Re: Paper Series: Shift-symmetry in Einstein’s Universe

On 07/13/2024 03:08 PM, gharnagel wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:17:32 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
Hmm... so now some scientists, physicists, and mathematicians
(I hesitate to call them, "researchers") say they've written
a formalism where the superluminal or tachyonic isn't
imcompatible with Special Relativity, after all.
>
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015006

>
Just published last month, but the Figure 1 recalls the
"reinterpretation" "principle" (RIP) of Bilaniuk, Deshpanda
and Sudarshan -- which I call Rest In Peace.  Backward in
time was a BIG problem with RIP, which they endorsed to
solve the negative energy problem arising from the four-
momentum formalism: P' = eta P = gamma[E/c - pv/c, p - vE/c].
>
Unfortunately, p > E/c for tachyons, so for some values of
v/c, E' is negative.  BDS hypothesized that negative energy
meant the tachyon was traveling backward in time for certain
certain values of v and appeared to go in the opposite direction.
They didn't bother to look at the 3-momentum term which didn't
reverse under those conditions: p NEVER reverses sign in the 4MF.
>
The only credible conclusion is that the 4MF is not valid
when E' reverses sign.  This is confirmed by the fact
that if the basic equations
>
E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
>
are valid then, by the first postulate,
>
E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
>
are also valid, and E' NEVER reverses sign over the full
range -infinity < u' < infinity!  This has been explained in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
>
If you remember, DON'tknOw contended that the 4MF was a
"definition" and therefore inviolate, which, of course,
is the purest baloney since E' can be derived by applying
u = (u' + v)/(1 + uv/c^2) to E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1).
>
The problem with the 4MF when applied to tachyons is that
a quaint little mathematical rule gets violated when the
1 + uv/c^2 term goes negative.  BDS forgot about this and
thus RIP was born -- and died when it pointed out.
>
"Civilization advances by extending the number of important
operations which we can perform without thinking of them."
― Alfred North Whitehead
>
This adage has its limitations, particularly in physics.
One must make sure the tools still work when moving into
a new domain.

Hey, thanks Gary.
The abstract or article suggested "besides an initial value problem,
it gets reframed as an initial and final value problem", so making
it that it adds up to a sort of sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
With principle of least action then "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials"
is basically for that the potential fields are real and all, in the
tendencies and propensities of oscillation and restitution and
dissipation and attenuation.
The idea of tachyons as just extra-local in terms of them having
any mass at all or energy equivalent, has that the flux, of
basically infinitely many infinitely tiny particles, is still
quite different than "superluminal" as in "superluminal
relativistic jets", as are observed in the sky survey these days.
https://quest.ph.utexas.edu/sudarshan_tachyons.html
The tachyons as merely extra-local fields of potential,
for example in the superfluid, or with superconductivity
and the Meissner effect, for that matter Cerenkov and
Brehmsstrahlung, at least exhibit that a wide variety of
accessible experiments have this sort of overpressure
that is super-classical.
I.e., without even getting into General Relativity, which
has its own reasons why it's superior to Special Relativity,
in the electromagnetic and the photon domain, are
examples of what's modeled as extra-local potential
and thusly that the, "particles", of flux, are just in effect,
potential.
Maybe one way to look at it is that massy bodies are
bradyonic, yet, photons are massless. Or, you know,
"near zero".
Fritz London is I think who to consult for mathematics
of the superclassical models variously, then that basically
the skin effect and core effect reflect to entirely different
modes of operation, of the fluid models, of electricity and
liquids, with entirely opposite arrivals at the classical
in the middle.
Anyways I'll be looking at these formulas a while,
though keeping in mind that "SR is local" and so
I don't necessarily much care what SR-ians think
when I have GR to tell it what to do.
I'll agree though that "negative time" or "negative
energy" or what is not a real feature of a sort of
"minimal", model.
There's infinity and continuity, though.