Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Reality Check]

Farsight, Do you disagree with the experiments that show that spin is intrinsic

Farsight's idea for the electron seems to be that it is made of a photon travelling on a some kind of "self-limiting" "moebius double-rotation" path that in some unspecified way creates charge from an uncharged photon, changes the photon spin and only contains photons with exactly 510.9810(13) KeV (the mass of the electron).

Farsight - if you have a better description of your idea for the electron, e.g. the exact mathmetical path that the photon travels, then I would appreciate it.

So let us start with spin and the observation that it is an intrinsic property of particles.

First asked 22 March 2010
Farsight,
Do you disagree with the experiments that show that spin is an intrinsic property of particles?

The Stern–Gerlach experiment is the classic experiment that shows that paricles have spins that

1. are quantized, i.e. are not classical,
2. are intrinsic because passing a beam of particles in a known spin state through a S-G apparatus does not split them up and
3. obey quantum mechanical laws, not classical ones.

 

[ctamblyn]

Then your idea remains as wrong.
As I stated before (and other posters have told you):
The electron would have to have

• The same mass as the photon (zero).
• The same charge as the photon (none).
• The same spin as the photon (1).
• The same magneic moment as the photon (zero).

Arbitrarily saying that that photon goes along a path that restricts it magically inside an equally arbitary and physically impossible (the upper limit to the radius of an electron is 10^-20 meters !) radius does not change the mass, charge, spin or magnetic moment of the photon.

• A mass of zero remains as zero.
  A photon with an energy of 510.9810 KeV has an equivalent mass as an electron. But then you have the problem of explaining why a 510.9811 KeV photon cannot form an electron.
  My guess is that you will assert that your magical path can only be travelled by photons at 510.9810 KeV because you want them to.
• A charge of zero remains as zero and thus the magnetic moment remains as zero.
• The spin remains as 1. This is an intrinsic quantum mechnaical property of a photon. If a photon has a spin of 1/2 then it is not a photon. It is a massless neutrino. And if neutrinos turn out to have mass then I think that it is a totally new particle.

But each of these points deserves a question in a separate post.

On the topic of spin, I wouldn't necessarily expect the total momentum of the self-trapped photon to be 1, as there'd be an orbital contribution (unless for some reason the orbital contribution is restricted). So, not only do you not get 1/2, you get a whole spectrum of integer-value spins.
Of course, that's just my opinion based on what I understand of a model which quite clearly would require as-yet unknown laws of physics to work in the first place.

 

[ctamblyn]

Farsight - if you have a better description of your idea for the electron, e.g. the exact mathmetical path that the photon travels, then I would appreciate it.

^^^ This. ^^^

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I don't hold truck with "the laws of nature". It's symmetry that underpins them anyway, and it's all to do with rotations and action and how stress-energy moves. What tells me electrons are composed of something else is pair production and annihilation, along with spin, magnetic moment, etc, see above. So don't give me all that genesis stuff. You're the one dismissing scientific evidence here, along with Minkowski and Maxwell etc. Because it isn't what you were taught, and because it isn't in your textbook. You're treating mathematics like runes that are more important than experiment and observation, and you're treating your textbook like a bible that's more important than logic and discussion. Now come on, start thinking for yourself.

Can you tell us exactly what part of Minkowski we are dismissing? How, exactly, does Minkowsi's work fit in with your work?

 

[The Man]

Thanks. I do accept your point. But actually, I don't want to cast this as a coherent mathematical model myself. That might sound odd, but think about it. If I locked myself away and came up with something that really flew, every theoretical physicist in the world would then be redundant. It's too late for them to get involved once it's finished. Moreover they'd look like crystal-sphere fools, and the public would feel betrayed. There would be a backlash, and the upshot would be a disaster. I'm trying to help physics, not destroy it.

No actually it does not sound odd at all (at least not on this forum). You simply want someone else or everyone else to actually do your work for you. Now I must say that this pseudo altruistic (and rather morbid) fantasy of yours for why you don’t actually want to do your own work is a new twist. Somehow I don’t foresee mobs of people running around with pitch forks and torches proclaiming “They lied to us about how our cell phones and IPods work!!!!!”. So if for some reason it makes you feel better to imagine “crystal-sphere fools”, “disaster” and the “backlash” of a “betrayed” “public” as the reason you won’t or simply can’t do your own work, then hey, whatever floats your boat. However you are seriously deluding yourself if you think that your “I'm trying to help physics, not destroy it” nonsense is going fare any better than any of the other nonsense you’ve been spouting here, which is just you specifically trying to destroy physics through the shear power of ignorance. Anyway, thanks again for not only asserting that you have no coherent mathematical model, but that you have deliberately not even attempted to create a coherent mathematical model (due to whatever paranoid fantasy that you think suits you best), so again you are simply at an impasse. Time to get off your keister Farsigth, break out some of that “proper mathematics”, forget your nightmare scenarios of zombie “crystal-sphere fools” being hunted by the backlash of a betrayed public and try to develop your assertions into a coherent mathematical model. I think you may find an even more horrible outcome awaits (at least for you), that your assertions simply do not produce a mathematical model that is in any way coherent with the evidence.

 

[ben m]

Photons normally travel in straight lines, and when they don't space is curved. It's in two dimensions so and diminishes with distance so curled is a better word, but it's easier to think of a flat spiral:

The charge is the amount of twist, permittivity is the "twistability" of space. Gauss's law is the degree of twist at a surface. The divergence tells you how much it changes.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Charge can't both be the twist and the divergence of the twist.

If you were to state this in simple vector-calculus terms it would be easy to see whether or not it is consistent with Gauss's Law or not. Are you interested in finding out whether it is consistent?

Apart from pair production and annihilation and Compton wavelength, and electron spin, magnetic dipole moment, anomalous magnetic dipole moment, dual-slit electron interference, and the Aharanov-Bohm effect which reprises Ehrengerg & Siday's The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics. The spin angular momentum is the killer.

Nope, those are all 100% consistent with the electron being a quantum point particle as in QED.

Point particles cannot exhibit angular momentum.

You keep stating this over and over, but it is false. It is a preconception of yours that you made up out of thin air without paying any attention to Nature. It is only a classical point particle, like a bowling ball of radius zero, which cannot exhibit angular momentum. The electron is not a classical point particle, it's a quantum-mechanical point particle.

 

[Tubbythin]

Thanks. I do accept your point. But actually, I don't want to cast this as a coherent mathematical model myself. That might sound odd, but think about it. If I locked myself away and came up with something that really flew, every theoretical physicist in the world would then be redundant. It's too late for them to get involved once it's finished. Moreover they'd look like crystal-sphere fools, and the public would feel betrayed. There would be a backlash, and the upshot would be a disaster. I'm trying to help physics, not destroy it.

Uh-huh...

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

 

[Tubbythin]

No you don't sol. You don't understand electron spin. You say it's "intrinsic". That's a non-explanation.

While we're at it...

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks. I do accept your point. But actually, I don't want to cast this as a coherent mathematical model myself. That might sound odd, but think about it. If I locked myself away and came up with something that really flew, every theoretical physicist in the world would then be redundant. It's too late for them to get involved once it's finished. Moreover they'd look like crystal-sphere fools, and the public would feel betrayed. There would be a backlash, and the upshot would be a disaster. I'm trying to help physics, not destroy it.

Um, no coherent mathematical model, then you got nothing, now do you?

 

[Dancing David]

You keep stating this over and over, but it is false. It is a preconception of yours that you made up out of thin air without paying any attention to Nature. It is only a classical point particle, like a bowling ball of radius zero, which cannot exhibit angular momentum. The electron is not a classical point particle, it's a quantum-mechanical point particle.

Some how I keep seeing bombers taking off from the airstrip, the concepts going over someones head.

 

[RussDill]

Sorry to disappoint you Russ.

Yup, after statements like "No, I can't predict the mass of the electron, but I can tell you why the fine structure constant takes the value it does, and why it's a running constant. But you'll doubtless dismiss it all." it really does disappoint me. I was all excited about dismissing your careful work and theory, but now I'll never get the chance.

Cut me some slack, I'm run off my feet here. One such experiment is the quantum hall effect. You use it to measure the fine structure constant.

How is this a response to "I'll show an experiment that has a behaviour that is not properly predicted by current models"?

This tells you the relative strength of the electromagnetic force versus the strong force.

Please express alpha as a ratio between the em force and the strong force.

You measure it up in space, and you measure it near the surface of a star. The difference tells you that gravity is a gradient in the relative strengths. That's how you unify gravity. It's trivial, but it isn't predicted.

I'm sure everyone will be relieved to know that you have unified gravity, either with itself, or some other forces, I'm not sure which you mean. But its good to know that it is trivial. Whew, and I thought we'd have people working on the problem for decades.

It isn't me saying the electron is elementary or fundamental. And if you paid more attention you'd appreciate that I support the standard model, apart from the Higgs sector, and the primary issue here is interpretational.

It is you claiming that fundamental means something different than what is meant in the standard model. The way that the standard model claims that the electron is different than the way you are claiming that the standard model claims that the electron is fundamental. Additionally, the primary issue in physics is never interpretation. Interpretation is meaningless unless you somehow use it to uncover something new beyond mere interpretation.

[quote[How about this: expect cryogenic electron emission to show seasonal variations.[/quote]

That isn't sufficient. You need to show by what method your model reaches that conclusion. You also need to show how your model matches the current behavior of cryogenic electron emission within photomultipiers (length of emission follows power law, etc).

And I did refer to something that surprised even me: the Dirac string trick.

After that did you study symmetry groups to understand the underlying mathematics?

Throw neutrinos at electrons and look for unexpected positrons.

Ok, first of all, not exactly an easy experiment. Second, to be of any use, you'll first need to calculate the expected number of positrons, and then use your model to predict how many positrons you think there will be. If you don't do this, then how would you know whether or not your model predicts less or more positrons?

Or maybe by "unexpected" you just mean that charge is not conserved?

Come off it Russ. People have spent their careers on string theory because they believe in it. And now it's a busted flush because other people have finally noticed that it predicts nothing and isn't science.

Again, you have no understanding of theoretical physics or even research in general. Things are tried because they seem promising, not because they have been proven to the satisfaction of the researcher. Many researchers even study several conflicting theories at once.

When you try to explain people why their precious theory is wrong, starting with the basics of electromagnetism, they reject it like a medieval theocracy.

You apparently haven't been paying attention to the past 100 years of theoretical physics and the massive upheaval that has occurred time and time again. People actually do care when you show experiments that give results that are out of line with current theory. In fact, its a really exciting thing! Why do you think so much money is spent on building particle accelerators?

They dredge up specious reasons to dismiss it, wilfully disregarding pair production and coming out with the unsupportable assertion that spin is intrinsic.

First of all, I'm not aware of particle physicists dismissing pair production. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of scientists who think that when you provide high energy collisions, all sorts of particles *don't* fly off in every direction. And no one came up with "unsupported assertions that spin is intrinsic", in fact, the scientists who first suggested that electrons have spin decided not to publish because they had no evidence. Perhaps you are missing one the most important experiments in modern physics, the Stern–Gerlach experiment (and those that followed).

We end up in a situation wherein theory is deliberately insulated from experimental disproof

I thought you said you could provide an experiment that showed results that deviated from current theory? Or maybe "insulated from experimental disproof" is just your way of describing a theory that matches current experimental so well.

and where experimental confirmation is contrived to be far-off and difficult, and in truth is employed as a fig-leaf to confer respectability to a speculation. My criticism of supersymmetry is based on the prediction of a whole new set of particles by people who don't understand the electron, don't want to, and don't want anybody else understanding it either.

Yes, clearly the clergy of scientists don't want to understand the electron and there is a massive conspiracy trying to prevent others from understanding it too.

 

[sol invictus]

This is an absolute classic...

Thanks. I do accept your point. But actually, I don't want to cast this as a coherent mathematical model myself. That might sound odd, but think about it. If I locked myself away and came up with something that really flew, every theoretical physicist in the world would then be redundant. It's too late for them to get involved once it's finished. Moreover they'd look like crystal-sphere fools, and the public would feel betrayed. There would be a backlash, and the upshot would be a disaster. I'm trying to help physics, not destroy it.

 

[Farsight]

I'm wondering what his current crackpot index is.

I checked myself out on that a while back. Here you go:

A -5 point starting credit.
OK, I'm on -5.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
I don't make false statements. Sometimes people say "that's wrong", but they can't back it up.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
Not me.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
Definitely not me. My logic bites like a crocodile and it doesn't let go.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
Nope. I have made mistakes, and I'm willing to take it on the chin and say sorry when it turns out I got it wrong.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
Nope, I'm very keen on real experiments and empirical evidence and observation.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
OK, I'll take 5 points for RELATIVITY+, so now I'm on zero.

5 points for each mention of \"Einstien\", \"Hawkins\" or \"Feynmann\".
No chance. (Einstien is however very easy to mistype, and I have had a chuckle with Hawkins before now, but I'm pretty precise)

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
Quantum mechanics isn't misguided. The maths works. Some of the interpretations are however total pseudoscience. Or should I say: crackpot!

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
Nope.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
Nay lad. Not my theory.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don\'t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
Uh oh. I'm fairly public, but I have done this. Hey, you live and learn. Now I'm on 10 points.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
No way. I know that nothing is ever perfect.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
I am careful to avoid this sort of thing. I've come across it and thought "yeuw!"

10 points for each statement along the lines of \"I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations\".
Go on then, I've tried to interest mathematicians because I don't have time myself to do everything myself, and besides, I don't want to do them out of a job. Can't have them flipping burgers for a living! Now I'm on 20 points.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is \"only a theory\", as if this were somehow a point against it.
Since I've said string theory isn't even a theory, let's have another ten points. I'll wear that badge with pride. Running total: 30 points.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn\'t explain \"why\" they occur, or fails to provide a \"mechanism\".
Oh definitely. Oh yes. 40 points.

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
Cough, much to my shame I have to give myself ten points for comparison. 50 points in total.

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a \"paradigm shift\".
Oh yeah, baby. 60 points. This is fun.

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it \"suppresses original thinkers\" or saying that I misspelled \"Einstein\" in item 8.
I have half a mind to do this. The guy's an airhead.

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
In an unwise moment I did allow myself to be goaded and say the wrong thing here. Or so my Swedish friends tell me.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
You know he spent his latter years working on light? Smart guy, Newton. Even greater than people realise. But I've never compared myself to the guy.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
Geddoutofit. Time travel is science fiction. So are parallel worlds. Unseen dimensions are a myth, so are branes.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
Don't think so.

20 points for each use of the phrase \"hidebound reactionary\".
Nope.

20 points for each use of the phrase \"self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy\".
Naw.

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
Not me.

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
Definitely. The concept of field is no longer appropriate. 110 points.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
Aw FFS, that's ridiculous.

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
Now that's getting nasty.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
Tsk. WTF is this guy on?

40 points for claiming that the \"scientific establishment\" is engaged in a \"conspiracy\" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
I'll take the 40 points. Running total 150 points. This happens all the time. Physics is far more competitive than the public apprciates. Take a look at page 53 of Graham Farmelo's book "The Strangest Man" and you can see how the guys at DAMTP were still sneering at Einstein in 1923: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0...EsSqwUybItoSS5GJeixcIhFTVPnJNM6k=#reader-page

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case..
Nope. But I have mentioned Bruno. Does that count?

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
This is my nightmare scenario. I'll take the 40 points. That's a running total of 190 points.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Not me.

OK, 190 points, where does that leave me? Leading edge? Thinking outside the box? Maverick? Uh, there's no readout. So I don't know. Duh. And that makes the whole thing a typical piece of sneering intellectual arrogance. Bit of fun? No. People use abuse to protect their position and cling to conviction when they can't deal with the evidence and the logic. Hence "science advances one death at a time".

 

[ArmillarySphere]

If a photon has a spin of 1/2 then it is not a photon. It is a massless neutrino. And if neutrinos turn out to have mass then I think that it is a totally new particle.

I may be misreading you here, but I think you're out of date by about a decade.

Neutrinos have been known to oscillate between different flavours since about 1998. This requires them to have a nonzero mass. We don't know the exact value yet, since the mass is small, and nearly impossible to measure direcly due to how the oscillations superimpose different states

 

[Cuddles]

the evidence and the logic.

Let us know when you work out what either of those things actually are.

 

[Farsight]

OK where was I?

You are right. I shoud have been addressing your idea that an electron is a photon. That idea is obviously wrong. The electron would have to have:

The same mass as the photon (zero).

No. Mass is a measure of energy content. A photon has no mass because it's travelling at c. Trap it in a mirrored box and the mass of that system increases. We've covered all this. Stop clinging to ignorance and conviction.

The same charge as the photon (none).

No, you make an electron using pair production and charge convservation applies like conservation of angular momentum applies. It's basic stuff, we've covered it.

The same spin as the photon

No, this is a straw man denial of scientific evidence.

The same magnetic moment as the photon (zero).

No! The electron model of a photon plus a 2D rotation makes it not so.

Arbitrarily saying that that photon goes along a path that restricts it magically inside an equally arbitary and physically impossible (see below) radius does not change the mass, charge, spin or magnetic moment of the photon.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Did you miss the description of the electromagnetic field?

A mass of zero remains as zero.

Not in pair production it doesn't.

A photon with an energy of 510.9810 KeV has an equivalent mass as an electron. But then you have the problem of explaining why a 510.9811 KeV photon cannot form an electron.

Conservation of charge relates to conservation of angular momentum.

My guess is that you will assert that your magical path can only be travelled by photons at 510.9810 KeV because you want them to.

No, because that's the only energy where the wavelength is 2pi times the common amplitude.

Then it is in a black hole.

No it isn't. Photons don't move in a black hole. The coordinate speed is zero.

Thus the existing theory of pair production describes reality. Your idea cannot.

Sheesh, exactly like a YEC tapping his bible and proudly displaying his skepticism of scientific evidence.

 

[Farsight]

Citations please.

Pay attention, read the paper, go read their CVs. It's at http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf and it's Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?, J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997). They used to be at CERN working on HEP, Williamson's now a senior lecturer at Glasgow University and van der Mark is a chief scientist at Philips in Eindhoven.

 

[Farsight]

I disagree that you've shown me a pedigree for your ideas. Linking to a 100-year-old paper with a vortex in it does not mean that your claim that the electron is a self-trapped photon has a "pedigree".

Fine, dismiss Maxwell and Minkowski and Kelvin and pair production and all the evidence of the right hand rule and annihilation and magnetic dipole moment and everything else.

I disagree that you've shown evidence. You've stated what properties you hope that your model has, or will have in the future. You've stated a few vague things that you don't like about the Standard Model, but only in that it fails to live up to a criterion you seem to have invented yourself.

Amazing. This is exactly like some religious groupie finding a reason to dismiss evolution.

Furthermore, I disagree that your case is logically consistent---and furthermore that self-evaluating one's "logical consistency" is a reliable way of preventing one from confusing oneself. Aristotle, Ptolemy, Freud, Mesmer, and (say) Mary Baker Eddy sure thought they were being logically consistent back in the day, but that didn't stop them from getting everything horrendously wrong.

Look in the mirror.

 

[RussDill]

No, because that's the only energy where the wavelength is 2pi times the common amplitude.

oooh! Math. Please, work this one out on the chalkboard for us!

ETA: That is totally amazing that you have found a way to calculate the rest mass of the electron!

 

[Farsight]

...Why should we not simply take your earlier claims as a lie...

Because the evidence is there. In the right hand rule and everything else. Now stop being such a troll.