Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: four-position product needs to be changed

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    473

    Lightbulb four-position product needs to be changed

    Hi guys,
    I took me some time but I finally found some fresh idea what we could do to link field phenomena with space-time definition.

    I wait for reviewer comments for the article, but - as always - I would be glad to discuss my idea with you.

    First part of my article below
    __________________________________________


    To simplyfy calculations we assume c=1.

    In Special Relativity four-position gives proper-time as product of
    (1)

    Taking proper-time derivative on above one gets
    (2)

    One may easy show, that present four-position product definition excludes any filed existence, no matter how we define field!

    From (1) one may easy derive
    (3)

    thus one may easy transform (2) to
    (4)

    From above using easy calculations one may get
    (5)

    where is perpendicular component of velocity.

    Therefore for radial move () we get

    (6)

    Substituting above to (2) one gets
    (7)

    One may easy calculate taking proper-time derivative on above, that for such , time component of four-acceleration vanishes
    (8)

    Since time component of four-acceleration vanishes only if there is lack of acceleration (resultant acceleration vanishes) so we have just proved that present four-position product definition excludes any acceleration for radial move.

    But it is known, that e.g. for radial move of charged particles acceleration exists... And the same time, no matter how we define field, present four-position product definition excludes acceleration for radial move.

    It is crucial to understand, that even if one artificially adds a field to Lagrangian, present four-position product definition excludes radial acceleration by definition.

    So we need to change somehow four-position product in Special Relativity to ensure possibility of the field presence.

    In the next post I propose some solution.
    Last edited by pogono; 2019-May-25 at 07:44 PM.
    ..breakthrough is not just next ordinary step...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    473
    Let us then redefine four-position product following way

    (9)

    where S is normalized (divided by mc) action (Hamiltonian principal function).

    We may now assume, that is just specific case where there is no field and no field-related acceleration in the space-time. Let us also assume that in general

    (10)

    where represents presence of the field and produces generalized field four-vector

    (11)

    Taking four-gradient on (9) one gets

    (12)

    where is normalized, generalized four-momentum.

    One should ask, how we can ensure for such four-position product, that metric equation remains correct. Let us propose

    (13)

    what may be treated as part of extended SR definition and ensures that generalized momentum works the way we expect.

    One may easy show, that such generalized four-momentum fulfills condition

    (14)

    where L is normalized Lagrangian (Lagrangian divided by mc). So if we take proper-time derivative on (12) we get

    (15)

    where is four-acceleration and we use property giving that

    (15a)

    Let us introduce electromagnetic field four-potential defined as

    (16)

    All we need now to link electromagnetism with space-time definition is to request that

    (17) where q is for charge

    It also simplifies a lot field unification with General Relativity theory. We may generalize above reasoning to covariant derivatives and curvilinear coordinates and expect that four-position product will be just Einstein-Hilbert action.

    How do you like it?

    P.S.
    Whole article preprint you may find on my researchgate profile
    Last edited by pogono; 2019-May-25 at 08:19 PM.
    ..breakthrough is not just next ordinary step...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by pogono View Post
    Hi guys,
    I took me some time but I finally found some fresh idea what we could do to link field phenomena with space-time definition.

    I wait for reviewer comments for the article, but - as always - I would be glad to discuss my idea with you.

    First part of my article below
    __________________________________________


    To simplyfy calculations we assume c=1.

    In Special Relativity four-position gives proper-time as product of
    (1)

    Taking proper-time derivative on above one gets
    (2)

    One may easy show, that present four-position product definition excludes any filed existence, no matter how we define field!

    From (1) one may easy derive
    (3)

    thus one may easy transform (2) to
    (4)
    Basic algebra shows that (4) is incompatible with (3).
    So, I cannot take the remainder of handwaving seriously.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by pogono View Post
    Hi guys,


    From above using easy calculations one may get
    (5)



    .
    The units on the LHS do not match the ones on the RHS. This makes your numerology hard to take seriously.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by giorgio View Post
    The units on the LHS do not match the ones on the RHS. This makes your numerology hard to take seriously.
    Hi giorgio.
    Thanks for the first question.

    Calling math "numerology" is a bit rude and ancient Greeks, who invented most of basic math, could feel offended.
    But I understand that not everyone has to be familiar with such ancient inventions, so let me help you to go through these equations.

    From (2) you get:

    (E1)

    You divide both sides by

    to get

    (E2)

    Raising above to the square you get

    (E3)

    One knows form Special Relativity four-position product definition - in oryginal equation (1) - that

    (E4)

    what yields:

    (E5)

    (if it is not clear why, I may explain in separated post)

    One knows from basics of Special Relativity that
    Since we assumed that c=1 (to simplify calculations) we may note this as just

    (E6)

    So, substituting (E5) and (E6) to equation (E3) we get oryginal equation (4)

    (4)

    If you calculate above you get

    (E7)

    One may rewrite above as

    (E8)

    Now, one may multiply above by to get

    (E9)

    -----------
    Now comes the hardest part because we have to use concept of vectors and its properties.

    One may rewrite (E9) as

    (E10)

    (if this is unclear - let me know and I will explain in separated post)

    Next, one knows from basic vector calculus rules, that:

    (E11)

    where:

    u - velocity
    - radial component of velocity
    - perpendicular component of velocity

    (if this is unclear - let me know and I will explain in separated post)

    One also knows from basic vector calculus, that:

    (E12)

    (if this is unclear - let me know and I will explain in separated post)

    Joining knowledge from (E11) and (E12) one gets

    (E13)

    (if this is unclear - let me know and I will explain in separated post)

    Therefore using (E13) one may rewrite equation (E10) as oryginal equation (5)

    (5)


    I hope it helps.

    In case of problems with other equations I may recommend some good math textbooks for elementary schools.
    You may find inside explanation for concepts of vectors, fractions and quadratic equations we use here.
    Last edited by pogono; 2019-May-27 at 03:20 AM. Reason: gramma
    ..breakthrough is not just next ordinary step...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by pogono View Post
    Hi giorgio.
    Thanks for the first question.

    Calling math "numerology" is a bit rude and ancient Greeks, who invented most of basic math, could feel offended.
    But I understand that not everyone has to be familiar with such ancient inventions, so let me help you to go through these equations.

    From (2) you get:

    (E1)
    You are mixing something that has dimension of time with something that has dimension of distance multiplied by speed. Your "stuff" is getting worse and worse. No point in looking at the rest, this mistakes are piling up.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by giorgio View Post
    You are mixing something that has dimension of time with something that has dimension of distance multiplied by speed. Your "stuff" is getting worse and worse. No point in looking at the rest, this mistakes are piling up.
    Hi,
    i suppose you missed assumption from the begining saying that to simplify calculations we assume that light speed c=1.

    This assumption makes dimensions work fine in all above equations.

    In case you are not familar with the role of constant "c" in equations:
    - it says what is the proportion beetween distance and time dimension (we assume that it is 1 to make calculations easier)
    - there is about million physical articles with assumption c=1 made to simplify calculations

    In case you are not familiar with the role of any constanst in equation:
    - you may recalculate all above equations using "c" in equations
    - you may be surprised, bu it still work same fine

    Dear mods,
    I am here to explain my theory - not basic math or elementary school textbooks issues in physics.
    Please, check if giorgio is not socket puppet of some known troll.
    ..breakthrough is not just next ordinary step...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,473
    Quote Originally Posted by pogono View Post
    Dear mods,
    I am here to explain my theory - not basic math or elementary school textbooks issues in physics.
    Please, check if giorgio is not socket puppet of some known troll.
    If you have a concern, use the report button, lower left.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by pogono View Post


    To simplyfy calculations we assume c=1.

    In Special Relativity four-position gives proper-time as product of
    (1)



    From (1) one may easy derive
    (3)
    Here is another error, right off the bat. Contrary to your claim, (3) is obviously false. To help you, doesn't even make sense, physically. What does make sense is . Your paper is littered with this type of mistake.
    Last edited by giorgio; 2019-May-27 at 02:06 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by pogono View Post

    Substituting above to (2) one gets
    (7)

    One may easy calculate taking proper-time derivative on above, that for such , time component of four-acceleration vanishes
    (8)

    Since time component of four-acceleration vanishes only if there is lack of acceleration (resultant acceleration vanishes) so we have just proved that present four-position product definition excludes any acceleration for radial move.
    You get the above erroneous result because you do not understand what represents (see my posts above[/tex].

    Q1: pogono, what does represent?

    But it is known, that e.g. for radial move of charged particles acceleration exists... And the same time, no matter how we define field, present four-position product definition excludes acceleration for radial move.
    You arrive to this incorrect conclusion because of your basic misunderstandings.


    So we need to change somehow four-position product in Special Relativity to ensure possibility of the field presence.
    "We" do not need to change anything. You, need to figure out your mistakes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by giorgio View Post
    Here is another error, right off the bat. Contrary to your claim, (3) is obviously false. To help you, doesn't even make sense, physically. What does make sense is . Your paper is littered with this type of mistake.
    Dear macaw,
    it makes sense. It is just fraction.
    In math you may make fractions with any numbers except 0 in denominator.

    Quote Originally Posted by giorgio View Post
    Q1: pogono, what does represent?
    You may read about it here:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

    I hope it helps.
    ..breakthrough is not just next ordinary step...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by pogono View Post
    Dear macaw,
    it makes sense. It is just fraction.
    In math you may make fractions with any numbers except 0 in denominator.
    Would you please answer Q1?
    To help you, here is an auxiliary question:
    Q2: Does the metric (1) work for accelerated particles? Or not?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    If you have a concern, use the report button, lower left.
    Thanks DaveC426913
    ..breakthrough is not just next ordinary step...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by pogono View Post
    Dear macaw,
    it makes sense. It is just fraction.
    In math you may make fractions with any numbers except 0 in denominator.



    You may read about it here:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

    I hope it helps.
    No, it doesn't, the website contradicts your attempt at defining (and, more seriously) using . Please answer the questions I put to you.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,340
    Pogono has been suspended, again, for rudeness and publicly accusing another member of being a sockpuppet, instead of using the report button or PM.
    As it happens, the accused member does turn out to be a sockpuppet of a previously banned member and has been treated accordingly.

    This thread will remain closed, if there is a good reason to reopen it, please use the report button.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •