Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Farsight]

What caught my attention, and why I thought it might apply, is that the beginning of the article talked about Thomson's vortex atom model, and how Peter Guthrie Tait "came to believe that one could account for the rich variety of atoms in the periodic table by systematically building a classification system for all types of knots." The article had pictures of trefoil knots, too, being constructed from a helix mapped onto a torus. Of course, Thomson eventually figured out he was on a dead-end path when he could not "analytically prove the temporal stability of a vortex knot." Smart guy, Thomson was.

He was before his time, and gave up too soon. Maxwell was smart too, see On Physical Lines of Force and take special note of the page heading. It's very sad he got it back to front. The vortex isn't in the space between the electron, it's what the electron is. As is the proton, only more complex. So something like a sodium atom is tremondously complicated. These guys know about the trefoil proton. Getting past prejudice and proving it is another matter.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

He was before his time, and gave up too soon. Maxwell was smart too, see On Physical Lines of Force and take special note of the page heading. It's very sad he got it back to front. The vortex isn't in the space between the electron, it's what the electron is. As is the proton, only more complex. So something like a sodium atom is tremondously complicated. These guys know about the trefoil proton. Getting past prejudice and proving it is another matter.

Again with the obvious lie? Have you even read the scientific paper that the article is based on? You are really, really in way-off base territory here with your citation of that paper.

 

[Farsight]

Treating it as a point particle fits with what the universe tells us.

Baloney. You can perform the dual-slit experiment with electrons. It goes through both slits because it's an extended entity. Its field is part of what it is.

Sorry Farsight, they are point particles. Really. Science tells us that treating electrons as point particles matches the physical properties of electrons.

This is kid's stuff. Somebody please put him straight.

Now take a reality check: An ocean wave is not a QM wave. A wave in space has no surface. A macroscopic particle does.

A photon has no surface, and an electron is made from a photon via pair production. It's an extended entity, it's macroscopic, and it has no surface. Even if it was a point particle it would still have no surface.

All scientists sound like "mathematician or a mathematical theoretical physicist". That is because science is based on mathematics which even experimental physicists know.

Sheesh. No. Science is based on the scientific method. Mathematics is just one tool, along with experiment, deduction, prediction, etc. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_physics to understand the distinction. There's been considerable conflict between experimental physics and theoretical physics. It continues even now.

It is a pity that you cannot understand the Stern-Gerlach experiment then.

It's a pity you can't understand spinning a globe, holding it by the spin axi, then giving that a spin. It's trivial, and it accounts for the Stern-Gerlach result.

Farsight: underlying spin space is a nothing. It is a mathematical space. Spin space is used to describe QM spin which is also not a "real" as in classical spin. You are confused. I an resorting to science: QM spin is not classical spin.

You're resorting to mysticism whilst rejecting evidence.

I read your post and it is not understandable. So lets turn this into a question: First asked 20 April 2010 Farsight, Please give a complete and understandable explanation of "spinning the spin axis".

Oh come on. Take a sphere, with a steel rod running through the middle, on bearings. Spin the sphere like a globe. Now grab hold of the steel rod, the top end in your left hand, the bottom in your right hand, and rotate your rapidly hands so that your left hand is at the bottom and your right hand is at the top. Now let go. Your spinning sphere is spinning.

Classical spins can have an axis that points an any direction. There are not 2 separate orientations of spin. You can have positive and negative spin around a specific axis.

The "spinning spinning sphere" I described above is classical, but it does not match your criteria.

And back to the Stern-Gerlach experiment :

• Classically a collection of silver atoms in a furnace will have a random distribution of spin orientations and so a random distribution of spin angular momentum vectors.
• Pass this collection of silver atoms through an inhomogeneous magnetic field then the atoms will deflected by random amounts.
• The result expected is that there will be a band of atoms detected.
• The actual result is 2 bands.

Yes you did. And I have never seen a free quark.

Now adjust your prediction for the spinning-spinning sphere. There is no random distribution of spin oritentations, because those spin orientations are spinning.

I agree - wave (quantum) mechanics is not mysticism. It is science. You thinking that I think it is mysticism is totally weird.

Yes, you think it's mystic. So much so that you pretend not to understand the simplest explanation.

But quantum does not mean "how much". It means... It is derived from the Latin quantus which does mean "how much".

See? It's Quantum Mechanics, not Mystic Mechanics.

So it is not a a real rotation then bacause it does not act like a real rotation. It is a QM rotation that gives a QM angular momentum. It has real effects: a measurable magnetic dipole moment. These are real and clear, within the understanding of any one with an average intelligence, things.

Yes, they're real, and it's a real rotation, RC. Not imaginary, not mystic, and not non-classical.

Sigh. You and I were not and never have been talking about the dual slit experiment. That isn't the Stern-Gerlach experiment which we have been talking about.

What? You're dismissing the dual slit experiment?

An electron is a treated as a point particle in QM. This leads to a theory that matches the real universe very accurately.

Will somebody tell this guy about QFT please?

If you are going all mystical then you can fantasize about the electron not being a point particle, e.g. it could be really small angels dancing on a really, really small pin head.

It isn't me being mystical here, RC.

 

[Farsight]

Go ahead, Farsight - quote the post of mine where I said "electron spin has nothing to do with rotation". If you can't, you're a liar as well as a crank.

Oh slippery. Don't think you can hide behind a request for a direct quote. Here you go, post #606. You say "Nothing's rotating in any normal sense of the word." Is that good enough for you?

Are you a liar, Farsight?

No. But you are abusive because you can't deal with the evidence and the logic.

I know very well what electron spin is and where it comes from, and it does have something to do with rotation. Anyone educated in particle physics or quantum field theory would know that. The wiki is wrong, it was obviously written by people with little knowledge of the topic.

But you will not support me on any point, and you will not correct others on this thread who take the wrong view. Yuk. You said you were leaving the thread. Do it.

 

[Farsight]

Again with the obvious lie? Have you even read the scientific paper that the article is based on? You are really, really in way-off base territory here with your citation of that paper.

You know I've read the paper. I've quoted from it. Here's some more.

8. Winfree, A. T., Winfree, E. M. & Seifert, H. Organizing centers in a cellular excitable medium. Physica D 17, 109115 (1985).
9. Moffatt, H. K. Degree of knottedness of tangled vortex lines. J. Fluid Mech. 35, 117129 (1969).
10. Thompson, W. (Lord Kelvin) On vortex atoms. Phil. Mag. 34, 1524 (1867).
11. Faddeev, L. & Niemi, A. J. Stable knot-like structures in classical field theory. Nature 387, 5861 (1997).
12. Battye, R. A. & Sutcliffe, P. M. Knots as stable soliton solutions in a three-dimensional classical field theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 47984801 (1998).

And you are really really way off base calling me a liar.

 

[Farsight]

a) Hey, look, another vague analogy with no reference to Maxwell's Equations or QED!

Hey look, another arrogant dismissal of explanation in order to try to preserve one's exalted status.

b) Your analogy strongly suggests that you've misunderstood the quantum wave-particle duality entirely. It has nothing to do with the relative speed of the observer and the wave phases. It has nothing to do with identifying the "bumps" as particles.

Suggest what you like. Your response strongly suggest that you suffer from so much intellectual arrogance that you refuse to understand anything. You don't even understand the electromagnetc field. You think changing one field generates another!

What utter baloney. You just made that up; I've known hundreds of theorists and I've never met one who "sneers at" experimentalists.

Don't pretend there's no conflict. It won't wash.

Again, Farsight, if you someday meet an experimental physicist, ask them how often they use equations to test their ideas.

I've met experimental physicists. Of course they use equations. They formulate predictions, and give rigor to those ideas. But the experiments test those ideas, not the equations.

Ask them if they've ever had an intuitive or analogy-based idea which turned out to be wrong. (Fairly often.) Ask them how does one find out that one's intuitions and analogies are wrong. (Answer: because you work through the math and the math tells you you're wrong.)

Clunk. That's my head hitting my desk in frustration at your stupidity. The maths doesn't tell you you're wrong. The experiment tells you.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

You know I've read the paper. I've quoted from it.

Then why are you lying about it? Nothing in that paper has anything to do with your theory.

Here's some more.

Yes, we all know that knot-theory exists.

And you are really really way off base calling me a liar.

No, I'm simply pointing out the truth: you either do not understand the paper and you are lying about your understanding or you do understand the paper and are lying about its content because you think nobody else will read it. Which is it?

Edit: Here's a way to prove that you aren't a liar: show us where that paper makes any reference to protons.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Clunk. That's my head hitting my desk in frustration at your stupidity. The maths doesn't tell you you're wrong. The experiment tells you.

This complaint might have some teeth if you could actually describe any experiment in detail.

 

[dafydd]

How old is Farsight? 14?

 

[ben m]

Clunk. That's my head hitting my desk in frustration at your stupidity. The maths doesn't tell you you're wrong. The experiment tells you.

Nope! Most wrong ideas are proven wrong before you get as far as an experiment. "Hey Sally, suppose that Special Relativity works like thus-and-such." "Sorry Bob, in putting together that idea you accidentally assumed 1=2 and 1/0 = pi."

 

[Reality Check]

Baloney. You can perform the dual-slit experiment with electrons. It goes through both slits because it's an extended entity. Its field is part of what it is.

Baloney. The subject that we are talking about is the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
The dual slit experiment performed with light, electrons or bucky-balls is another subject.

This is kid's stuff. Somebody please put him straight.

This is kid's stuff. Somebody please put him straight:
Sorry Farsight, they are point particles. Really. Science tells us that treating electrons as point particles matches the physical properties of electrons.

A photon has no surface, and an electron is made from a photon via pair production. It's an extended entity, it's macroscopic, and it has no surface. Even if it was a point particle it would still have no surface.

Wrong Farsight. Any macroscopic particle has a surface.
The "point" of a point particle is that it has no surface.

What is an "extended entity" and why does it not have a surface?

Sheesh. No. Science is based on the scientific method. Mathematics is just one tool, along with experiment, deduction, prediction, etc. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_physics to understand the distinction. There's been considerable conflict between experimental physics and theoretical physics. It continues even now.

Sheesh. Yes. Science is based on the scientific method. Mathematics is just one tool, along with experiment, deduction, prediction, etc. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_physics to understand the distinction. There's been considerable conflict between experimental physics and theoretical physics. It continues even now.

It's a pity you can't understand spinning a globe, holding it by the spin axi, then giving that a spin. It's trivial, and it accounts for the Stern-Gerlach result.

It is a pity that you cannot understand that the Stern-Gerlach experiment starts with spinning atoms with random orientations of spin. There is no "holding of the spin axis" at any point in the experiment.

You're resorting to mysticism whilst rejecting evidence.

You're resorting to ignorance whilst rejecting evidence.

Oh come on. Take a sphere, with a steel rod running through the middle, on bearings. Spin the sphere like a globe. Now grab hold of the steel rod, the top end in your left hand, the bottom in your right hand, and rotate your rapidly hands so that your left hand is at the bottom and your right hand is at the top. Now let go. Your spinning sphere is spinning.

Now do that with a 1 degree turn. Now let go. Your spinning sphere is spinning !
Now do that with a 2 degree turn. Now let go. Your spinning sphere is spinning !
Now do that with a 3 degree turn. Now let go. Your spinning sphere is spinning !
....
All you are saying is that a force can turn the axis of spin. Guess what - if you had read any physics texbooks then you would have seen that there.

What? You're dismissing the dual slit experiment?

No. It is an importamt experiment demonstrating wave/particle duality.

This is your strawman that you have brought up because you cannot understand the the Stern-Gerlach experiment .

 

[sol invictus]

Oh slippery. Don't think you can hide behind a request for a direct quote. Here you go, post #606. You say "Nothing's rotating in any normal sense of the word." Is that good enough for you?

No, of course it's not "good enough". That statement is true. The one you attributed to me - that quantum spin has nothing to do with rotation - is not. You're a liar.

No. But you are abusive because you can't deal with the evidence and the logic.

So you're not a liar, but you can't find the post where I said what you said I did. You're doubly a liar now.

 

[Farsight]

Regarding the analogies thing: I've got all sorts of analogies and diagrams and thought experiments that I use in the classroom. What's different about my analogies vs. Farsight's? Well, first of all, there's no point in elaborating on analogies on a system that you can't do any math on. The math tells you whether the analogy is appropriate or not. The reason we don't say "A spiral galaxy is sort of like a whirlpool"---sounds good at a glance, doesn't it?---is that the math underlying a whirlpool is totally different than the math underlying a spiral galaxy. If you assume they're similar, you will get essentially all of spiral galaxy physics wrong.

That's a bad analogy. An accretion disk would be better. And try "an electron is sort of like a vortex".

Secondly, suppose that I have a good analogy---"a grandfather clock's pendulum is very similar to the coil spring in a watch"---the only reason to use it is if it actually teaches somebody something. If I toss out that analogy in the classroom, and it doesn't stick (if, say, that week's problem sets come in full of errors) I will discard it as pedagogically useless. I won't repeat it quarter after quarter and insult anyone who doesn't like it. I'll find another analogy, or I'll stick to the math.

That's another bad analogy. You're comparing two workaday objects that are not sufficiently similar. And your scenario is reversed. The situation is that you find a good analogy, and receive insults for your attempts to promote understanding from those who feel that this presents some kind of threat.

Farsight, you've spent how many years throwing these analogies around on Web forums?

I got going in late 2006 with Time Explained, so that's three and a half years.

And they've convinced how many people?

Hundreds. Really.

This should tell you something. If you have something you want to convey, you are utterly failing to convey it.

I'm not failing overall. I'm failing to persuade you because of your refusal to admit any scientific evidence that challenges your conviction. It's similar for others on this thread, some of whom offer responses that lack sincerity and rationality, and instead are dismissive.

If there's anything interesting in your hypothesis, you have utterly failed to interest anyone in it. Do you want to keep failing for three or four more years? If not, I would suggest that you change the way you're presenting your evidence. You have the power to do this: go to college, get a physics degree, and learn enough math to take a couple of steps.

These things take time, as you know. The various sayings such as It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom reflect human intransigence.

Alternatively, you have the power to be a crackpot whose hypothesis is born, turned over a few times, and dies entirely in your head without having (a) interested one other person or (b) generated one prediction or (c) passed one mathematical or experimental test. Which of those do you want? You're on-track for the latter (as your years of experience should show) and show no signs of deviating (since you're ignoring all advice and expertise)

Wishful thinking. Get behind me ben, because when the proverbial hits the fan, you don't want to be in front of it.

 

[Farsight]

So then explain that topology and said difference (which would include more than just charge). This time try some math and not just analogies, quote mining and pictures.

I cannot explain the maths using maths. I have to use something else.

From your referenced post.. (that 511keV photon energy/momentum isn't travelling at c. It's moving at c…) A lack of self-contradiction might also be a benefit in such an explanation.

I've made this perfectly clear, don't feign ignorance and pretend contradiction. The photon is rotating. It's moving, but not travelling.

Ok, pair production not just electron production. You need to explain how your “split occurs and how your “split” self-bound photonic state topology results in just an electron. Pair production does not support such a claim since it produce, well, a pair. Even if you do just want to “split” that pair or pair production without explaning your “spit”. Again some math would help (and a lack of self-contradiction).

And again we see the same device. I'm the one who introduced pair production, and have reiterated that a pair must be produced to conserve angular momentum. And I've already explained it. Asserting that I claim one can make a single fermion is utterly banal.

I think it might also have something to do with the virtual photons around the nucleus in pair production (and QED). Resulting in the change in momentum of that nucleus as a result of the pair production. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Those virtual photons are virtual, they aren't real photons. But yes, the momentum of nucleus does change.

Nope, that is just and electron and positron resulting in two photons. You need a single electron degenerating in to photon to support your claim.

What? No I don't. What an absolute straw man.

Can you give some quantitative prediction for how long a “split” self-bound photonic state may remain so bound...

No. It remains bound forever. It's bound.

Perhaps your “split” self-bound photonic state is simply virtual...

Now you're really dredging up garbage. Enough.

Ah, the “quasi-religious denial of scientific evidence” failsafe of crank notions. Get off your keister and start doing that hard part. Make some testable quantitative predictions for these notions you want to support or to be supported. If those notions make no testable quantitative predictions other than those already tested from current theories, than said notions provide no advantage over those already tested and verified theories (other than to you).

The scientific evidence is there in pair production, electron angular momentum, magnetic dipole moment, spin 1/2, Stern-Gerlach, electron optics. And yet you persist in a belief in quantum mysticism, and defend it with abuse and dismissal and a demand for mathematics. Don't worry, the quantitative predictions will come. If you don't want to discuss it before then, that's up to you.

 

[Farsight]

Look, the claim of Farsight to not know any predictions of string theory is just a straight-up lie. He has been saying the same thing about string theory for at least three years and ample evidence can be found on the internet that from the start many people have provided him very specific and thorough lists and references about the predictions of string theory. Why he persists in so obvious a lie is beyond me, but it is indicative of the quality of his knowledge and reasoning. (Heck, once it appears that Farsight even claimed that string theory was wrong because it predicted the existence of the Higgs particle!)

This is deliberate dishonesty. Moderator, do your stuff.

OK KK, prove me wrong. Give a list of the predictions of string theory.

 

[dafydd]

I cannot explain the maths using maths. I have to use something else.

I've made this perfectly clear, don't feign ignorance and pretend contradiction. The photon is rotating. It's moving, but not travelling.

And again we see the same device. I'm the one who introduced pair production, and have reiterated that a pair must be produced to conserve angular momentum. And I've already explained it. Asserting that I claim one can make a single fermion is utterly banal.

Those virtual photons are virtual, they aren't real photons. But yes, the momentum of nucleus does change.

What? No I don't. What an absolute straw man.

No. It remains bound forever. It's bound.

Now you're really dredging up garbage. Enough.

The scientific evidence is there in pair production, electron angular momentum, magnetic dipole moment, spin 1/2, Stern-Gerlach, electron optics. And yet you persist in a belief in quantum mysticism, and defend it with abuse and dismissal and a demand for mathematics. Don't worry, the quantitative predictions will come. If you don't want to discuss it before then, that's up to you.

So you can't do the maths,what a surprise.

 

[Farsight]

I think that someone should actually use his theory in a defence of homeopathy. Because all particles are made of photons, the photons that make up water can take on, or imprint, the electromagnetic properties of the photons in solution. Dilution heightens this effect because it transforms more photons into the new twist of the solution. Drinking the solution makes the photons in your body twist in response, thus working opposite to the particles used in making the solution.

A pathetic ad-hominem. I'm the one offering the scientific evidence here, and you can't counter it. Hence the abuse.

 

[dafydd]

This is deliberate dishonesty. Moderator, do your stuff.

OK KK, prove me wrong. Give a list of the predictions of string theory.

http://www.finestructure.com/2009/07/finally-a-string-theory-prediction/

http://physicsworld.com/blog/2009/02/a_prediction_from_string_theor.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/05/4127.ars


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...0585/Predictions-and-theoretical-difficulties

 

[dafydd]

A pathetic ad-hominem. I'm the one offering the scientific evidence here, and you can't counter it. Hence the abuse.

Evidence lol.Which dictionary are you using to define that word?

 

[Farsight]

...The dual slit experiment performed with light, electrons or bucky-balls is another subject.

And it's the experimental evidence that proves that an electron is not a point particle.

Sorry Farsight, they are point particles. Really. Science tells us that treating electrons as point particles matches the physical properties of electrons.

Clunk. No, science tells us it isn't a point particle.

What is an "extended entity" and why does it not have a surface?

A wave is an extended entity. Think of an oceanic swell wave. It has no surface, because the ocean has the surface. A wave in a bulk has no discernible surface at all, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave. Hence an electromagnetic wave has no surface. Hence a photon has no surface. We can make and electron and a positron from a +1022keV photon, and they have no surface too. Another useful illustration is a whirlpool. Like the oceanic swell wave, it's the ocean that has the surface. A vortex in a bulk has no no discernible surface at all.

Sheesh. Yes. Science is based on the scientific method. Mathematics is just one tool, along with experiment, deduction, prediction, etc. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_physics to understand the distinction. There's been considerable conflict between experimental physics and theoretical physics. It continues even now.

You've repeated what I said. I'll presume it's no error. This is verging on intelligent discussion.

It is a pity that you cannot understand that the Stern-Gerlach experiment starts with spinning atoms with random orientations of spin. There is no "holding of the spin axis" at any point in the experiment.

Let's try again. Have you over played football? I'll presume that's a yes. When you're taking a free kick, your intent is to put the ball in the top right corner of the net. So you aim a metre to the right of the goalpost, and strike the ball with a glancing kick that imparts an anticlockwise spin. As a result the ball swerves left, and the keeper can't get it. GOAL! Alternatively you're aiming for the top left, whereupon you impart a clockwise spin and it swerves right. GOAL! If you vary the spin orientation and keep kicking balls at the middle of an empty net, their impact points trace out the classical result of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. A ball that hits the middle of the net is one with polar spin. Now repeat, but with a ball that already has topspin, to which you can add a given amount of additional spin. Your balls will always hit either the left post or the right post, depending on the chirality of the second spin combined with the first. With two spins combined, there are only two results, not a range of results.

Now do that with a 1 degree turn. Now let go. Your spinning sphere is spinning !
Now do that with a 2 degree turn. Now let go. Your spinning sphere is spinning !
Now do that with a 3 degree turn. Now let go. Your spinning sphere is spinning !

Don't be silly.

All you are saying is that a force can turn the axis of spin. Guess what - if you had read any physics texbooks then you would have seen that there.

I'm not saying that, I'm giving you analogies to try to explain the complex photon-spin within the electron. We all know about gyroscopes, I'm talking about the spin that causes the massless photon to stay in place and exhibit mass.

This is your strawman that you have brought up because you cannot understand the the Stern-Gerlach experiment .

I understand it. Come on RC, it's simple. How much easier can I make it before you grasp this spinning spin?