Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[ben m]

Just google on TQFT knot theory and stop being a custodian of ignorance.

In my Universe, Googling for "TQFT knot theory" does not turn up any mainstream theory relating slipknots to muons. Nor does a Google Scholar search, arXiv search, or InspireHEP search.

Keep trying, I guess. Did you know that Google searches lead to actual documents---click one the blue text---which contain far more detailed information than, e.g., the reported number of links found. Many of these documents can be linked to individually without repeating the Google search. This is called "citing" a document. See your browser's help menu to learn how to find the "URL" of a document you wish to cite.

 

[Reality Check]

Just google on TQFT knot theory and stop being a custodian of ignorance.

Any one who does that, Farsight, will see that you are the true custodian of the delusion that TQFT describes the fantasies about electrons being photons.
Topological quantum field theory

A topological quantum field theory (or topological field theory or TQFT) is a quantum field theory which computes topological invariants.

The idiocy of citing a "Fiasco Press, Journal of Swarm Scholarship" web article should be obvious rather than the scientific literature, Farsight!
That crank takes (as he calls them) Victorian vortex models of the atom and treats them as valid. The woo is obvious but really gets blatant when he starts to talk about positive and negative "faces" in neutrons and protons attaching ! This is the delusion that the strong force is electromagnetic.

And who is David Saint John? Could it be David St. John an American poet (plenty of poems in that web page). So Farsight is just blindly believing in random Google links!

 

[Reality Check]

Huh? I've referred to Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? ....

The inanity of a Google search, Farsight, yet again ! It seems that you cannot even do scientific citations any more.

The obsession with an invalid paper remains a bad reflection on your ability to understand science , Farsight. As I noted in Farsight's imaginary spiral cartoons:

You refer to a paper and still do not understand that it is fatally flawed after 4 years! ctamblyn's post from 25th March 2010 There are two basic mistakes they have made, aside from their semi-classical treatment of the photon...

 

[uvar]

Skimming through this thread there were some things I have queries about, but I couldn't really keep track of the discussion. I don't suppose anybody can point to a recent summary?

 

[edd]

Thanks Farsight - reply appreciated. I don't think I have anything to add I haven't said before on this one.

 

[ben m]

In my Universe, Googling for "TQFT knot theory" does not turn up any mainstream theory relating slipknots to muons. Nor does a Google Scholar search, arXiv search, or InspireHEP search.

(A bunch of bickering and insults moved to AAH, but Farsight cited

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210024

in response to the above. This is relevant so I'll respond in-thread if that's OK.)

Like I said: no mainstream theory. This is another unpublished, uncited, unrefereed speculation by a never-published nonphysicist.

It's also:

a) not a TQFT paper by any stretch of the imagination, which is probably why I didn't find it when following Farsight's advice to search for "TQFT knot theory" to find "slipknots" related to "muons". It appears to me to be a numerology paper, using knot theory (not, I repeat, TQFT, nor indeed any sort of QFT) as a catalogue of integers which the author adds together in various combinations to try to match masses in the hadron zoo.

b) Does not relate slipknots to muons. Indeed, does not mention slipknots *at all*, and indeed since it uses the the language of *closed* loops I'm not sure the word "slipknot" applies in any way at all.

c) Predicts, on the first page, that no Higgs boson will be found, and is therefore false by its authors' own standards.

d) The ArXiV shows no activity from this author since 2006. His last paper, in fact, was the claim---accepted by no one---that he has proven the Twin Primes Conjecture and the Goldbach Conjecture, suggesting that he's a math crackpot as well as a physics crackpot.

Farsight, what am I supposed to take away from this paper other than your ability to Google for the words "muon" and "knot"? Do you claim that you're defending the theory presented in this paper? Do you claim that you've been defending it all along? Does this paper finally answer, in detail, the numerous objections---like "Maxwell's Equations don't allow photons to loop, and if it did they would not look like charged fermions"---that you've spent years refusing to answer?

 

[Farsight]

Thanks Farsight - reply appreciated. I don't think I have anything to add I haven't said before on this one.

My pleasure edd. Obviously this is not the easiest place to talk.

(A bunch of bickering and insults moved to AAH, but Farsight cited

The reasonable posts were moved to AAH, but Kwalish Kid's appalling slanderous post #1921 is still here. I'll take the moral high ground thanks. And maybe some legal advice.

Like I said: no mainstream theory...

Of course it isn't. If it was mainstream you'd be defending it to the death.

Farsight, what am I supposed to take away from this paper other than your ability to Google for the words "muon" and "knot"?

That the stuff I tell you about isn't "my theory". It's stuff you don't know about, that's all. Remember?

Do you claim that you're defending the theory presented in this paper? Do you claim that you've been defending it all along?

No and no. I'm just pointing you at some other guy talking about particles as knots to demonstrate that I'm not some my-theory guy. Now go and do your own research.

Does this paper finally answer, in detail, the numerous objections---like "Maxwell's Equations don't allow photons to loop, and if it did they would not look like charged fermions"---that you've spent years refusing to answer?

No. And I haven't spent years refusing to answer things. No way.

 

[abaddon]

My pleasure edd. Obviously this is not the easiest place to talk.

Then why are you here?

The reasonable posts were moved to AAH, but Kwalish Kid's appalling slanderous post #1921 is still here. I'll take the moral high ground thanks. And maybe some legal advice.

What? You are seeking legal advice because somebody on the internet disagrees with you? Good luck with that.

Of course it isn't. If it was mainstream you'd be defending it to the death.

And you do not defend your crank theory. No.

That the stuff I tell you about isn't "my theory". It's stuff you don't know about, that's all. Remember?

You are claiming that you have no theory. OK. What is is that you have been propounding then?

No and no. I'm just pointing you at some other guy talking about particles as knots to demonstrate that I'm not some my-theory guy. Now go and do your own research.

Fail. "go do your own research" is the last resort of those unable to explain themselves.

No. And I haven't spent years refusing to answer things. No way.

BAUT gave you the heave ho for exactly that. Not answering questions.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

No. And I haven't spent years refusing to answer things. No way.

Well that is clearly not the truth and you know that it is not the truth. You still refuse to do the most basic physics with what is clearly your theory: show how your ideas match up to experiment or even a simple physical system.

If a theory doesn't tell us what physical systems do, then it isn't physics. For over a decade now you have presented fantasy, but not physics.

 

[steenkh]

That the stuff I tell you about isn't "my theory".

If you are the only one who holds that theory it is "your" theory. So far, you have not shown articles by anyone having the same theory. At best all you can do is:

No and no. I'm just pointing you at some other guy talking about particles as knots to demonstrate that I'm not some my-theory guy.

... which is just pointing out that you feel that other similar theories are sufficiently not like your own that you do not want to defend them.

So all we are left with is one theory, and you are the only one holding it. But I wonder why it is so important for you that it is not your theory. Usually, it is failures that are orphans, not successes.

 

[ben m]

That the stuff I tell you about isn't "my theory". It's stuff you don't know about, that's all. Remember?

A "In TQFT a muon is a sort of like a slipknot?" Whose theory is that, Farsight? It's not Sze Kui Ng's, it's not Maxwell's, it's not Einstein's, it's not Witten's, it's not Atiyah's. Whose is it? If it's not yours, and it's no one else's, where did it come from?

• Maybe there a network of mysterious figures walking around Poole in dark glasses and fake beards exchanging physics theories anonymously?
• Maybe Farsight totally read an article making this claim but can't remember where and can't find it again?
• Maybe Farsight is literally unable to tell the difference between (a) the things that pop into his head while reading a Wikipedia article on TQFT and (b) actual tenets and topics of TQFT. Maybe in one article he reads "muon", in another he reads "TQFT", in another he reads "slipknot", and in a flash "muon=slipknot in TQFT" is cemented in his head as firmly as if he'd seen it in print and he forgets that he hasn't.

 

[Farsight]

A "In TQFT a muon is a sort of like a slipknot?" Whose theory is that, Farsight? It's not Sze Kui Ng's, it's not Maxwell's, it's not Einstein's, it's not Witten's, it's not Atiyah's.

But if you asked Atiyah he'd probably agree. Don't forget that Qui-Hong Hu spoke with him at ABB50/25 where Hu had a poster talking about the electron being a knot, see below. And one of the organisers was Mark Dennis, who is quoted in tying light in knots:

"The study of knotted vortices was initiated by Lord Kelvin back in 1867 in his quest for an explanation of atoms", adds Dennis, who began to study knotted optical vortices with Professor Sir Michael Berry at Bristol University in 2000. "This work opens a new chapter in that history."

Whose is it? If it's not yours, and it's no one else's, where did it come from?

Thomson and Tait as far as I know. The guys who coined the phrase spherical harmonics. You know, in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves". So does an electron that isn't in an atomic orbital.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

It seems like you are combining may different papers on many different topics to produce a (to you) coherent whole in a way that nobody else is. That makes this your theory.

Can you use your theory to predict any properties of the electron? Can you use your theory to match any single measurement observation?

 

[ben m]

It seems like you are combining may different papers on many different topics to produce a (to you) coherent whole in a way that nobody else is. That makes this your theory.

General advice to Farsight: if you want to pretend that the an TQFT description (TQFT invented ~1985) of the muon (discovered 1936) as a quantum-mechanical (QM discovered ~1910-1930) slipknot is "not your theory", the I would advise you next time not to blame it on someone (like Peter Tait) who died in 1901.

 

[Farsight]

Which means you concede, n'est pas?

 

[Reality Check]

Still quote mining the atomic orbitals article, Farsight

You know, in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves".

Still quote mining (lying about) that Wikipedia article, Farsight

13th August 2013: We know that you are quote mining that article, Farsight

 

[Reality Check]

But if you asked Atiyah he'd probably agree.

But you did not and have not, Farsight !

A poster presentation is not scientific literature.

Mark Dennis is studying knotted optical vortices which have nothing to do with the Qui-Hong Hu idea about electrons. arXiv has 10 results for an author search on Qui-Hong Hu. The only applicable result is the old "The nature of the electron" from 2005.
Nine years later and all he can do is pin up a poster containing the same old stuff at a conference !
Ten years later and still no one has cited his article (hardly a scientific paper) in Physics Essays from 2004 (see the poster) !
That preprint written by Atiyah does not mention
* TQFT
* muons
* or even slipknots!

Kevin was wrong - atoms are not knotted vortices (nor are they plum puddings or any of the other debunked atomic models).

Thomson and Tait as far as I know.

Oh dear, Farsight - actual delusions about the lives and work of
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (died 17 December 1907)
Peter Guthrie Tait (died 4 July 1901)
Yes - they "coined the phrase spherical harmonics". So what?
No - they died decades before QM and did absolutely no work on your fantasy about "In TQFT a muon is a sort of like a slipknot".

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Farsight

That the stuff I tell you about isn't "my theory". It's stuff you don't know about, that's all. Remember?

Originally Posted by ben m

Whose is it? If it's not yours, and it's no one else's, where did it come from?

Originally Posted by Farsight

Thomson and Tait as far as I know. The guys who coined the phrase spherical harmonics. You know, in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves". So does an electron that isn't in an atomic orbital

.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Oh dear, Farsight - actual delusions about the lives and work of
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (died 17 December 1907)
Peter Guthrie Tait (died 4 July 1901)
Yes - they "coined the phrase spherical harmonics". So what?
No - they died decades before QM and did absolutely no work on your fantasy about "In TQFT a muon is a sort of like a slipknot".

 

[Reality Check]

The real question is why did Farsight not include Euclid (died around 2314 years ago!) because Euclid coined the phrases point, line, plane, etc. which also appear in TQFT !

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: What was the content of the converstion between Hu and Atiyah

That preprint written by Atiyah does not mention
* TQFT
* muons
* or even slipknots!

Should be "That preprint written by Hu"...

But that raises the question of why Farsight is going on about Michael Atiyah. It seems to that Michael Atiyah was at a conference that Qui-Hong Hu also attended and Farsight has a fantasy that they talked.
From 19th March 2010

Williamson and van der Mark thought of it in 1991, and Qiu-Hong Hu in 2004. He was at ABB50/25 in Bristol in December with a poster on it, talking to Michael Atiyah plus others.

And from 20th April 2010

Why do you think one of the authors contacted Qiu-Hong Hu who was at ABB50/25 in Bristol talking to Atiyah and the rest about this poster:

So I was wrong - I thought this as a new fact from Farsight about a recent conference.

So we have to call Farsight's 4 year old bluff and ask him to support his assertion that Qiu-Hong Hu actually talked to Michael Atiyah. If he can provide evidence of this quite likely event then we need to look at the actual content of the conversation. Was is "Hi Hu. Hi Atiyah" or more ?

ETA: Things get even worse!
ABB50/25 in Bristol was the Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Berry Phase Anniversary 50/25 2009 conference.
So Hu's poster was actually irrelevant to the conference - no Aharonov-Bohm Effect or Berry Phase.

ETA2: And worse!
If you go looking for "ABB50/25 in Bristol", you find this comment in a blog by a John Duffield:

It can get complicated, but in a nutshell I’d say that to really understand the Aharanov-Bohm effect, one has to understand the electron.

Actually to really understand the Aharanov-Bohm effect, one has to be able to understand Wikipedia or textbooks!
The electrically charged particle (e.g. an electron) in the effect is involved through its QM wavefunction, e.g. see the Dirac equation which Qiu-Hong Hu has no problem with that I can see.