), I looked up the slideshow's main reference, which is Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance.I bumped into this board when I was looking up something to do with time. I was talking to an ISST guy at the time. In essence I was knocking time travel on the head and explaining why it's a load of old cobblers, and got sucked into relativity and electromagnetism, and was then challenged to justify it. So I started this thread.
Pretty much. Though I keep reminding people that this isn't my theory, and that instead it's a synthesis drawn from a variety of papers by professional physicisists.
Sounds like catch-22. The dualism of the electromagnetic field isn't crackpot, saying charge can be created and destroyed and so isn't fundamental is crackpot. Criticising intrinsic spin and pointing out electron angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment isn't either. The crackpot allegation is merely a defensive smokescreen employed by people who seek to dismiss scientific evidence and can't counter the logic.
I didn't mean to threaten libel myself. The law is so costly as to be unavailable to normal people. I was thinking of professional physicists and their institutions being impugned, and the sort of response they might take. I was also thinking of the recent Dawkins debacle where moderators were misbehaving, such that when they said something it was with the authority of the forum, regardless of any disclaimers, and indeed with the authority of Dawkins himself. It's just not on to impugn people in an attempt to inhibit free speech and open discussion, and then cry free speech in science! in defence.
Actually, I take umbrage when people impugn the professional scientists whose papers I've referred to. The rest is water off a duck's back, even your snipy little "valueless". I know full well that ad-hominems are the last refuge of a person who has been been comprehensively whupped by another person with a demonstrably superior understanding of physics.
As you wish.
What you really mean is let's studiously ignore the underlying reality of quantum mechanics. Groan. No wonder there's trouble with physics.
The classical particle you're thinking of is something like a rotating sphere. See the Stern-Gerlach article which says:
Imagine a whole set of globes, like this:
Nothing.
No.
Knot theory, or quantum topological quantum field theory. The first stable configuration is the trivial knot, which is a ring like this O in the ordinary knot chart, and a double ring in the torus-knot chart. The next one is a trefoil, and then they get more and more complicated.
Perhaps the problem here is related to the nature of the photon. I described it as a lemon-like pulse, where the archetypal sinusoidal waveform describes the slope of the lemon. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it's sounds like if you contrive two pulses in a chain going round a loop, the ends aren't joined. The electron description describes one pulse travelling entirely through itself. You could contrive a particle where the loop is so much tighter that the pulse travels through itself more than once, but this sounds like the opposite situation to what you're suggesting.
That's not enough.
We do physics because we want to understand the universe. I'm not satisfied when mystery persists.
I have no issue with QED. I'm a Feynman fan. But he said nobody knows why it works, and I want to know why. I'm not satisfied by "it just is" or "don't even hope to understand it because it isn't classical". You shouldn't be either.
QED doesn't tell us that. That's an inference from scattering experiments, associated with the interpretation of a wave equation as a description of the probability of finding a point particle. It isn't true to wave mechanics, and isn't in line with what we see. An electromagnetic wave is a wave in space, a radio wave might be 1500m long, there's no point particle there. The quantum nature of light is in the h in E=hf. Light waves can come in a smooth range of frequencies delivering a smooth amount of energy. The quantum is in the nature of the action, the "kick". It's like a pony. It doesn't matter how hard it kicks you, its leg is always the same length.
How as a skeptic can you possibly accept that? A point particle can't have angular momentum or a magnetic moment. A point particle can't travel through two slits at once. What's known as the Aharanov-Bohm effect was predicted by Ehrenberg and Siday in 1949 but went unnoticed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._E._Siday and The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics. And what happened to those rotating arrows? QED is a mathematical treatment, don't ignore what Feynman about nobody knowing why it works and mistake the mathematical convenience of working with points as with the real thing. Check out Evanescent modes are virtual photons instead.
It doesn't depend the strength of the gravitational field. It's the depth of field, not the local gradient.
Don't be pedantic. It isn't exactly 1/137, to the best of our knowledge it's 1/137.035999679(94), and it varies because alpha is a running constant.
I'll start a thread on gravity.
Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation. This is what Einstein and Bohr and others argued about at the 1927 Solvay conference. Also have a look at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm where the author talks about the "geometric interpretation" (as exemplified by Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's "Gravitation") and the "field interpretation" (as in Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology").
No. I'm predicting seasonal variation in line with seasonal solar neutrino flux. It varies because the earth's orbit is elliptical.
Yes.
Just do the experiment. Don't clutch at reasons not to do it.
No. See above. And search google on seasonal neutrino radioactive to look for seasonal variations in radioactive decay rates:
No problem, but experiment is important too.
Yes. You shouldn't refuse to do experiments that threaten what you think you know.
No. But some theories get trapped by paradigm and don't progress like they should.
I'm not dismissing the SG experiment at all, I'm challenging the inferences drawn from it. And come on, there isn't a perfectly good electron model in mainstream physics.
Then what exactly is your problem with what I'm saying?
The study of light.
So then we're left with something of a mystery. 511 keV photons can apparently do this dance, going round a loop of approximate size 10-12 m, but so can 5.11 keV photons going round a loop of size 10-10 m, and so on - you end up with a continuous spectrum of rest-masses.Farsight said:
See above. There's nothing to prevent me from considering a knot structure with double the linear dimesions of the electron's purported knot structure, as long as I also double the photon's wavelength (i.e. halve its energy). Without some fundamental length scale, both situations are equally possible (or impossible).
No, I'm just pointing out that if you have waves confined by some mechanism, then there are usually going to be a series of normal modes, rather than just a fundamental mode (the 511 keV mode). Consider the harmonics on a guitar string, or a drum skin. Or indeed, the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, or excited hadron states. It's the same basic phenomenon (mathematically speaking).
Sounds good to me.
That throws the baby straight out with the bath water and confuses space-time curvature with space curvature. A different approach is required.
The photon is stress, it pushes the lattice lines out of true, hence curving space, and imparts a pressure gradient that then causes curvilinear motion, which is curved spacetime.
GR isn't wrong, with respect, you've made an assumption that's wrong.
Yes and no. The Riemann curvature in GR is used for the equations of motion, not spatial curvature. There's this extra time axis in there, akin to what Minkowski was saying about the difference between magnetic force and electric force resulting from the electron's electromagnetic field.
Incredible. KK is so keen to trash the thread he dismisses Newton as well Minkowski, Maxwell, and Einstein.
It's the electron Compton wavelength divided by 2pi. "The Compton wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is the same as the rest-mass energy of the particle... The CODATA 2006 value for the Compton wavelength of the electron is 2.4263102175±33×10−12 meters".
People never do.
No. I gave a reasoned response to a slur. Here I am putting up the argument and the evidence, and no argument or evidence can ever be sufficient to make a crank abandon his belief. I don't have any beliefs. I have a current best-fit view. Show me some more evidence and I'll change that view. I will not dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit with what I think I know. Now, can we get back to physics please?
I'm sorry, but photons do interect with photons. The experimental evidence takes precedence over a diagram here.
I'm not trying to compete with QED, I'm trying to describe the physical reality that underlies it.
That's no argument. If you can accept that a gravitational wave increases a distance in space, you shouldn't have a problem with a photon doing something similar. Look at my opening posts again and grasp that twist and turn, and the curve or curl associated with it. To make space curve, to bend it, you need to change a nearby distance, like pushing outwards on an elastic lattice.