Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

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

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

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.

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

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.

Don't be silly.

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.

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

Are you trying for the Nobel prize for arrogance? The words annoying,tick and little come to mind.
 
dafydd said:
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
Click to expand...
LOL, and the first link asks Finally, a String Theory Prediction? and when you follow the link to http://www.physorg.com/news166097923.html, it's just another retrofit postdiction. Hoist by your own petard, daffy. After forty years of string theory, what does the article say?

"The problem of string theory was that, in spite of its excellent maths, it was never able to make a concrete link with the physical reality - the world around us....

Although the mystery of high temperature super-conductivity isn't fully resolved, the findings do show that major problems in physics can be addressed using string theory."

And your second link says "and now we have some real testable predictions from a theory of gravity derived (not in the mathematical sense) from string theory". Not mathematical? Braneworld gravity? LOL, don't make me laugh, groupie. Your third link is just the usual fig-leaf hype.

Come on, just list the predictions of string theory.
 
Gotta go guys, I'm aware I've missed out a patch of posts, I'll try to cover them when I can, but I'd be grateful if you could highlight any that you think are particularly relevant.
 
Farsight said:
And it's the experimental evidence that proves that an electron is not a point particle.
Click to expand...
The dual slit experiment is proof that the electron is both a wave and a poont partice.

Farsight said:
Clunk. No, science tells us it isn't a point particle.
Click to expand...
Clunk. No, science tells us it is a point particle.

Farsight said:
A wave is an extended entity. ...
Click to expand...
A wave is a wave.

Farsight said:
You've repeated what I said. I'll presume it's no error. This is verging on intelligent discussion.
Click to expand...
It is no error. That is what science is and what you are ignoring.

Farsight said:
Let's try again. ...
Click to expand...
Let's try again.
Lets play a game of football in space where every football is free to rotate in any direction. That is the same initial silver atoms in the furnace in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. The spin angular momentun vectors point in random directions. The effect of passing the silver atoms should result in a single band. It results in 2 bands.

Farsight said:
Don't be silly.
Click to expand...
Don't display your ignorance by ignoring the initial conditions of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Farsight said:
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.
Click to expand...
We all know about gyroscopes and that their axis of spin can point in any direction.
I'm talking about the spin that causes the silver atomns in the Stern-Gerlach experiment to show 2 bands rather than the one band expected classically.

Your analogies are terrible.
The first rule about analogies is that they should reflect the physical situation. The physical situation is the the silver atoms in the experiment are prepared so that classically their spins are in random orientations.

Farsight said:
I understand it. Come on RC, it's simple. How much easier can I make it before you grasp this spinning spin?
Click to expand...
No you do not (see above).
Come on Farsight , it's simple. How much easier can I make it before you grasp this classical spin?
 
Reality Check said:
The dual slit experiment is proof that the electron is both a wave and a poont partice.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

You can do that experiment with not just nucleons and atoms but even some fairly substantial molecules I believe.

This post in no way implies the slightest agreement between myself and Farsight.
 
edd said:
No it isn't.

You can do that experiment with not just nucleons and atoms but even some fairly substantial molecules I believe.

This post in no way implies the slightest agreement between myself and Farsight.
Click to expand...
That is right: The dual slit experiment is proof that the electron (as well as photons, atoms, bucky-balls (C60), etc.) is both a wave and a point particle. In fact it is evidence that at small enough scales, everything acts as both waves and point particles: Wave–particle duality

What Farsight needs to understand is
  • Treating all particles including electrons as point particles as is done in quantum mechnaics leads to one of the most accurately tested theory in physics (Quantum Electrodynamics).
  • He seems to grasp that a macroscopic particle with the properties of an electron is impossible because the surface would be moving faster than the speed of light.
  • But he wants to replace a point particle with an "extended entity" like a wave (but not a wave?). The problem is that if that "extended entity" has any extent then part of it will also be moving faster than the speed of light.
 
Farsight said:
I cannot explain the maths using maths. I have to use something else.
Click to expand...

Yup, the Religion and Philosophy forum is that way ....

When you can show the equation that derives the mass of the electron from the photon then you will have more than 'It is like a accretion disk' : a similie, a metaphor and an analogy.

Insert phlogiston here.
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
Just look at the images for electromagnetic spectrum. Pick any one at random. Look at the sinusoidal waveform. Look at the wave height. That's the amplitude. It's always the same regardless of frequency.

[qimg]http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/physics_gcse/Unit_1/Topic_5/em_spectrum.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

This thread just keeps getting better. It seems Farsight actually believes that all electromagnetic waves have the same amplitude because he's seen pictures explaining the idea of a spectrum of frequencies to school children. Just when you thought the ignorance couldn't get any more hilarious.
 
Farsight said:
LOL, not me bud. Go on, get lost.
Click to expand...

You attributed a (false) statement to me. When called on it, you found a different (true) statement I made. When called on that, your response is "LOL"?

You're a proven liar. What makes it worse is that you actually don't seem to be capable of distinguishing between true and false, reality and fantasy (or phantasy in your case).
 
Farsight said:
Just look at the images for electromagnetic spectrum. Pick any one at random. Look at the sinusoidal waveform. Look at the wave height. That's the amplitude. It's always the same regardless of frequency.

[qimg]http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/physics_gcse/Unit_1/Topic_5/em_spectrum.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp
 
Farsight said:
That's a bad analogy. An accretion disk would be better. And try "an electron is sort of like a vortex".
Click to expand...
Then show us the equations that govern the electron that show this to be the case and show us the measurement evidence that supports the use of these equations. Newton, for example, supported no assertion about gravity that did not have some role in his mathematical description of gravity. You have to do the same, just like any physicist.
Farsight said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you think that you might be prejudiced in favour of your own theory? After all, you have in this very thread twice cited a paper as relevant to your theory that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Do you think this might be a sign that you simply have wishful thinking instead of rational thinking? So far, in this thread, when asked to defend your position, you have offered nothing other than more analogies.
Farsight said:
I cannot explain the maths using maths. I have to use something else.
Click to expand...
To be clear: you cannot explain using the proper mathematics because you do not understand the mathematics, right?
Farsight said:
This is deliberate dishonesty. Moderator, do your stuff.

OK KK, prove me wrong. Give a list of the predictions of string theory.
Click to expand...
Farsight, a Google search for your name and some obvious key phrases will turn up many responses to your claims about string theory. You know that people have given you lists of string theory predictions already. But don't try to weasel out of coming clean on your own burden of proof for your own theory by attacking others.

String theory can show how it can produce exactly the same results that we record on a daily basis in physics. You, however, cannot show how any of your fantasies could possibly produce what we see.
Farsight said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have just shown that you do not understand what is going on. In the situation you describe, the ball could take on a range of left to right swerve because of the different amount of spin imparted. But quantum spin is always the exact amount of swerve in whatever direction is indicated.
Farsight said:
LOL, and the first link asks Finally, a String Theory Prediction? and when you follow the link to http://www.physorg.com/news166097923.html, it's just another retrofit postdiction.
Click to expand...
Yet even if string theory could only retrofit our results, it is still more than your theory can do. You either cannot make predictions at all or you occasionally make predictions (like that galaxy rotation curves do not need dark matter) that you cannot defend.
 
Dancing David said:
Yup, the Religion and Philosophy forum is that way ....
Click to expand...
While it is perhaps OK to set up a religion where one worships Farsight's theory without any evidence, it is not OK in philosophy. Philosophy should rely on a certain amount of rigour that is obviously missing here. philosophyforums.com effectively got rid of Farsight years ago by regulating his works to their pseudophilosophy section.
Insert phlogiston here.
Click to expand...
Phlogiston was part of a theory that had a lot more going for it than Farsight's theory. There were different ways to measure the amount of phlogiston, ways that agreed with each other, phlogiston theory was productive in terms of technology and discoveries, and there was a long period with no obvious anomalies for the theory.

It turned out that people were measuring the amount of oxygen used in a reaction, not the amount of phlogiston, but people didn't believe in phlogiston for no reason.
 
Cuddles said:
This thread just keeps getting better. It seems Farsight actually believes that all electromagnetic waves have the same amplitude because he's seen pictures explaining the idea of a spectrum of frequencies to school children. Just when you thought the ignorance couldn't get any more hilarious.
Click to expand...

The amusement is outweighing the arrogance for the moment,I'll stick with it for a while just to see the next Farsight rib-tickler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom