Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Farsight]

Perpetual Student: read the Baez article, see for example...

"That the speed of light depends on position when measured by a non-inertial observer is a fact routinely used by laser gyroscopes that form the core of some inertial navigation systems. These gyroscopes send light around a closed loop, and if the loop rotates, an observer riding on the loop will measure light to travel more slowly when it traverses the loop in one direction than when it traverses the loop in the opposite direction. The gyroscope does employ such an observer: it is the electronics that sits within the gyro. This electronic observer detects the difference in those light speeds, and attributes that difference to the gyro's not being inertial: it is accelerating within some inertial frame. That measurement of an acceleration allows the body's orientation to be calculated, which keeps it on track and in the right position as it flies."

"So consider the question: "Can we say that light confined to the vicinity of the ceiling of this room is travelling faster than light confined to the vicinity of the floor?". For simplicity, let's take Earth as not rotating, because that complicates the question! The answer is then that (1) an observer stationed on the ceiling measures the light on the ceiling to be travelling with speed c, (2) an observer stationed on the floor measures the light on the floor to be travelling at c, but (3) within the bounds of how well the speed can be defined (discussed below, in the General Relativity section), a "global" observer can say that ceiling light does travel faster than floor light".

When you appreciate that the speed of light is NOT absolutely constant, you start to appreciate who the real crackpots are.

I didn't say anything about positrons or electrons. You said that 'The front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron.' I'm trying to find out why you assigned "a little like a partial positron" to the front and "a little like a partial electron" to the back.

It was because some QED explanation for gamma-gamma pair production said one of the photons spontaneously transforms into an electron and a positron, and the other photon couples with the positron.

It would seem that this would be arbitrary and if it were true, there should be an anti-photon that is "a little like a partial positron" in the back and "a little like a partial electron" in the front

There are no anti photons. You're thinking I've proposed something here, I haven't. I was only commenting on something somebody else said.

 

[ctamblyn]

You're thinking I've proposed something here, I haven't. I was only commenting on something somebody else said.

That's isn't an accurate summary at all. You were actually careful to distinguish your mental image of photons as containing partial positrons and electrons from the statement made by the other crackpot physics proponent who edited the two-photon physics article on Wikipedia.

Straight from the horse's mouth (highlighting added):

See two-photon physics and note that it does say this: but half wavelength is a positive charge and the next half wavelength is a negative charge. That's wrong, and I said the front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. Draw a positive field variation followed by a negative field variation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Perpetual Student: read the Baez article, see for example...

"That the speed of light depends on position when measured by a non-inertial observer is a fact routinely used by laser gyroscopes that form the core of some inertial navigation systems. These gyroscopes send light around a closed loop, and if the loop rotates, an observer riding on the loop will measure light to travel more slowly when it traverses the loop in one direction than when it traverses the loop in the opposite direction. The gyroscope does employ such an observer: it is the electronics that sits within the gyro. This electronic observer detects the difference in those light speeds, and attributes
that difference to the gyro's not being inertial: it is accelerating within some inertial frame. That measurement of an acceleration allows the body's orientation to be calculated, which keeps it on track and in the right position as it flies."

"So consider the question: "Can we say that light confined to the vicinity of the ceiling of this room is travelling faster than light confined to the vicinity of the floor?". For simplicity, let's take Earth as not rotating, because that complicates the question! The answer is then that (1) an observer stationed on the ceiling measures the light on the ceiling to be travelling with speed c, (2) an observer stationed on the floor measures the light on the floor to be travelling at c, but (3) within the bounds of how well the speed can be defined (discussed below, in the General Relativity section), a "global" observer can say that ceiling light does travel faster than floor light".


<...>

The gyroscope described above is not very convincing. In what medium is the light being sent around a closed loop? A fiber-optic device? Mirrors? More information is needed to make that argument meaningful.
In discussing the constancy of c, only the velocity of light in a vacuum would be useful.

The observer at the ceiling and the one on the floor both get c. That is what is meant by the constancy of c. Whatever may be meant by a "global observer" -- the only meaningful thing is the value one would get for c in one's frame of reference. How does one define a global observer? Can there be such a thing?


I find this a persuasive argument:

Gravitational Space Dilation

Richard J. Cook

"We point out that, if one accepts the view that the standard second on an atomic clock is dilated at low gravitational potential (ordinary gravitational time dilation), then the standard meter must also be dilated at low gravitational potential and by the same factor (gravitational space dilation). These effects may be viewed as distortions of the time and length standards by the gravitational field, and measurements made with these distorted standards can be "corrected" by means of a conformal transformation applied to the usual spacetime metric of general relativity."

However, I now see that a problem lies in how one defines a "frame of reference" as so well described by Clinger, "...the notion of a reference frame in general relativity is best identified with the notion of a coordinate patch (aka map) in differential geometry. That's the notion of reference frame assumed by the FLRW metrics and by all of the standard metrics that generalize the Schwarzschild metric. That notion is not infinitesimal; for the spacetime manifolds of general relativity, a coordinate patch is defined on an open subset of spacetime. In practice, that open set is (implicitly) taken to be the largest connected open set that avoids the coordinate singularities of the pseudometric form."

It seems that in any extended frame of reference ambiguities may be inevitable in measuring the velocity of light. In any case, I really do need to master the mathematics involved to have a meaningful opinion. Hopefully soon.

 

[Farsight]

That's isn't an accurate summary at all. You were actually careful to distinguish your mental image of photons as containing partial positrons and electrons from the statement made by the other crackpot physics proponent who edited the two-photon physics article on Wikipedia...

I'm not the crackpot. I'm on the right side of the Einstein fence. The crackpots are the guys who say Einstein was wrong or try to get people like Perpetual Student to ignore what Einstein said on specious grounds such as "cherry picking" or "sacred texts". They're usually the guys waxing lyrical about the multiverse, the holographic universe, the universe made of mathematics, the universe that's forever splitting into many-worlds, and so on.

The gyroscope described above is not very convincing. In what medium is the light being sent around a closed loop? A fiber-optic device? Mirrors? More information is needed to make that argument meaningful. In discussing the constancy of c, only the velocity of light in a vacuum would be useful.

Read the Baez article and do your own research. Google on non inertial speed of light.

The observer at the ceiling and the one on the floor both get c. That is what is meant by the constancy of c. Whatever may be meant by a "global observer" -- the only meaningful thing is the value one would get for c in one's frame of reference. How does one define a global observer? Can there be such a thing?

Yes there can be such a thing, in the room you're in. You're in a non-inertial reference frame where the speed of light is not constant. Again see the Baez article:

"Now here's the crucial point. If an observer is sitting up at the ceiling of this room and another is sitting on the floor, and they each have their own identical factory-set clocks and rulers, the ceiling observer measuring light in his vicinity will measure c, and so will the floor observer. But if I now ask these observers to set their clocks and rulers up so that they agree with me on distances and simultaneity——which can be done, although it's not an obvious thing——then things change. I collate their measurements and find that in this "global" uniformly accelerated frame, ceiling light travels faster than floor light, because the clocks involved are actually running at different speeds locally in order for their measurements to be agreed upon by all of the observers who make up the frame".

I find this a persuasive argument:

Gravitational Space Dilation by Richard J. Cook
"We point out that, if one accepts the view that the standard second on an atomic clock is dilated at low gravitational potential (ordinary gravitational time dilation), then the standard meter must also be dilated at low gravitational potential and by the same factor (gravitational space dilation)..."

Don't, because it's wrong.

However, I now see that a problem lies in how one defines a "frame of reference" as so well described by Clinger, "...the notion of a reference frame in general relativity is best identified with the notion of a coordinate patch (aka map) in differential geometry. That's the notion of reference frame assumed by the FLRW metrics and by all of the standard metrics that generalize the Schwarzschild metric. That notion is not infinitesimal; for the spacetime manifolds of general relativity, a coordinate patch is defined on an open subset of spacetime. In practice, that open set is (implicitly) taken to be the largest connected open set that avoids the coordinate singularities of the pseudometric form."

Beware of abstraction causing you confusion. A frame of reference isn't something you can point to in the clear night sky. Just go and read what Einstein said: "a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position"

It seems that in any extended frame of reference ambiguities may be inevitable in measuring the velocity of light. In any case, I really do need to master the mathematics involved to have a meaningful opinion. Hopefully soon.

Mastering the mathematics won't help you to understand this very simple thing. Just pick up your pencil, and drop it. It falls down because in the room you're in, the speed of light is not constant. And because of the wave nature of matter.

 

[fuelair]

Read the Baez article and do your own research. Google on non inertial speed of light.

Yes there can be such a thing, in the room you're in. You're in a non-inertial reference frame where the speed of light is not constant. Again see the Baez article:

"Now here's the crucial point. If an observer is sitting up at the ceiling of this room and another is sitting on the floor, and they each have their own identical factory-set clocks and rulers, the ceiling observer measuring light in his vicinity will measure c, and so will the floor observer. But if I now ask these observers to set their clocks and rulers up so that they agree with me on distances and simultaneity——which can be done, although it's not an obvious thing——then things change. I collate their measurements and find that in this "global" uniformly accelerated frame, ceiling light travels faster than floor light, because the clocks involved are actually running at different speeds locally in order for their measurements to be agreed upon by all of the observers who make up the frame".

Don't, because it's wrong.
Beware of abstraction causing you confusion. A frame of reference isn't something you can point to in the clear night sky. Just go and read what Einstein said: "a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position"

Mastering the mathematics won't help you to understand this very simple thing. Just pick up your pencil, and drop it. It falls down because in the room you're in, the speed of light is not constant. And because of the wave nature of matter.

No, just no. Don't, because it's wrong.

 

[Farsight]

Only it isn't wrong. Light curves because "the speed of light varies with position". Not "because spacetime is curved". Spacetime curvature relates to the tidal force. This is so slight in the room you're in that you cannot detect it. But lift up your pencil and let it go. It falls down. You can detect that all right.

Why is it that people who don't know any physics feel the need to jump in and say no, its wrong when they haven't got a clue what they're talking about?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Why is it that people who don't know any physics feel the need to jump in and say no, its wrong when they haven't got a clue what they're talking about?

Isn't that what crackpots do? Fuelair just above pointed towards such an example ....

 

[Farsight]

Yep, that's what crackpots do. And then they say no no, it's gummy bears throwing gummy bears. You know, lightweight physics-free nonsense. Because they haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

 

[tsig]

Yep, that's what crackpots do. And then they say no no, it's gummy bears throwing gummy bears. You know, lightweight physics-free nonsense. Because they haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

You gonna share those gummy bears?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm not the crackpot. I'm on the right side of the Einstein fence. The crackpots are the guys who say Einstein was wrong or try to get people like Perpetual Student to ignore what Einstein said on specious grounds such as "cherry picking" or "sacred texts". They're usually the guys waxing lyrical about the multiverse, the holographic universe, the universe made of mathematics, the universe that's forever splitting into many-worlds, and so on.

That's not an accurate account of your internet history. In reality, you present a series of claims that physicists reject as unlikely or obviously false, you use a collection of, yes, cherry-picked quotations to justify your claims, and you attempt to treat these as if they were sacred texts. You also put forth straw man arguments, like those who find your claims to be false all agree with the holographic universe theory or the many worlds theory.

In reality, you make claims about physics and then you refuse to show the physics evidence. You know, as you define it: "Evidence consists of experimental results and observations." Until you produce experimental evidence and observations that support your claims, your claims have no evidence.

Mastering the mathematics won't help you to understand this very simple thing. Just pick up your pencil, and drop it. It falls down because in the room you're in, the speed of light is not constant. And because of the wave nature of matter.

Mastering the mathematics will show quite clearly that you are wrong. You apparently cannot even describe the motion of a pencil.

 

[ctamblyn]

I'm not the crackpot.

What I actually said is that you are a proponent of crackpot physics, as is pretty clearly evidenced by the fact that you propound crackpot physics and pseudoscience, of which this polarised photon model is but the most recent example. The person who added that nonsense to the two-photon physics article was also a proponent of crackpot physics. The two of you disagree on the precise details, as you pointed out yourself, but you both support crackpot models of photons.

I'm on the right side of the Einstein fence. The crackpots are the guys who say Einstein was wrong or try to get people like Perpetual Student to ignore what Einstein said on specious grounds such as "cherry picking" or "sacred texts".

Your appeal to misinterpreted authority is not a sound defence of your ideas.

In the other thread, I've invited you to elaborate on this photon model of yours. I think that is preferable to derailing this one, which is a discussion of the why crackpot physics is so common.

Here is the post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10148253#post10148253

 

[Daylightstar]

Yep, that's what crackpots do. And then they say no no, it's gummy bears throwing gummy bears. You know, lightweight physics-free nonsense. Because they haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

They say that? Where? It's not in the mentioned example ...

 

[Farsight]

That's not an accurate account of your internet history. In reality, you present a series of claims that physicists reject as unlikely or obviously false...

Not so. For example the relativity+ thread starts with me giving some history and factual information about electromagnetism. There's nothing in there that's false. Maxwell really did talk about vortices, a gravitomagnetic really does feature "twist", see NASA. But in post 4, when you made your first comment, what you said was this:

"The problem with this thread, as one who has seen this general theory before could predict, is that it is almost entirely divorced from science."

When it wasn't. It was NOT divorced from science, it WAS science. And now you say I refuse to show the physics evidence, but I do. I tell you about the NIST optical clocks, the Shapiro delay, the GPS clock adjustment, and I give you Einstein and Professor Ned Wright and the Baez website, who further support my case. But you dismiss it all.

All: It really is like the time I was talking to the creationists. I'd show them the fossils, the strata, the carbon dating, but they'd always find a slippery way to dismiss it. And they'd always call me names. I'm not the crackpot round here. I'm the expert.

 

[Farsight]

What I actually said is that you are a proponent of crackpot physics, as is pretty clearly evidenced by the fact that you propound crackpot physics and pseudoscience...

Not me. I propound the physics of Einstein and Minkowski and Maxwell. The crackpots say "ignore that sacred-text nonsense, listen to me instead". Then they propound the crackpot physics and pseudoscience such as the multiverse, the mathematical universe, the holographic universe, the evil-twin universe, the many-worlds universe that's forever splitting into two, and more.

of which this polarised photon model is but the most recent example. The person who added that nonsense to the two-photon physics article was also a proponent of crackpot physics. The two of you disagree on the precise details, as you pointed out yourself, but you both support crackpot models of photons. Your appeal to misinterpreted authority is not a sound defence of your ideas. In the other thread, I've invited you to elaborate on this photon model of yours. I think that is preferable to derailing this one...

Yours is the derail. It isn't my photon model, it's something Russ misunderstood. And what we were talking about was the varying speed of light. It's a salient example. Perpetual Student now understands that I was always right about it. It's dawning on him that I'm not the crackpot, I'm the expert round here. And so it's probably dawning upon him why there's so much crackpot physics. Because the crackpots are in charge of the circus.

 

[ctamblyn]

Not me. I propound the physics of Einstein and Minkowski and Maxwell.

If you read over your threads, you'll see that you actually propound the numerology of Worsley, your own numerological derivation of the fine structure constant, the electron model of Williamson and van der Mark, the electron model of Hu, knotted-light models of the other leptons and hadrons, the idea that you can throw neutrinos at electrons and observe "unexpected positrons", an idiosyncractic interpretation of GR ("FGR" as it became known), the idea that photons have a "common amplitude", your recent "polarised photon" nonsense, and a whole host of other loosely-related crackpot ideas.

But enough. This thread isn't a platform for your ideas, but for analysing the reasons for physics crackpottery in general. Let's continue this in the other thread.

 

[ben m]

Not so. For example the relativity+ thread starts with me giving some history and factual information about electromagnetism. There's nothing in there that's false.

Ha ha! Not even the picture of the spiral?

That’s what the electron’s electromagnetic field would look like if you sliced through it from any direction. It’s isotropic. Let your eyes linger on it. Does it remind you of a whirlpool? A vortex?

Perhaps you've forgotten what happened when we pressed you on this picture---asking, for example, what quantity was being graphed. I recall your gradual revelation that you had (visually speaking) done vector addition of the E field vectors from a 2-D cartoon of an electron, plus B field vectors from a 2-D cartoon of an infinite wire pointing out of the page, obtaining a nonsense vector (NOT an electromagnetic tensor) whose field lines looked like a spiral. The mathematically-impossible claim of "isotropy" turned out to be made up out of whole cloth, lacking even an amateur visual-thinking walkthrough to justify it.

I guess the embarrassment didn't sink in? You're not merely trying to forget this incident, you're actually citing it and bragging about how you schooled everyone with an "error free" account of spirally electromagnetism? Lovely.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Read the Baez article and do your own research. Google on non inertial speed of light.

I did. It has no details about the method or medium used causing light go around in a loop. Why do you always deflect questions by citing links that do not provide answers.? Do you have any clue as to how the light goes in a loop?

Yes there can be such a thing, in the room you're in. You're in a non-inertial reference frame where the speed of light is not constant. Again see the Baez article:

"Now here's the crucial point. If an observer is sitting up at the ceiling of this room and another is sitting on the floor, and they each have their own identical factory-set clocks and rulers, the ceiling observer measuring light in his vicinity will measure c, and so will the floor observer. But if I now ask these observers to set their clocks and rulers up so that they agree with me on distances and simultaneity——which can be done, although it's not an obvious thing——then things change. I collate their measurements and find that in this "global" uniformly accelerated frame, ceiling light travels faster than floor light, because the clocks involved are actually running at different speeds locally in order for their measurements to be agreed upon by all of the observers who make up the frame".

The point is that every observer in his own frame of reference will measure c. That is what is meant by the "constancy of c."

Don't, because it's wrong.

Sure I'll dismiss Richard J Cook, PhD physicist and professor of physics at the US Air Force Academy who has published a number of papers -- our of hand -- because you, Mr. John Duffield of Poole, who is not a physicist and cannot produce a single mathematical statement says so. Right!
Seriously, do you have a single substantive comment to make about Cook's paper. Have you read it?

Beware of abstraction causing you confusion. A frame of reference isn't something you can point to in the clear night sky. Just go and read what Einstein said: "a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position"

Yes, we all know that light curves due to gravity. The point is that anyone measuring its velocity along any geodesic the light travels along will still get c.
The mathematical ambiguities of the concept "frame of reference" in GR, discussed by Clinger above, require abstraction. One studies that abstraction to understand it. One does not beware of it.

Mastering the mathematics won't help you to understand this very simple thing. Just pick up your pencil, and drop it. It falls down because in the room you're in, the speed of light is not constant. And because of the wave nature of matter.

My pencil "falls down because ... the speed of light is not constant." Rubbish!
GR is a mathematical formulation of the behavior of space, time, matter and energy in the universe. Understanding GR means understanding the mathematics. That is why I have spent the last several months studying differential geometry and tensor calculus. You, on the other hand, squander your time away looking at pictures, reading texts and imagining what it may all mean. I may never fully understand GR; however, you will never have anything but fantasies.

Perpetual Student now understands that I was always right about it. It's dawning on him that I'm not the crackpot, I'm the expert round here. And so it's probably dawning upon him why there's so much crackpot physics. Because the crackpots are in charge of the circus.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not wrong. I'm on the right side of the fence.

Wrong, Farsight: The straw man argument implying people here are ignorant about GR and do not know about proper and coordinate speeds of light is just that - a straw man.
Getting one thing right because you can read a web page does not stop you from being a crackpot.
What puts you on the crackpot side of the fence is
* the many statements of crackpot physics from you in the Relativity+ thread !
* the book on relativity that you wrote displaying so much ignorance of relativity.
* the inability to answer simple questions about physics, e.g. what is the classical interaction between photons, what is the scientific definition of space, etc.

To keep sight of the larger picture, here is a partial list of the problems with John Duffield / Farsight's Relativity+ that we know of so far. by ctamblyn.

Farsight's issues from the just last couple of months! and Farsight issues with aether by me.

 

[Reality Check]

It was because some QED explanation for gamma-gamma pair production said one of the photons spontaneously transforms into an electron and a positron, and the other photon couples with the positron.

...The front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. But the main point is that photons interact with photons, and QED doesn't cover it.

That still is not an answer to the question, Farsight.
The QED explanation for two-photon physics for all photons (not just gamma rays) is that "one of the photons spontaneously transforms into an electron and a positron, and the other photon couples with the positron" or electron. The "gamma–gamma" bit comes in experiments because the interaction needs energetic photons to be measurable.

The article you cite still makes the second sentence a lie (QED does "cover it").

The article does not say that a photon separates into a "partial positron" in front or a "partial electron" behind.
For that matter
* what is a "partial" electron or positron? Partial charges? Partial masses? Partial spins?
* How big is the "front portion" of a photon ?
* how is the "front portion" of a photon "a little like" a partial positron.

It
There are no anti photons.

Actually there are anti photons - they just happen to be photons, Farsight, "Seen another way, the photon can be considered as its own antiparticle".

But your idea does imply a real anti-photon - replace those "partial" particles with their anti-partial-particles.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Not so. For example the relativity+ thread starts with me giving some history and factual information about electromagnetism. There's nothing in there that's false. Maxwell really did talk about vortices, a gravitomagnetic really does feature "twist", see NASA.

Maxwell used words related to the words you used, but you use those words to try to sell a unified picture of electromagnetism, literally a picture, that nobody, including you, can do physics with. So that sounds like activity not consistent with physics.


But in post 4, when you made your first comment, what you said was this:

"The problem with this thread, as one who has seen this general theory before could predict, is that it is almost entirely divorced from science."

When it wasn't. It was NOT divorced from science, it WAS science.

Yes, thanks to posters other than you who discussed the actual science while you insulted what scientists did, made specific claims about what physics should say, and you never produced a single piece of empirical evidence for your claims.

And now you say I refuse to show the physics evidence, but I do. I tell you about the NIST optical clocks, the Shapiro delay, the GPS clock adjustment, and I give you Einstein and Professor Ned Wright and the Baez website, who further support my case. But you dismiss it all.

You gave the definition of what evidence is: "Evidence consists of experimental results and observations". It would be a lie to say that you have produced evidence in this sense.

All: It really is like the time I was talking to the creationists. I'd show them the fossils, the strata, the carbon dating, but they'd always find a slippery way to dismiss it. And they'd always call me names. I'm not the crackpot round here. I'm the expert.

That is clearly a lie, since you have never shown, for example, what your theory predicts for galaxy rotation curves and what observations show, despite the fact that you claim that they should match.