Response to a note!
This is in response to an e-mail message I received from chronos. I hope he will forgive me for posting my response. I feel the issues he brings up are exactly the issues most of the people here are having trouble with. In particular, the idea that I am presenting a theory which is the wrong perspective from the word go! I am presenting straight logical deduction only!
--- chronos wrote:
> Greetings again, Dick [pardon the informality]
There is nothing wrong with informality. Formality means following a prescribed procedure and using prescribed procedures implies lack of thought and we don't want to do that!
> The short and easy part of my 'bumps in the rug'
> deal with quantum physics.
> I pretty much understand and agree with your
> thoughts on relativity. I am,
> however, vaguely uncomfortable with the quantum
> physics implications.
First, I believe you are making a mistake in your understanding of what I am doing. You are presuming I am proposing a theory which I am not! What I am proposing is a more objective picture of what theories in general are talking about.
There are three very different aspects of quantum physics (or any science for that matter). First, there is the basis of the equations brought forth as the field of quantum physics. The route by which one arrives at these equations as rational representations of reality. Second, there is the interpretation of those equations. What the various terms represent and how one is to interpret the solutions of those equations. And finally, the actual solutions of the equations and comparison of those solutions to reality.[/color]
The second two are the central issue of the experiments. Given the interpretation of the relationships implied by the equations, one can solve the equations and check to see if consistency in interpretation agrees with reality. That operation is called an experiment.
My concern is almost entirely with the first aspect: the basis of the equations themselves. From my perspective, the experiments have already been done. If you want to understand the neatness of my attack, you must understand the standard foundations behind the quantum physics approach. This is hard to find in most texts.
The best reference I can come up with is Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics". If you follow the development of Hamilton's equations of motion through to Hamilton-Jacobi theory, the foundations of standard quantum mechanics become quite obvious. When I say the foundations are obvious, I mean that the fundamental equations come directly from sophisticated problem solution procedures of classical mechanics.
In glancing at the book, I have to quote Goldstein from the opening of the chapter on "The Hamilton Equations of Motion": "Nothing new is added to the physics involved; we simply gain another (and more powerful) method of working with the physical principles already established."
That is the issue of my work: "Nothing new is added to the physics involved (that is, other than removal of the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics); we simply gain another (and more powerful: i.e., the conflict referred to is gone) method of working with the physical principles already established".
When Maxwell came up with his equations, a new solution appeared which was not available from the known relationships available prior to his act. Just for the fun of it, think about what the situation would have been if experimentalists had already discovered the existence of the "change in \vec{E} produces \vec{B} phenomena" (that is the required effect to produce radiation) and established light as an electromagnetic phenomena. Would that have made Maxwell's equations a waste of time?
The reduction of a complex situation to a simple relationship is always of value. If you read Chapter II and on of my presentation, I show that most of the fundamental equations of modern physics are approximations to my equation under exactly the approximations used to obtain those results by the physics community. Either what I say is true or false. If it is false please show me where I have made my error. If it is true, my picture is certainly much simpler than the standard picture.
> elaborate and propose an experiment. I do that all
> the time. If I dare
> propose a weird idea, the burden of proof is on me
> to convince everyone else
> without a grant or shred of support
Now you want an experiment. Well there does happen to be one (barring a specific error in my deductions). My solution to the problem of General Relativity yields a slightly different solution for a spherically symmetric gravitational field. Einstein's solution differs from Newton's by deviating from an inverse square field by a factor proportional to \frac{2}{c^2} \phi. My solution has all the terms produced by Einstein's theory plus one more term. My solution differs from Einstein's by a deviation in apparent radial velocity proportional to that same factor. Now "apparent radial velocity" is not an easy thing to measure, not without a lot of assumptions anyway.
Now that means it will only be observable when the radial velocity is large and the radius is small; not an easy situation to see. However, a little algebra will show that the effect can be seen as an apparent non conservation of angular momentum in a Newtonian solution for a negligibly small field situation (negligible to the extent that the trajectory is approximately straight). I am thinking that the "frame dragging" experiment currently being performed might be capable of resolving that term.
I replied to your note here so others could see my answers to your excellent questions. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Have fun -- Dick
?