They don't couple, but they can interact, for example to produce a fermion pair.
Fair enough. We're essentially talking about topological charge. This kind of thing.
Noted.
Read what is being said, for goodness sake, Farsight. I said they do not interact directly with photons. Obviously that doesn't exclude indirect interactions which are mediated by fermions.
How so? The curvature I referred to involves spatial curvature, as a part of the predicted spacetime curvature.
Yes, there is stress-energy-momentum associated with e/m waves. But the amount of stress-energy-momentum produced by a 511 keV photon is orders of magnitude too small to correspond to the postulated spatial curvature via the GR field equations. If you read the Williamson / van der Mark paper, even they acknowledge this.
It's entirely possible. Or perhaps I didn't explain my point clearly enough. But I think the problem may be that we have differing notions of curvature.
The Riemann tensor contains information about purely spatial curvature, as well as other kinds (though the notion of "purely spatial" depends on the coordinates chosen).
In the standard model, this interaction takes place via virtual fermions. Essentially, the e/m field and a charged quantum field are "coupled", and this coupling of the fields gives rise to interactions between the field quanta.
I'll add it to my task list.
How as a skeptic can you possibly accept that?
So you mean that motion is absolute.
The very first link in your seach is a FAQ pointing out that the CMB is not an absolute reference frame. Like all your citations, that is a fail. I have actually extensively studied the science of cosmology, and I have never found a cosmologist that claimed that the CMB provided an absolute reference frame.
So can you actually explain what the wrench analogy means for Minkownski and using that specific Minkowski paper and how Minkowski's mathematics backs up that analogy and your theory? In other words, can you provide the scientific evidence that you claim is there?
Yes, I dismiss Newton's alchemy. Do you not think that Newton's alchemy was incorrect? Or are you willing to accept all the achemical principles that Newton investigated?
How is your answer above a calculation for the components of gμv that you were asked for? Remember, you said: "Spacetime curvature isn't the same as curved space. It's associated with a gradient in gμv that results in curvilinear motion, the latter being labelled as curved spacetime. Did you read my cubic-lattice description of a photon? Think of the gμv gradient as a pressure-gradient surrounding a small lemon-shaped region where space has been extended by 3.86 x 10 -13 m. This region is marked out by curved lattice lines: space is curved. "
Missed this. Finally got a readable copy of the paper by using Acrobat Reader 7 instead of 8!
The laws of physics couldn't care less what humans are capable of doing. If the neutrino has a mass then it has a well-defined reference frame. The fact that it may be difficult for us as humans to observe the neutrino at rest is irrelevant. Unless you think the laws of physics treats us humans as privaleged observers. Which couldn't be more in contradiction with reltivity.
What do you mean by I can't show you one? What would you require for something to be shown? Do you mean me personally? Does the fact that it has a measured lifetime not mean it has been shown?
Irrelevant.
So. Doesn't mean that they can't, in principle, be stopped. Or that they don't have a well-defined reference frame. I'll repeat, the laws of physics couldn't care less what humans can or can't do.
Pardon.
You're still wrong.
Its not a theory. Not in a scientfic sense anyway.
I'm dismissing it because its contradicted by, among other things, some of the most precisely tested theories in the history of physics. Why would I bother offering an alternative. I can't do better than QED so what's the point.
You don't. You don't even understand when it is and isn't an important process.
Yes. The common amplitude. I'm sure you're familiar with E=hf, which applies to all photons. The h is of course Planck's constant of action. This has the dimensionality of energy x time, and also momentum x distance. Action is "kick", all photons involve the same momentum x distance, and frequency is the inverse of time - it tells you how fast this kick is delivered. But regardless of this, the distance is always the same.
It's subtle. If you make electrons (and positrons) via pair production, you find can trap them to remove their kinetic energy, and then you find that they all have the same mass. Thus electron mass doesn't vary. You now let your electrons fall through a gravitational field, then trap them again to remove their kinetic energy. This kinetic energy didn't come from the earth, or from the gravitational field, it came from each electron. Thus the energy of each electron is reduced, hence the mass is reduced.
I'm explaining the maths. I can't use maths to do that. Now pay attention to my OP and what I said about spin in two orientations.
I know they aren't part of the standard model. But they are things that people accept without evidence, whilst dismissing the evidence that tells them that spin is not instrinsic.
Again refer to the OP and other posts. Plenty there. You're fooling yourself that there's nothing to counter.
Not so. You have trouble wrapping your mind round the geometry of the electromagnetic field, and I'm afraid you're describing yourself.
I'm presenting evidence. You're dismissing it on specious ground that don't hold water.
The problem with this "by definition" approach is that there is no such thing in reality. An electron has an electromagnetic field, not an electric field. The approach is misguided - it separates one field into two distinct fields, and then suggests that each field has an independent existence. They do not.
I reiterate, experimental results show that the speed of light varies. We define our time using the motion of electromagnetic waves, essentially light in the wider sense:
It's got everything to do with it. Many people who consider themselves to be knowledgeable in physics are stumped when pressed for an explanation of things they consider to be intrinsic or fundamental, and give nonsense non-answers like electromagnetic waves contain electromagnetic waves. Show them the clear evidence that leads to deeper understanding, and they reject it.
Agreed. I did start on a new thread on this as promised, but it seems there was a problem: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171080. If you want to talk about gravity further, we may have to take it offline or elsewhere.
The fine structure constant tells you the relative strength of the electromagnetic force as compared to the strong force. That's a fact.
You're denying the facts, and I'm afraid that points 1 and 2 apply to you, not me.
Please point out where you think this miscalculation occurs in order to justify your assertion.
The photon does involve an electromagnetic field variation without charge, usually depicted with orthogonal vectors, and with respect, you're claiming an error where none exists.
The "exotic topology" was introduced on page 4. On page 5 they say:
With respect, ct, you're rejecting the evidence in the right-hand rule and electromagnetic phenomena that associates the electromagnetic field with twist and turn, then you're rejecting the deduction that this must arise from spatial curvature and that the photon involves such spatial curvature. You then use this along with a false assertion re field lines terminating on photons to reject the whole paper.
The rotation is what yields the electron properties.
It's pair production and annihilation and electron angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. Etc. For some extraordinary reason people reject all this and maintain a dogmatic adherence to things like intrinsic spin. The basis for this is that "an electron does not spin like a planet", but they will not consider a spinning planet where the axis of rotation is also spinning.
The error is in their twisted strip picture. They imagine, for example, electric field lines normal to the strip - i.e. the photon - pointing radially inwards. They miss the fact that those field lines must carry on straight through the strip, pass through the centre of the object, and then go radially out the other side - leading to zero net field.
I'm confused by this statement. I first read the paper during the FTL thread. Anyway, as I said before: the geometric curvature associated with the photon is too small for your purposes, therefore I assume that you have in mind a topological solution - as Williamson and van der Mark suggest - which is not curvature in the way I normally use the term. Informally, okay we can call it curvature.