Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[RussDill]

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

Do you not understand that everyone else here sees that these things fit perfectly well into current theory?

 

[Farsight]

I'm still very keen for you to elaborate here.

I said the neutrino moves. Don't forget that. This makes it very very different to the electron. It isn't merely a lightweight electron without charge. Think it through. You can't make a photon travel at less than c. But you can trap it rattling around inside a mirror box whereupon the system mass increases. So if you could trap it without a mirror box you'd feel inertia. And you'd expect to see angular momentum, etc. Then you can't move it at c because it's just a photon going round and round, and it can't go round and round and move laterally at c. Photons move at c, electrons don't, and you've never seen a neutrino that's just sitting there in front of you. If you could, it wouldn't have negligible mass, because it would now be a system where the energy/momentum appears as mass. Neutrons zip through space like photons zip through space. You can't stop 'em.

 

[Farsight]

Does "rotation separation" result in some detectable “angular momentum” field? If not then your "rotation separation" “angular momentum analogy” is not analogues to charge separation and simply fails in that specific regard being referenced.

Yes. It's called gravitomagnetism. Frame dragging.

As already noted an electron is not a “classical charged body” as demonstrated by that "factor of two difference".

It's not a rotating sphere. There's twice as much rotation as that. The double-wrapped toroidal photon fits the bill, and ends up like a moebius strip. One wavelength goes twice round the torus. This is no billiard ball, but it is classical. You can understand it. Be very skeptical of people who say you can't.

 

[sol invictus]

What is this bizarro obsessions the cranks on this forum have with the "right-hand rule"?

The only such rules I know of tell you the direction the B field circles a current in classical electromagnetism (which of course is just a convention), the direction the cross product of two vectors points (another convention), and the definition of helicity or angular momentum given the direction of spin (another convention).

None of those things is deep or particularly interesting...

 

[sol invictus]

I said the neutrino moves. Don't forget that. This makes it very very different to the electron. It isn't merely a lightweight electron without charge. Think it through. You can't make a photon travel at less than c. But you can trap it rattling around inside a mirror box whereupon the system mass increases. So if you could trap it without a mirror box you'd feel inertia. And you'd expect to see angular momentum, etc. Then you can't move it at c because it's just a photon going round and round, and it can't go round and round and move laterally at c. Photons move at c, electrons don't, and you've never seen a neutrino that's just sitting there in front of you. If you could, it wouldn't have negligible mass, because it would now be a system where the energy/momentum appears as mass. Neutrons zip through space like photons zip through space. You can't stop 'em.

You've never seen an electron "just sitting there in front of you" either. The only significant difference between neutrinos and electrons is their electric charge and the fact that neutrinos have a much smaller mass. That means that at a given energy the neutrino will move faster, and it also makes neutrinos much more difficult to detect, trap, or stop - but that's all the difference there is.

Of course this whole idea is nonsense from the very beginning, because electrons have charge and photons don't. That's all that needs to be said. And no, Farsight, pair creation is not evidence for this. Yes, an electron and a positron can turn into two photons, but an electron alone cannot. Why? Because of conservation of charge (among many other reasons).

 

[Farsight]

How do you verify that he's an ex-CERN physicist? The three papers give no affiliation and use a Hotmail address.

Williamson and van der Mark were at CERN. Williamson was there for 7 years. This is a bio for van der Mark: http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/people/van der Mark, Martin.shtml. here's a bit on Qiu-Hong Hu, http://de.scientificcommons.org/qiu-hong_hu. Watch it with the "crackpot" stuff - free speech in science does not protect you from libel.

And by the way, where's that evidence you were going to put up? You deny the evidence I put up, and can't put up any yourself.

 

[Farsight]

Please see the Path integral formulation or Sum over histories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
You will have to show how your “twisting and turning” path becomes the dominate (more probable or constructively reinforced) path as opposed to being canceled by an adjacent and similarly “twisting and turning” path that would be out of phase.

Remember I described the photon action E=hf as a lemon-like pulse of distortion? I said this distorts the surrounding space. The "particle" is nothing other than distortion, so wherever the distortion is the photon is. Now look again at the path integral:

The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is a description of quantum theory which generalizes the action principle of classical mechanics. It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of possible trajectories to compute a quantum amplitude.

What path does the distortion take? You can't say it only takes a straight line from A to B, because away from that line... there's distortion. This is why the photon takes many paths.

 

[Farsight]

...sit down with a textbook sometime and think about how “the proper mathematics” is a required part of the demonstrative scientific evidence.

Start paying attention to the obvious evidence of twist and turn in the right hand rule and curl and magnetic dipole moment and pair production, and stop accepting blithe terms like intrinsic and elementary that are covering up the inadequacies of that "proper" mathematics. It is not part of the demonstrative scientific evidence, and moreover it is blinding you to it.

 

[Tubbythin]

I said the neutrino moves. Don't forget that. This makes it very very different to the electron.

A W^- decays into an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. In the rest frame of the electron the neutrino moves while the electron is stationary. In the rest frame of the electron anti-neutrino (assuming it has one, ie assuming it has a mass) the anti-neutrino is stationary while the electron moves. In the rest frame of the W^- neither are stationary. In fact, it'd be difficult for someone in the W^-'s rest frame to measure the difference, since they'd both be moving ultra-relativistically. Please explain how this is consistent with your electrons don't move while neutrinos do nonsense?

It isn't merely a lightweight electron without charge.

That's pretty much exactly what the standard model says it is.

Think it through. You can't make a photon travel at less than c. But you can trap it rattling around inside a mirror box whereupon the system mass increases. So if you could trap it without a mirror box you'd feel inertia. And you'd expect to see angular momentum, etc. Then you can't move it at c because it's just a photon going round and round, and it can't go round and round and move laterally at c. Photons move at c, electrons don't, and you've never seen a neutrino that's just sitting there in front of you. If you could, it wouldn't have negligible mass, because it would now be a system where the energy/momentum appears as mass.

What are you talking about? We don't see neutrino's much at all.

Neutrons zip through space like photons zip through space. You can't stop 'em.

Neutrons bounce around all over the place. What do they have to do with anything?

 

[Tubbythin]

Williamson and van der Mark were at CERN. Williamson was there for 7 years. This is a bio for van der Mark: http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/people/van der Mark, Martin.shtml. here's a bit on Qiu-Hong Hu, http://de.scientificcommons.org/qiu-hong_hu. Watch it with the "crackpot" stuff - free speech in science does not protect you from libel.

Lots of people work at CERN. Most of them don't think electrons and positrons are made of light. What is your point?

And by the way, where's that evidence you were going to put up? You deny the evidence I put up, and can't put up any yourself.

Evidence in physics is quantitative. You have provided nothing quantitative. You have failed.

 

[Tubbythin]

Start paying attention to the obvious evidence of twist and turn in the right hand rule and curl and magnetic dipole moment and pair production, and stop accepting blithe terms like intrinsic and elementary that are covering up the inadequacies of that "proper" mathematics. It is not part of the demonstrative scientific evidence, and moreover it is blinding you to it.

Stop ranting about pair production. You have ably demonstrated for all to see that you don't understand it. You don't even understand when it is and isn't relevant.

 

[ctamblyn]

OK where was I?

Then it is in a black hole.

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

This is the case for photons at the Schwarzschild radius, in Schwarzschild coordinates, when we model a non-rotating black hole. But you may be interested to hear that circular photon orbits are possible at 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius - although they are unstable. I suspect this is what Reality Check is referring to, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

 

[ben m]

What is this bizarro obsessions the cranks on this forum have with the "right-hand rule"?

The only such rules I know of tell you the direction the B field circles a current in classical electromagnetism (which of course is just a convention), the direction the cross product of two vectors points (another convention), and the definition of helicity or angular momentum given the direction of spin (another convention).

None of those things is deep or particularly interesting...

Indeed, the difference between the right-hand-rule and the left-hand-rule for magnetism hinges on the facts that (a) Ben Franklin, when experimenting with silk-rubbed-glass rods and wool-rubbed-amber rods, decided to call the glass "positive" and the amber "negative, and (b) the association of one of two interchangable magnet poles with "north" and therefore "+", an accident of the fact that that's how the Earth's field happened to be oriented when humans first discovered magnets. If you rerun history with either of those accidents reversed (and every intervening arbitrary-convention-choice the same) and I believe you'll end up with left-hand-rules.

 

[ctamblyn]

Remember I described the photon action E=hf as a lemon-like pulse of distortion? I said this distorts the surrounding space. The "particle" is nothing other than distortion, so wherever the distortion is the photon is.

So the photon distorts the space which makes the closed path possible?
The spacetime curvature caused by a photon of energy E will be negligible for distances much greater than 2GE/c⁴. Since the photon has energy m_ec² by hypothesis, the distance in question is 2Gm_e/c².
This is about 10^-57m, whereas, for comparison, the Compton wavelength for the electron is roughly 10^-12m - this being approximate radius desired for the photon's path.

 

[sol invictus]

So the photon distorts the space which makes the closed path possible?
The spacetime curvature caused by a photon of energy E will be negligible for distances much greater than 2GE/c⁴. Since the photon has energy m_ec² by hypothesis, the distance in question is 2Gm_e/c².
This is about 10^-57m, whereas, for comparison, the Compton wavelength for the electron is roughly 10^-12m - this being approximate radius desired for the photon's path.

Not to mention that the photon itself is spread out over a region that size, which makes it impossible for it to distort space by any remotely significant amount in the first place.

And let me just add that black holes (and all other objects) conserve electric charge.... which means electrons cannot be composed of photons.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Thank your for the cistation. Unfortunately that PDF does not load for me (or other copies that I can find).
I have no idea why you mentioned that they are ex-CERN or where they are working.

 

[ctamblyn]

Not to mention that the photon itself is spread out over a region that size, which makes it impossible for it to distort space by any remotely significant amount in the first place.

And let me just add that black holes (and all other objects) conserve electric charge.... which means electrons cannot be composed of photons.

Indeed. I still look forward to an explanation of how a photon going round in a loop of any kind can give rise to something which resembles a point charge's field...

 

[Reality Check]

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.
....

Most of your usual stuff but I will address:

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

You are stating that space is curved inside an electron.
My GR is rusty but as I recall any space that is curved enough that photons are in an orbit (caannot escape), is a black hole.

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

Sheesh, exactly like a crank tapping his head and proudly displaying his ignorance of scientific evidence.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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

Look, you just gave yet another answer that talks about evidence but doesn't give any. You're like a stuck record, you talk about evidence, promise to deliver on it, then whenever anyone asks about it, you claim that you already gave the evidence. Yet so far you have given nothing. You posted drawings, but you refuse to tell us how to make a comparison between the drawings and any physical system.

Now I suspect that you simply can't provide relevant information because you can't do physics and you know this.

But you could prove me and others wrong by actually answering a question.

So, again, what exactly does Minkowki's work have to do with yours? If your answer is "nothing", then will you withdraw the claims that Minkowski's work supports yours?

 

[sol invictus]

Indeed. I still look forward to an explanation of how a photon going round in a loop of any kind can give rise to something which resembles a point charge's field...

If the laws of physics take anything like the form they've been understood to take for the last two centuries, it can't. Period. End of story.

Photons are quanta of the electromagnetic field. They have exactly zero charge according to the classical Maxwell equations, according to experiment, and according to quantum field theory and the group theory it's based on. If photons in any configuration could carry charge it would mean nearly everything we thought we understood about physics is wrong - and we'd have no reason to call such a particle a "photon" at all, because it couldn't have anything to do with light.

On the other hand we can (rather easily) measure the charge of an individual electron, and it's not zero. We know a lot about its charge - we can measure its electric field, the magnetic field it produces if it moves, its intrinsic magnetic dipole moment, it's lack of an electric dipole moment, etc. Those properties are totally inconsistent with it being made of photons.

In fact they are inconsistent with it being made of anything we know of - electrons are the lightest charged particle, and are therefore absolutely stable. They cannot decay into anything, because anything else with the same charge has a larger mass. The fact that they can annihilate with positrons or be produced in a pair with one is of course completely consistent with all this, and is perfectly well understood (in fact extraordinarily well understood).