Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[ben m]

But there's only one field there, the electromagnetic field. It's three-dimensional, and isotropic around an electron, and to depict a slice through it we have to combine the radial and circular field lines like this:

[qimg]http://www.jbum.com/pixmagic/pinwheel.jpg[/qimg]

OK, I understand this now and it's worth jumping back into the thread. Those spiral lines you've drawn are meant to be the magnetic field vectors PLUS the electric field vectors. The electric part goes out, the magnetic part goes around, so you think the electromagnetic whole thing goes in a spiral. Presumably if you had an E field pointing north and a B field pointing west, you'd think that the "electromagnetic field" pointed northwest, right?

This is nonsense. The full electromagnetic field (E and B together) is not a vector, it's a tensor. It is not the simple vector sum of E and B. In a combined E and B field, as from a moving electron, there is no quantity whatsoever that has a spiral vector direction.

 

[Dancing David]

I've said there's certain mathematics I can't give, because it really isn't easy. But I've described how the photon becomes an electron and a positron.

I've shown how, but I can't show why the values are what they are. We measure the values.

It's in post #282 with a restatement in #338 and #341. Posts #351 and 353 are good re mass. Here's a list of posts to read.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5700809&postcount=1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5700835&postcount=2
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5703975&postcount=13
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5714509&postcount=34
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5721879&postcount=79
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5728013&postcount=120
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5729710&postcount=139
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5729770&postcount=141
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5730227&postcount=154
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5731708&postcount=185
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5731836&postcount=193
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5742320&postcount=256
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5742498&postcount=267
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5742905&postcount=282
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5743172&postcount=295
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5743353&postcount=300
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5745048&postcount=306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5746465&postcount=312
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5746819&postcount=319
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5748732&postcount=327
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5748946&postcount=338
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749016&postcount=341
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749040&postcount=342
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749670&postcount=353
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749803&postcount=355

It can't be done. I said why here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749844&postcount=357

If you genuinely want me to describe it afresh I'll do so. You have to understand the twist/turn of the electromagnetic field, and then appreciate the photon geometry, understand that it is spacewarp, and that if it travels through itself its path changes. If it travels entirely through itself, its path changes constantly. Since light normally travels in straight lines, this path change means space is curved, though curled is a better word.

If you're asserting that I haven't described anything, then forget it. For your convenience, here's #282 again:

If you can't derive the values, then you have a hypothesis, you do not have theory. That is a huge problem, to go from speculation to theory you have a lot of work to do.

 

[Dancing David]

Wish it were true, but sadly it isn't. String theory is "an actual theory", replete with mathematics, but it predicts nothing, and even after forty years has no experimental support whatsoever. It's entirely speculation, there's no evidence for any of it. And do note that my descriptions are chock full of supporting evidence.

Nope, that shows you don't understand the string theory either. Which of the shapes out of millions is a huge computational problem. It is based upon the maths, unlike your speculative hypothesis. Ground yours in math.

String theory may or may not be proven, after they sort through the millions of shapes.

 

[Dancing David]

OK, list the predictions of string theory.

This will be fun.

That is a derail , that belongs in another thread.

Try explaining in detail who a photon becomes a charged electron.

 

[ben m]

But this is just a number. It's a measure of the strength, but there's no units. There are no Newtons here. So it's a comparitive measure of strength. OK, so what is this measure of strength being compared with?

Roughly speaking, when a photon encounters an electron's worth of charge, 1/137 is the probability that it interacts, as opposed to the probability that it flies on past doing nothing at all. Probabilities are unitless.

 

[dafydd]

Yeah, these guys really take the biscuit daffy.

Comedy is not your forte,neither is science.

 

[dafydd]

OK, list the predictions of string theory.

This will be fun.

It is fun,but not in the way you think that it is.

 

[Reality Check]

What is the value of the fine structure constant? Let's have a look shall we?

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

"The fine-structure constant is of dimension 1 (i.e., it is simply a number) and very nearly equal to 1/137. It is the "coupling constant" or measure of the strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electron, muon) and light (photons) interact."

But this is just a number. It's a measure of the strength, but there's no units. There are no Newtons here. So it's a comparitive measure of strength. OK, so what is this measure of strength being compared with?

Read what you just quoted. It is a comparative measure of strength of the interaction of one electromagnetic field with another electromagnetic field. There is no other kind of force or field involved.

The nominal value of the strong coupling constant is 1. There's nothing about "1" that tells me anything about the relative strength of electromagnetic force. Not until I chuck in that 1/137. And that's a fact. Time you went back to school, RC:

Time you whent back to school, Farsight: fine structure constant
Just like

• The strong coupling constant is defined using the strong force only.
• The gravitational coupling constant is defined using the gravitational force only.
• The weak coupling constant is defined using the weak force only.

It is the decision of which coupling constants to compare to the fine struture constant to that decides which forces you are comparing:
Comparing the fine structure constant to the

• gravitational coupling constant gives an indication of the relative strength of the electromagnetic force as compared to the gravitational force.
• weak coupling constant gives an indication of the relative strength of the electromagnetic force as compared to the weak force.
• strong coupling constant gives an indication of the relative strength of the electromagnetic force as compared to the strong force.

 

[kalen]

Ben_m is right. The EM field is not an E field and B field added together.

One good way to know if two quantities can possibly add together in a meaningful way is if they have the same units. Since E and B have different units, you already know you can't add them together.

(Even if you do have two quantities with the same units, it does not necessarily mean you can automatically add them together and arrive at something meaningful.)

 

[ben m]

The nominal value of the strong coupling constant is 1. There's nothing about "1" that tells me anything about the relative strength of electromagnetic force.

A) No, it's not "1". It's in the ballpark of 1 when viewed with probes in a certain energy range (the 10-100 MeV scales relevant to mesons). It's much greater than 1 at lower energies (in nuclei). It's much less than 1 at higher energies (at the LHC).

B) Just like "alpha_em = 1/137", the strong coupling constant tells you the (roughly) the probability that a gluon and a quark will interact on a single flyby, versus the probability of not interacting. (alpha_s > 1 means that a typical flyby will include multiple interactions.)

C) The web page you cite is simply wrong. Go read a textbook.

 

[sol invictus]

Those spiral lines you've drawn are meant to be the magnetic field vectors PLUS the electric field vectors.

Oh, dear.

At least theoretical physics quacks don't endanger anyone's life (unlike medical quacks).

 

[dafydd]

Oh, dear.

At least theoretical physics quacks don't endanger anyone's life (unlike medical quacks).

True,they are harmless.

 

[Hellbound]

True,they are harmless.

Mostly harmless.

So far.

But I'm a firm pessimist and a believer in worse case scenarios. There's always that first time...

 

[dafydd]

Mostly harmless.

So far.

But I'm a firm pessimist and a believer in worse case scenarios. There's always that first time...

An idea for a movie script? Harmless crank creates black hole in his basement?

 

[sol invictus]

If he can do that, he's not a crank....

 

[Hellbound]

Heh.

I was thinking more along the lines of an idiot that thinks he can build a fusion reactor and ends up accidentally dirty-bombing a neighborhood.

 

[dafydd]

If he can do that, he's not a crank....

By accident,with Rick Moranis in the leading role.

 

[Farsight]

OK, I understand this now and it's worth jumping back into the thread. Those spiral lines you've drawn are meant to be the magnetic field vectors PLUS the electric field vectors. The electric part goes out, the magnetic part goes around, so you think the electromagnetic whole thing goes in a spiral. Presumably if you had an E field pointing north and a B field pointing west, you'd think that the "electromagnetic field" pointed northwest, right?

No. It doesn't point in some given direction at all. Imagine a rigid cubic lattice, now stick your hand in and twist. Now go round 90 degrees and stick your other hand in, and twist again. The twisted lattice is the electrostatic field that separates two co-turning rotors. Move through it and there's a turning action that makes a rotor circle. That's the magnetic field. The rotors are essentially electrons that impart the twist via frame-dragging. Hence gravitomagnetism is effectively a CMP emulation of electromagnetism.

This is nonsense. The full electromagnetic field (E and B together) is not a vector, it's a tensor. It is not the simple vector sum of E and B. In a combined E and B field, as from a moving electron, there is no quantity whatsoever that has a spiral vector direction.

Straw man. But you know ben, I think you've nearly got it. Keep going. There's only one field there, and it has a dynamical geometry. To grasp it, get yourself a pond and a plate and try out the Falaco soliton as per post 13. Just do it, then the penny will drop.

 

[Farsight]

One string theory (asking for predictions of string theory is not clear, ythere are many variations to it) predicts a radically stronger gravitational force at very short distances (it assumes the curled up dimensions are larger than previous theories have predicted). If the LHC ever does produce a micro-black hole, it will be evidence for this variation.

Additionally, other theories make other predictions; it's just that most require energy levels we cannot yet attain. A large part of research into string theory currently is trying to find low-energy tests of said theories.

And there is much more evidence for string theory than for your theory, because string theory does NOT contradict the results of experiment which we currently have access to.

String theory is pseudoscience. That gravity prediction is a fig leaf that hasn't stood up. Producing black holes holes is sensationalist garbage. And LOL! A large part of research into string theory currently is trying to find low-energy tests of said theories cuts no ice after 40 fracking years!

Jesus H Christ, where do they get these people?

 

[Farsight]

If you can't derive the values, then you have a hypothesis, you do not have theory. That is a huge problem, to go from speculation to theory you have a lot of work to do.

I am not alone, and this hypothesis is not some idle speculation like "the world is made of tiny dancing strings". This is the standard model, but where the wave function is the particle, and it has a topology.