
because in my approach Lorentz transformations become
interaction-dependent, and simple "proof" of the "grandfather paradox"
does not work.

On the other hand, I understand that the notion of the "light front"
is not well-defined in quantum mechanics. There is a well-known effect
of superluminal spreading of wave packets. So, if a photon was localized
inside some restricted volume at time t=0, then at next time instant
there is a nonzero probability to find it anywhere in the Universe.

Eugene.

Arnold Neumaier

Dec17-04, 07:52 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n> Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n\n>>I am talking about different descriptions of the same physical situation,\n>>not about a physical rotation of one observer. All observers in my\n>>discussion are fictitious, just there to fix a coordinate system.\n>\n> That could be the reason of our disagreements. I was always talking\n> about real observers performing measurements of real observables on\n> physical systems. It seems that you were talking about fictitious\n> observers and non-observable space-time coordinates in the Minkowski\n> space.\n\nBut one can consistently only talk about fictitious observers, unless\none has a way how to model a real observer interacting in one\'s theory.\nThis requires a quantum measurement theory which has its own difficulties.\nRelativistic measurement theory is very poorly developed; so I do not\ntrust handwaving arguments that make claims about what real observers\nwould measure. This is fraught with difficulties.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:

>>I am talking about different descriptions of the same physical situation,
>>not about a physical rotation of one observer. All observers in my
>>discussion are fictitious, just there to fix a coordinate system.
>
> That could be the reason of our disagreements. I was always talking
> about real observers performing measurements of real observables on
> physical systems. It seems that you were talking about fictitious
> observers and non-observable space-time coordinates in the Minkowski
> space.

But one can consistently only talk about fictitious observers, unless
one has a way how to model a real observer interacting in one's theory.
This requires a quantum measurement theory which has its own difficulties.
Relativistic measurement theory is very poorly developed; so I do not
trust handwaving arguments that make claims about what real observers
would measure. This is fraught with difficulties.

Arnold Neumaier

Eckard Blumschein

Dec19-04, 06:47 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On 12/17/2004 2:51 PM, Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n> Eckard Blumschein wrote:\n>> On 12/11/2004 10:07 AM, Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n>>\n\n>> Nimtz et al. refer to so called precursors which were perhaps first\n>> described by Arno Sommerfeld. Similar effects in numerics gave rise to\n>> upwind differencing. In signal processing, a portion of output appearing\n>> before the belonging input is also called a precursor.\n>> It is the elusive freedom to perform any time-shift that makes ideal\n>> filters non-causal. Actually, shift into future contradicts causality.\n>>\n>> In other words: Improper use of complex Fourier transform and wrong\n>> interpretation is to blame for apparent superluminality. Evanescent\n>> components are just fictitious ones. In order to get his self-deceiving\n>> results, Nimtz needs complex components. Try an equivalent real-valued\n>> description, and all superluminality will disappear.\n>>\n>\n> The fact that light or microwave pulses propagate through photonic gaps\n> faster than through the air is an experimental fact, which does not\n> depend on what Fourier transforms are used.\n\nNitz\'s experimental facts are obviously wrong interpretations based on\nnot so obviously wrong assumptions.\n\n\n> I think, nobody questions\n> the validity of experiments by Nimtz and others. The debate rages around\n\nvalidity, i.e.,\n\n> the question what constitutes a signal. Is it the front of the pulse,\n> or its maximum, or whatever. I do not have any desire to participate in\n> this debate.\n\nIn that case abstain from any judgement.\n\n\n> All I am saying is that according to my approach, the light front\n> *must* jump superluminally across the gap in FTIR experiment.\n\nReally?\n\n\n> On the other hand, I understand that the notion of the "light front"\n> is not well-defined in quantum mechanics. There is a well-known effect\n> of superluminal spreading of wave packets.\n\nSince you seem to be the author of this idea you can certainly point me\nto pertaining evidence.\n\n> So, if a photon was localized\n> inside some restricted volume at time t=0, then at next time instant\n> there is a nonzero probability to find it anywhere in the Universe.\n\nSorry, what is the next time instant?\n\nEckard\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On 12/17/2004 2:51 PM, Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
> Eckard Blumschein wrote:
>> On 12/11/2004 10:07 AM, Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>>

>> Nimtz et al. refer to so called precursors which were perhaps first
>> described by Arno Sommerfeld. Similar effects in numerics gave rise to
>> upwind differencing. In signal processing, a portion of output appearing
>> before the belonging input is also called a precursor.
>> It is the elusive freedom to perform any time-shift that makes ideal
>> filters non-causal. Actually, shift into future contradicts causality.
>>
>> In other words: Improper use of complex Fourier transform and wrong
>> interpretation is to blame for apparent superluminality. Evanescent
>> components are just fictitious ones. In order to get his self-deceiving
>> results, Nimtz needs complex components. Try an equivalent real-valued
>> description, and all superluminality will disappear.
>>
>
> The fact that light or microwave pulses propagate through photonic gaps
> faster than through the air is an experimental fact, which does not
> depend on what Fourier transforms are used.

Nitz's experimental facts are obviously wrong interpretations based on
not so obviously wrong assumptions.

> I think, nobody questions
> the validity of experiments by Nimtz and others. The debate rages around

validity, i.e.,

> the question what constitutes a signal. Is it the front of the pulse,
> or its maximum, or whatever. I do not have any desire to participate in
> this debate.

In that case abstain from any judgement.

> All I am saying is that according to my approach, the light front
> *must* jump superluminally across the gap in FTIR experiment.

Really?

> On the other hand, I understand that the notion of the "light front"
> is not well-defined in quantum mechanics. There is a well-known effect
> of superluminal spreading of wave packets.

Since you seem to be the author of this idea you can certainly point me
to pertaining evidence.

> So, if a photon was localized
> inside some restricted volume at time t=0, then at next time instant
> there is a nonzero probability to find it anywhere in the Universe.

Sorry, what is the next time instant?

Eckard

Eugene Stefanovich

Dec19-04, 06:51 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n>\n>>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>\n>\n>>>I am talking about different descriptions of the same physical situation,\n>>>not about a physical rotation of one observer. All observers in my\n>>>discussion are fictitious, just there to fix a coordinate system.\n>>\n>>That could be the reason of our disagreements. I was always talking\n>>about real observers performing measurements of real observables on\n>>physical systems. It seems that you were talking about fictitious\n>>observers and non-observable space-time coordinates in the Minkowski\n>>space.\n>\n>\n> But one can consistently only talk about fictitious observers, unless\n> one has a way how to model a real observer interacting in one\'s theory.\n> This requires a quantum measurement theory which has its own difficulties.\n> Relativistic measurement theory is very poorly developed; so I do not\n> trust handwaving arguments that make claims about what real observers\n> would measure. This is fraught with difficulties.\n>\n>\n> Arnold Neumaier\n>\n\nThere is nothing subtle or "poorly developed" about real flesh-and-blood\nobservers I was talking about. My arguments referred to classical\nobservers measuring macroscopic effects. It should be abundantly clear\nfrom our everyday experience that translations and rotations of such\nobservers do not affect the appearance of the internal structure of any\nobserved system. It should be clear that translations and rotations are\nkinematical (or "geometrical") transformations. It is just as clear that\ntime translations are dynamical. You have no other choice but to admit\nthat boosts should be dynamical as well.\n\nEugene Stefanovich.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
>
>>>I am talking about different descriptions of the same physical situation,
>>>not about a physical rotation of one observer. All observers in my
>>>discussion are fictitious, just there to fix a coordinate system.
>>
>>That could be the reason of our disagreements. I was always talking
>>about real observers performing measurements of real observables on
>>physical systems. It seems that you were talking about fictitious
>>observers and non-observable space-time coordinates in the Minkowski
>>space.
>
>
> But one can consistently only talk about fictitious observers, unless
> one has a way how to model a real observer interacting in one's theory.
> This requires a quantum measurement theory which has its own difficulties.
> Relativistic measurement theory is very poorly developed; so I do not
> trust handwaving arguments that make claims about what real observers
> would measure. This is fraught with difficulties.
>
>
> Arnold Neumaier
>

There is nothing subtle or "poorly developed" about real flesh-and-blood
observers I was talking about. My arguments referred to classical
observers measuring macroscopic effects. It should be abundantly clear
from our everyday experience that translations and rotations of such
observers do not affect the appearance of the internal structure of any
observed system. It should be clear that translations and rotations are
kinematical (or "geometrical") transformations. It is just as clear that
time translations are dynamical. You have no other choice but to admit
that boosts should be dynamical as well.

Eugene Stefanovich.

Arnold Neumaier

Dec20-04, 10:05 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n> Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n\n>>But one can consistently only talk about fictitious observers, unless\n>>one has a way how to model a real observer interacting in one\'s theory.\n>>This requires a quantum measurement theory which has its own difficulties.\n>>Relativistic measurement theory is very poorly developed; so I do not\n>>trust handwaving arguments that make claims about what real observers\n>>would measure. This is fraught with difficulties.\n>\n> There is nothing subtle or "poorly developed" about real flesh-and-blood\n> observers I was talking about. My arguments referred to classical\n> observers measuring macroscopic effects.\n\nBut these observers also measure macroscopic electromagnetic fields which\ndon\'t exist in your setting. You need to embed your theory into a\nframework where such macroscopic observers can exist - as multiparticle\nstates. Only then one will be able to see to which extent your superluminal\ninteraction can be consistently observed.\n\n\n\nArnold Beumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:

>>But one can consistently only talk about fictitious observers, unless
>>one has a way how to model a real observer interacting in one's theory.
>>This requires a quantum measurement theory which has its own difficulties.
>>Relativistic measurement theory is very poorly developed; so I do not
>>trust handwaving arguments that make claims about what real observers
>>would measure. This is fraught with difficulties.
>
> There is nothing subtle or "poorly developed" about real flesh-and-blood
> observers I was talking about. My arguments referred to classical
> observers measuring macroscopic effects.

But these observers also measure macroscopic electromagnetic fields which
don't exist in your setting. You need to embed your theory into a
framework where such macroscopic observers can exist - as multiparticle
states. Only then one will be able to see to which extent your superluminal
interaction can be consistently observed.

Arnold Beumaier

Eugene Stefanovich

Dec22-04, 05:57 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n>\n>>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>\n>\n>>>But one can consistently only talk about fictitious observers, unless\n>>>one has a way how to model a real observer interacting in one\'s theory.\n>>>This requires a quantum measurement theory which has its own difficulties.\n>>>Relativistic measurement theory is very poorly developed; so I do not\n>>>trust handwaving arguments that make claims about what real observers\n>>>would measure. This is fraught with difficulties.\n>>\n>>There is nothing subtle or "poorly developed" about real flesh-and-blood\n>>observers I was talking about. My arguments referred to classical\n>>observers measuring macroscopic effects.\n>\n>\n> But these observers also measure macroscopic electromagnetic fields which\n> don\'t exist in your setting.\n\nThere are direct Coulomb and magnetic forces between charged particles\nin my approach. We can even describe them as electric and magnetic\n"fields" rigidly attached to charged particles. So, there is no problem\nwith describing macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena in my theory.\nThis description would be different from Maxwell\'s theory, but pretty\nclose, I would expect.\n\n\n> You need to embed your theory into a\n> framework where such macroscopic observers can exist - as multiparticle\n> states. Only then one will be able to see to which extent your superluminal\n> interaction can be consistently observed.\n\nThe superluminal interactions have been mesured already in experiments\nwith "evanescent waves" by Chiao, Nimtz, and others. My explanation is\nthat these evanescent waves are exactly the instantaneous Coulomb and\nmagnetic "fields" between charged particles. The superluminal\npropagation of these "fields" does not contradict causality, as I\nexplained many times.\n\nEugene Stefanovich.\n\n\n\n>\n>\n>\n> Arnold Beumaier\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
>
>>>But one can consistently only talk about fictitious observers, unless
>>>one has a way how to model a real observer interacting in one's theory.
>>>This requires a quantum measurement theory which has its own difficulties.
>>>Relativistic measurement theory is very poorly developed; so I do not
>>>trust handwaving arguments that make claims about what real observers
>>>would measure. This is fraught with difficulties.
>>
>>There is nothing subtle or "poorly developed" about real flesh-and-blood
>>observers I was talking about. My arguments referred to classical
>>observers measuring macroscopic effects.
>
>
> But these observers also measure macroscopic electromagnetic fields which
> don't exist in your setting.

There are direct Coulomb and magnetic forces between charged particles
in my approach. We can even describe them as electric and magnetic
"fields" rigidly attached to charged particles. So, there is no problem
with describing macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena in my theory.
This description would be different from Maxwell's theory, but pretty
close, I would expect.

> You need to embed your theory into a
> framework where such macroscopic observers can exist - as multiparticle
> states. Only then one will be able to see to which extent your superluminal
> interaction can be consistently observed.

The superluminal interactions have been mesured already in experiments
with "evanescent waves" by Chiao, Nimtz, and others. My explanation is
that these evanescent waves are exactly the instantaneous Coulomb and
magnetic "fields" between charged particles. The superluminal
propagation of these "fields" does not contradict causality, as I
explained many times.

Eugene Stefanovich.

>
>
>
> Arnold Beumaier
>