Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[RussDill]

No I haven't. The "invariant" mass varies. Because of the factor two difference between the way light and matter respond to gravity.

No problem, just assume a null gravitational field. Lets follow this.

RC: 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.

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

Which indicates to me, and I'm sure everyone else, that you are claiming that you can explain why this path can only be traveled by photons at 510.9810. You seem to be claiming that you can come by the relation by something involving 2pi, the wavelength, and the "common amplitude".

To which you replied: "The "invariant" mass varies", but then not 20 minutes later posted "Electron mass doesn't vary".

Which way is it? You can explain why photons of 510.9810 and no other energy "form electrons", electron mass varies, or doesn't vary, etc?

Yes, the current theory that says charge is fundamental and spin is intrinsic, that offers no explanation of pair production and no electron model. And peddles supersymmetric woo and 11-dimensional snake-oil seasoned with the moonshine of time travel and parallel worlds. Woo!

The Standard Model doesn't claim that charge is fundamental or spin is intrinsic just to be obtuse, it is a result of many careful experiments. You've certainly made no attempt to show how a self trapped photon can provide the same physical effects as a spin 1/2 particle, just vague hand waving and funny diagrams. No math.

None of the things you have listed, supersymmetry, 11 dimensions, time travel, parallel worlds, are part of the Standard Model, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Current theory claims no such thing, all the things you listed are part of theoretical physics.

Hey, you can swallow it if you like, like a bunch of Sunday school kids. Then you can dismiss the evidence and take refuge in name-calling because you can't counter the logic. But me, I'm skeptical.

Again, you haven't actually presented anything to counter. I really have trouble wrapping my mind around individuals such as yourself. The closest thing I can find in Anosognosia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia) or maybe Wernicke's aphasia. It is just hard for me to understand how you can look at the current state of science, specifically physics, and think that in any way the thing you are doing is science. What you are presenting doesn't even vaguely look like a theory. The only other possibilities is that you are purposely withholding information, or you haven't actually studied physics beyond pop science works.

 

[RussDill]

I can't calculate it. It varies, like the fine structure constant. I'm not joking about this. All the constants are running constants, and this even causes invariant mass to vary. Sounds odd I know, but it's simple once you see it. But you won't see it until you understand why things fall down and that factor of two difference between light and matter.

Then it should be no problem producing a relation. For instance, if electron mass (em) varies by the price of bananas (pb), then just give some value of em when the price of bananas is $1 (or $0, whichever is easier), and form a relation, eg:

em = em0 * pb^2

 

[Farsight]

Your first link doesn't say that. Your second one is the BBC, and it's wrong - or at best poorly worded, and your interpretation of it is wrong. As ben says, alpha is a dimensionless constant the determines the strength of EM interactions all by themselves. Obviously you can compare it to the strength of other forces, but you don't need to.

Come off it. My first link says "attributing a relative strength" and shows the 1/137. The second says it again. You want more links? The fine structure constant and those relative strengths are no coincidence.

It's a bad idea to shoot yourself in the foot, particularly after you've put it in your mouth.

Sure is, but I haven't done it.

ben m is a professor of physics at a major university and does research in particle physics.

Good. I'm not wasting my time then.

 

[Farsight]

I do not trust him alone. I trust all of the science that shows that SR works.

SR works. Don't think I'm suggesting it doesn't.

But I do like your YEC quote mining technique. The full quote of the 2 paragraphs is:

"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity.
...
Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."

I'm not quote mining, RC. The author of this article has got this wrong.

It is never valid in Special Relativity to treat the speed of light as varying because that is a postulate of the theory (for inertial frames).

Agreed.

It is quite valid in General Relativity to treat the speed of light as varying.

Agreed.

The modern treatment is to leave the speed of light as constant...

Agreed.

..since experiments show that it is.

No, they don't. They show that it varies.

I paid attention and you are wrong. I am thinking for myself. There is no form of alternating current in a photon. It is a particle without any charge. There is no form of alternating current in an electromagnetic wave. It is just varying electric and magnetic fields. There are no charges to flow or alternate.

I'm not wrong on this. You think charge is fundamental. It isn't.

I am also with almost every scientist who worked on relativity since him.

Noted.

Let's talk about gravity. But not now, I have to go.

 

[ctamblyn]

The permittivity of free space. This is really important for when we get to gravity.

Well, you can write the equations in whatever system of units you like, but it doesn't change the physical results.

I don't want you to write it out in terms of the e/m tensor field, but I'd be grateful if you could refer to the electromagnetic field rather than separating out the E and B.

The tensor approach would be the most elegant way of doing this, but again the physical results are the same.

I dispute this. The E and the B are two aspects of the same field, you cannot have an electric monopole, it's an electromagnetic monopole. That's what an electron is.

An electric monopole field is, by definition, one in which a Lorentz frame exists in which the tensor field has the following form, aside from an overall constant factor which is the charge:

[latex](F_{ba}) = \left[\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & x/r^3 & y/r^3 & z/r^3 \\ -x/r^3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -y/r^3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -z/r^3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] .[/latex]

One of the reasons we don't call this an electromagnetic monopole field, is to distinguish it from a magnetic monopole field. This is, by definition, one for which a Lorentz frame exists in which the tensor field has the following form, again aside from an overall constant factor:

[latex](F_{ba}) = \left[\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & z/r^3 & -y/r^3 \\ 0 & -z/r^3 & 0 & x/r^3 \\ 0 & y/r^3 & -x/r^3 & 0 \end{array}\right] .[/latex]

Phew. That's hopefully the last time I try to type in LaTeX using my phone. My thumbs hurt.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not quote mining, RC. The author of this article has got this wrong.

You did and the author is correct: modern GR treats that speed of light as constant rather than the equivalent formulism of GR where it vaires. This is because the experimental results upport that the speed of light is constant.

No, they don't. They show that it varies.

No, they don't. They show that it is constant.

I'm not wrong on this. You think charge is fundamental. It isn't.

Whether charge is "fundemental" has nothing to do with it. Electromagnetic waves are electromagnetic waves. They do not contain charges. They contain electromagnetic waves.

Let's talk about gravity. But not now, I have to go.

We have been talking about gravity - that is what GR is about.

 

[sol invictus]

Come off it. My first link says "attributing a relative strength" and shows the 1/137. The second says it again. You want more links? The fine structure constant and those relative strengths are no coincidence.

Farsight, this isn't a matter of debate. You don't need to read the BBC. Just look at any book on the standard model of particle physics, or QED alone. Those theories define alpha, they tell us what alpha is. And it has nothing to do with the strong force.

Similarly if you want to measure alpha, you do it by measuring the strength of the interaction between an electron and a photon. Again, nothing to do with the strong force.

The fact that you argue about such basic facts tells us two things:

1) you have no clue what you're talking about, and
2) you're totally unwilling to learn.

Good. I'm not wasting my time then.

Maybe not, but you're wasting our time.

 

[Reality Check]

Come off it. My first link says "attributing a relative strength" and shows the 1/137. The second says it again. You want more links? The fine structure constant and those relative strengths are no coincidence.

Just to emphasis what sol invictus just said:
The 4 coupling constants are defined for each force. This is stated in the your first link (Coupling Constants for the Fundamental Forces). There is one coupling constant for each force.
N.B. The coupling constant for the strong force is not really a constant (it varies with energy) but experimental data suggests that it is of the order of 1.

What has confused you is that these force-specific constants are then used in "attributing a relative strength" to the forces. This does not change their definition as constants related only to one force each.

 

[ctamblyn]

OK, I've read the Williamson and van der Mark paper again.
I understand fully what they're describing, but they have miscalculated the external field produced by their twisted photon loop, and the correct answer is unfortunately, for them, zero. No apparent electric charge, no apparent magnetic dipole moment.
There are two basic mistakes they have made, aside from their semi-classical treatment of the photon:

1. They make a rather odd assumption about the field produced by a photon, essentially imagining that lines of E and B somehow originate (or terminate, equivalently) on photons. They do this early on - page 4 in fact - and it obviously escaped their attention. This mistake, if glossed over, would possibly allow the construction of an apparent charge, because you've built in a source of divergence right at the start. But no cigar this time.
2. Glossing over the first mistake, they then imagine that they can have a photon travel twice round a loop in one period. They notice that this would normally give destructive interference, so they postulate some exotic topology to avoid it. However, although this might prevent cancellation on the twisted strip itself, it doesn't help once you move out into the normal, simply connected space surrounding the system - the fields there cancel.

So there you have it. A nice idea but it doesn't yield a charge or a magnetic dipole.
I suppose it does at least give you a system with mass and angular momentum - although you don't actually get the correct spin-1/2 properties, because their system doesn't have the right properties under rotation.
And let's not forget that this whole model depends on getting a photon of energy 511 keV to perform this special dance, which noone's going to accept without some extraordinary direct evidence.

 

[sol invictus]

OK, I've read the Williamson and van der Mark paper again.
I understand fully what they're describing, but they have miscalculated the external field produced by their twisted photon loop, and the correct answer is unfortunately, for them, zero. No apparent electric charge, no apparent magnetic dipole moment.
There are two basic mistakes they have made, aside from their semi-classical treatment of the photon:

1. They make a rather odd assumption about the field produced by a photon, essentially imagining that lines of E and B somehow originate (or terminate, equivalently) on photons. They do this early on - page 4 in fact - and it obviously escaped their attention. This mistake, if glossed over, would possibly allow the construction of an apparent charge, because you've built in a source of divergence right at the start. But no cigar this time.
2. Glossing over the first mistake, they then imagine that they can have a photon travel twice round a loop in one period. They notice that this would normally give destructive interference, so they postulate some exotic topology to avoid it. However, although this might prevent cancellation on the twisted strip itself, it doesn't help once you move out into the normal, simply connected space surrounding the system - the fields there cancel.

So there you have it. A nice idea but it doesn't yield a charge or a magnetic dipole.
I suppose it does at least give you a system with mass and angular momentum - although you don't actually get the correct spin-1/2 properties, because their system doesn't have the right properties under rotation.
And let's not forget that this whole model depends on getting a photon of energy 511 keV to perform this special dance, which noone's going to accept without some extraordinary direct evidence.

That first item is the point I've been trying to get across to Farsight. Photons - essentially by definition - cannot source the electromagnetic field. No field lines can begin or end on them, because photons do not carry electric (or magnetic) charge. Therefore, it is impossible for any configuration of photons to be an electron, because field lines do end on electrons.

If field lines end on something it cannot be a photon. If they do not, it cannot be an electron.

 

[Farsight]

So to make your theory work we must abandon quantum mechanics as well as electromagnetism, the standard model of particle physics, and general relativity.

No, not abandon it, understand it.

All based on the incoherent word salad of a megalomaniacal internet crank that can't make any predictions, can't do math, and doesn't understand basic physics. Good luck with that, "Farsight".

LOL, here comes the foam-flecked outrage. Isn't it sad that people who can't face up to the evidence and can't respond to the logic resort to abuse when they've lost the argument?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

NLOL, here comes the foam-flecked outrage. Isn't it sad that people who can't face up to the evidence and can't respond to the logic resort to abuse when they've lost the argument?

You mean resorting to abuse like saying that people have "foam-flecked outrage"?

Remember, you are the one in this thread who has made a grand claim (to reject your theory is to reject Minkowski) and you have offered no evidence for this other than a small passage where Minkowski says that something (we're not sure what) is analogous to wrench (something that you interpret as different from the usual physics definition usage). You have not shown how Minkowski's work has anything to do with your own work and every time I have asked you have either ignored me or insulted me.

So who is it who cannot face up to the evidence?

 

[Farsight]

When you get back:
Farsight, How does the speed of light change in your theory?
This may be moot since you have not cited any actual theory other than quoting Einstein's quite correct statement than in GR the speed of light can be treated as varying.

I'll start a new thread on this.

Farsight, Do you disagree with the experiments that show that spin is intrinsic?
If not then your idea has a fundemental flaw - a photon with a spin of 1/2 is not a photon.
In addition it does not matter how a photon moves - it keeps its spin as 1.

Yes, I disagree. I assert that when the photon spins in a particular fashion involving rotation in two different dimensions, we then recognise it as an entity with a different spin.

 

[Farsight]

And if you could please, work out

"the wavelength is 2pi times the common amplitude" = 510.9810KeV.

Or somesuch, however you want to phrase that, because I'm having difficulty working it into an equation.

Sorry Russ, I don't know what you mean. A wavelength is a distance, as is an amplitude. It doesn't have the same units as energy. There is a sense in which you can relate charge to force and voltage to distance, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt, but your expression has a problem with the dimensionality.

 

[Farsight]

I had a look at the links you provided. I couldn't find anything which shows that the strength of the strong interaction, relative to the e/m interactions, actually varies with gravitational field strength.

It doesn't. It varies with gravitational potential. The gravitational field strength at a given location is the rate of change of gravitational potential. Sure, the links don't say this, but look for example at the presentation that comes up first in the google search. It's entitled Evidence of Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Solar Activity and on slide 42 says Possible Mechanisms • Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant α.

 

[Farsight]

You actually mean the opposite of what you say here.

Do I?

You actually mean: "Yes, motion is absolute, but in practice two electrons in relative motion would both assert that the other electron's photon is travelling the helical path. But in actuality the CMBR serves as a de-facto "absolute" reference frame for gauging motion with respect to the universe."

Motion is relative. The motion of one electron is relative to another. If there's an argument as to which one is "really" moving, then we settle that argument using the CMBR, and we say the one that's moving with respect to the observable universe is the one that's really moving. The buck stops with the universe.

This is what you should have written because you actually mean that the CMB provides an absolute reference frame event though it is never used in practice as an absolute reference frame.

Yes it is. Look it up, search google.

But, back to my question: first you said that Minkowski supported your point, then you said that Minkowski was wrong on that same point; which is is?

I said Minkowski supported my point regarding the dualism of the electromagnetic field as demonstrated by his wrench analogy, but that he was wrong concerning the unification of space and time. It's space and motion that are primary. Time is an emergent property of motin through space.

 

[Farsight]

I already addressed this. Perhaps you missed it in all your posturing. However, it appears I have a correction to make, and not one in Hu's favour. It appears that the papers listed on arXiv under a search for his name actually refer to a different Hu, Q. It appears that this Hu, Q actually only has his name on a grand total of two papers, published three years apart, and nothing in the last couple of years. And whereas the papers I thought he was a co-author on at least involved plasma and other aspects potentially relevant to particle physics and relativity, this other one doesn't. It's about constructing and measuring LEDs.

So what we have is someone who published a bunch of nonsense in a rather dodgy looking journal several years ago, and then was never heard of again until a few years later when he appeared as a co-author in a completely unrelated field, then disappeared again. In comparison, the post-doc whose paper he had his name on has published around 30 papers in the same time, mostly on similar subjects.

This suggests my original speculation was correct. Qiu hong Hu was most likely a fresh undergraduate when he published his first "paper" that you love so much. For his dissertation at the end of his degree he did some grunt work for a post-doc researcher and got his name on a paper related to it. Since graduating, he has not been working as a physicist and has therefore not published anything.

Let's be honest, as appeals to authority go, this has to be one of the worst.

You're a crackpot. Sue me.

As a moderator you're speaking with the authority of this forum, and this is the sort of nonsense that led Dawkins to close down his. So I'm reporting your post. This is the arXiv search for Qiu-Hong Hu: http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+hu_qiu_hong/0/1/0/all/0/1 . These are his patents http://www.faqs.org/patents/inv/522164 and here's a bit more on the guy: http://www.lightlab.se/en/about_lightlab/management_team.aspx.

 

[Farsight]

Can you follow the mathematics in these articles? If not, why do you cite them? If you can, why don't you answer my question about Minkowski?

1) Yep and 2) because you're a timewaster.

 

[Dancing David]

Farsight, this isn't a matter of debate. You don't need to read the BBC. Just look at any book on the standard model of particle physics, or QED alone. Those theories define alpha, they tell us what alpha is. And it has nothing to do with the strong force.

Similarly if you want to measure alpha, you do it by measuring the strength of the interaction between an electron and a photon. Again, nothing to do with the strong force.

The fact that you argue about such basic facts tells us two things:

1) you have no clue what you're talking about, and
2) you're totally unwilling to learn.



Maybe not, but you're wasting our time.

yes but the lurkers learn a whole lot.

 

[Farsight]

If it were just electromagnetism you'd be able to explain using just electromagnetism how you get a charge from something with no charge.

You slice it in half. See where I described the distorted cubic lattice and the rotation to ct.