🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 3, 8:59 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On May 3, 8:37 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > It his difficult to conceive a mind that could see so much
> > > more than his contemporaries yet miss so much that
> > > we take for granted.  But whatever will we do with
> > > our  20/20 hindsight if we don't use it to play tricks on
> > > ourselves.
>
> ============
>
> > Sue, I believe that people don't actually click the links and read the
> > material. I prefer to quote the relevant passages. That being said:
>
> > "By
> > seeking the simplest differential equations which can be obeyed by an
> > affine
> > correlation there is reason to hope that a generalization of the
> > gravitation
> > equations will be found which includes the laws of the electromagnetic
> > field.
> > This hope has in fact been fulfilled although I do not know whether
> > the formal
> > connection so derived can really be regarded as an enrichment of
> > physics
> > as long as it does not yield any new physical connections. In
> > particular a field
> > theory can, to my mind, only be satisfactory when it permits the
> > elementary
> > electrical bodies to be represented as solutions free from
> > singularities."
>
> I see your point. If people  are too stubborn to click
> on the links, a bit of ragged word wrapping is just what
> they deserve.  Harumph! Spare the rod... I always say.
>
> :-)
>
>
>
> > Regarding Einstein's last thought in that passage concerning the
> > requirement of a theory representing charged bodies free of
> > singularities:  From Feynman (#2 below):
>
> http://prola.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v21/i3/p425_1
>
>
>
> > "(1) There is no such concept as "the" field, an independent entity
> > with degrees of freedom of its own
> > (2) There is no action of an elementary charge upon itself and
> > consequently no problem of an infinity of energy of the
> > electromagnetic field.
> > (3) The symmetry between past and future in the prescription for the
> > fields is not a mere logical possibility, as in the usual theory, but
> > a postulational requirement."
>
> I am still scratching my head over number 3 because it
> appears often in cosmology and metaphysics.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory
>
> You nicely described a probability-amplitude in
> another post. I think many students forget the
> statistics of oscillators which are rolled into
> that expression and erroneously assume something
> physical of what was only a probability.
>
> For the Cavendish balance that won't overload
> a horse-drawn buggy, it seems of little consequence
> if time is symmetric.
>
>    * invariance with respect to time translation
>       gives the well-known law of conservation of
>       energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
>
> Atomic emission and absorption are not even
> required for induction currents so there is
> nothing to count to support a formalism that relies
> on statistics.
>
> Sue...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not convinced of number 3 either.  Perhaps it was a mistake of
Feynman's to attempt to remain consistent with Maxwell-Lorentz in his
direct particle interaction theory.  SR is after all a limiting case.
If the theory is altered so as to incorporate retarded interactions
exclusively, then the breaking of lorentz symmetry won't necessarily
bring the universe screeching to a halt.