How can you not give yourself these points? You have admitted that you have absolutely no mathematics behind your theory. This means that you have absolutely no predictions that we can test. You "predict" that there is no dark matter only in the sense that you dogmatically refuse to believe in it, but you cannot articulate why and you refuse to explain how somebody can use GR to do away with the need for dark matter.
No. Tunnelling per se doesn't apply any more. There are no barriers, and no billiard balls, everything is action, or stress/energy "kick" - spatial distortion, essentially Weyl gauge change as per the extension of a gravity wave. Tunnelling turns into one particular distortion slipping between two other distortions, like clumps of frogspawn squeezing past one another, but without surface. This is a "knot" of distortion, it can't slip outside of itself.ctamblyn said:
I didn't think it was an issue. A distortion distorts a distortion when they meet. The plane-polarized photon action is something like this ↕ going this way → at c, pushing those lattice lines up such that from the side it takes the lemon-like shape of a wavepacket, but without the interior waves. (see http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0803.2596?context=physics). The electron is a rotational version of the same. Vector subtraction is applied to the photon action, and vector addition is applied to the electron action, so the rotation isn't quite a circle any more, so the electron moves. Its photon path isn't a neat circle, it's cycloid if the circle is facing you, or helical if its edge-on.ctamblyn said:
You need something else to interact with first, such as a nucleus or another photon. And conservation of angular momentum applies, so you can't make an electron out of one photon alone, nor can you make just an electron using a photon and a nucleus.ctamblyn said:
Excellent analysis, and you're 100% correct. I would still have been interested in seeing at least an attempt at a mathematical justification from Farsight for his claim - perhaps show that with such-and-such a topology, with a fair wind, you can get something like a monopole field when field lines vanish down a conveniently-placed hole, or something (I'm making this up as I go - this isn't a serious proposal!). But as it stands, there's really nothing to get the teeth into here. Thus far it's just an idea, with neither a coherent mathematical foundation, nor quantitative contact points with experiment, and suffering with what appear to be rather serious consistency issues.
LOL. You want me to explain explain. Powerful argument there Tubby!
So's the photon. But in case you hadn't noticed, a reference frame doesn't actually exist. It's just an abstraction of measurement associated with motion.
Groan.
There's room in pair production and annihilation.Tubbythin said:
No comment!Tubbythin said:
Motion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Speed. They travel fast, at close to the speed of light. Note this: This measurement has been repeated using the MINOS detectors, which found the speed of 3 GeV neutrinos to be 1.000051(29) c. So if electron-positron annihilation starts with a more-or-less motionless electron and positron, and ends up with two 511keV photons departing at c, what do those more-or-less massless uncharged neutrinos more closely resemble?
It is still a bound state though, and there is still the unbound state - a normal photon. Can you show there is no amplitude for one to make a transition from one to the other? You'd have to show that the bound state was an eigenstate of the system's Hamiltonian.
Can you show that you get the right coupling between a free photon and a self-trapped one? Can you calculate scattering cross-sections? This is what you need to do to validate the model.
On this point, I was hoping for a demonstration of how a self-trapped photon couples to itself to form a stable bound state. Photons don't directly interact with other photons - so what's the mechanism?
Check that against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations, ct. You're missing the fact that it's an electromagnetic field. Your suitable confinement requires a region of space rotating free of the surrounding space, like a ball-bearing in a well-oiled socket. Space isn't like that. It has its torsion. An action cannot exhibit a linear momentum without affecting the surrounding space, and it cannot exhibit angular momentum without affecting the surrounding space. You cannot rotate a portion of it free of the surounding space. That's what you need for a magnetic monopole, and you just can't do it.
That's enough mysticism from you, Tubby. If you want to stick with the comforting idea that "the quantum world" surpasseth all human understanding, let's just agree to differ. You swallow the moonshine, I'll do the physics.
Wanna bet? See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/forces/couple.html or
Well you obviously don't know much. Stop wasting my time and let the people who know something about physics have a sensible conversation. What are you, a high school physics teacher? Strewth, no wonder physics is going to the dogs.
Did that. There's nothing wrong with what I wrote - I've written the equations for the situation where the charge and current density are zero, and I've used natural units. Or have I missed something?
Goodness me, no. I've chosen to write the equations with E and B shown explicitly, as it's easier to follow the argument. If you'd prefer me to write it in terms of the e/m tensor field, fine - but it won't change the actual physical result at all. It's mathematically equivalent.
Your perhaps missing the point that in the absence of charged particles, Maxwell's equations possess a kind of symmetry between E and B. For every valid e/m wave solution (E(x,t), B(x,t)), there exists another equally valid, equally physically possible solution (B(x,t), -E(x,t)). Thus, wave solutions which look like electric monopoles are possible if and only if there also exist wave solutions which look like magnetic monopoles.
See above. It gives you the relative strength of the electromagnetic interaction as opposed to the strong interaction. This is not coincidence. By the way, I prefer to keep permittivity in the expression. Remember I said it's the "twistability" of space? Where do you think the strong force goes after low-energy proton/antoproton annihilation? The typical product is two neutral pions and shortly thereafter two photons. What keeps the photon action from dispersing? What keeps an electron in one piece? What stops the universe from expanding like a gas and gives rise to the vacuum catastrophe? The strong force, and it's the strength of space. It changes. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.2678. That's New Physics at Low Accelerations (MOND): an Alternative to Dark Matter by Mordehai Milgrom. I don't think he's got it quite right, but I do think he's barking up the right tree. Now look at page 5 and pay attention to this:
Sorry, no. Look at the GPS clock adjustment, it's smaller than the accuracy of the quantum hall measurement. But see http://www.sstd.rl.ac.uk/stereo-soho/announcements.html and http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jun_solarprobe.htm and have a search around. See what you can find.
Pathetic. You have to put words in to my mouth that I didn't even remotely say.
Well I've yet to see you do any so far. So I'm pretty pessimistic about that possibility.
Seems reasonable to me. Since your definition differs from pretty much all others in science I'd think.
The photon doesn't have a meaningful rest frame.
Well, you don't.
No there isn't. And even if there was it would still be a catastrophic failure because it your nonsense ramblings are inconsistent with everything else.
Don't comment, doesn't make you any less wrong.
It's called time dilation. You define your time using local motion, and you define your second using the motion of light as you see it. You count 9,192,631,770 microwave peaks going past you, and if that light goes slower your second is bigger. That's the scientific fact.
One second remains as one second, but it isn't the same as it was.
Special relativity works, but don't trust Baez. This is what the Baez website says about the speed of light. And guess what? It's wrong. You know it's wrong because the article contradicts itself saying "This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense" then 5 paragraphs later says "it does not even make any sense to say that it varies." Garbage.
Look at the bottom of page 150 of The Foundation of The general Theory of relativity where Einstein says "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified.". Or look at section 22 of Einstein's 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, and what you see is this:
No problem. Pay attention to what I said earlier about the photon being a form of alternating current. And think about what I said about permittivity and permeability. Think for yourself, don't just parrot what you've been taught.
I care. And in case you hasn't noticed, this is relativity+, and I'm with Einstein.