Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[The Man]

Because I change n, you claim it's a fudge, it doesn't do any good, and we go round in circles talking about new physics instead of the solid old Einstein physics you're trying to avoid. Meanwhile, see how ProbablyNot said above that the units of energy are ML²/T²? The units of energy have a mass term in there, c is distance or length over time, so ML²/T² relates to E=mc² rather than E=hf. Now see the Watt balance section of the kilogram article on wikipedia:

The Planck constant defines the kilogram in terms of the second and the meter. By fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter.

As the Kilogram represents the units Newton Second² Meter^-1 it does depend on the definitions of those units as does h having the units Newton Second Meter. For your own edification energy has the units Newton Meter (or Joules), where exactly is the " mass term in there"? Certainly we can relate units of mass to units of energy by canceling out the terms (units) mass has but energy doesn't and introducing those it does. Those terms (that conversion of units) take the units of a velocity squared (Meter² Second^-2). So energy does not have a mass term in there. It does have a Meter term that mass does not, mass has the reciprocal of that term. Mass also has the square of a Second term that energy does not. Hence the need for Meter term squared (Meter²) and the reciprocal of a Second term squared (Second^-2) to convert units of mass to units of energy.

This is another reason why there is so much crackpot physics. Confusion about unit conversions and the basic math involved. Above we have an example of the crackpot notion that just because we can put energy in terms (units) of mass that "The units of energy have a mass term in there" when the units of energy (Newton Meter or Joules) contains no "mass term in there". Heck the units of mass (Newton Second² Meter^-1) don't even contain an energy term. It does however contain terms of force (Newton) and the reciprocal of acceleration (Second² Meter^-1) or terms of momentum (Newton Second) and the reciprocal of velocity (Second Meter^-1).

 

[edd]

The Man: it is usual to consider dimensions using mass length and time as the fundamentals - hence the MLT stuff Farsight gave. So you'd say energy has the dimensions of mass length^2 time^-2. And you'd consider the kilogram a base unit of SI, and the Newton a derived unit.

 

[dasmiller]

The Man: it is usual to consider dimensions using mass length and time as the fundamentals - hence the MLT stuff Farsight gave. So you'd say energy has the dimensions of mass length^2 time^-2. And you'd consider the kilogram a base unit of SI, and the Newton a derived unit.

Is it necessary, though? If you defined energy in terms of, say, the transition of the electron in a hydrogen atom from the 1S to 2S orbital (or whatever transition makes sense), would that be a mass-free energy unit? Or is mass still buried in there somewhere?

(I genuinely don't know the answer)

ETA: or define your unit energy to be the energy of a photon with some particular wavelength, since we've already defined length.

 

[edd]

Is it necessary, though? If you defined energy in terms of, say, the transition of the electron in a hydrogen atom from the 1S to 2S orbital (or whatever transition makes sense), would that be a mass-free energy unit? Or is mass still buried in there somewhere?

(I genuinely don't know the answer)

ETA: or define your unit energy to be the energy of a photon with some particular wavelength, since we've already defined length.

That would simply change your choice of units - it doesn't change the quantity's dimensions.

You could choose another basis than mass length and time however. Force length and time would work but it is unconventional. That doesn't change any underlying physics either of course.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hows the paint drying Daffyd?

 

[dasmiller]

That would simply change your choice of units - it doesn't change the quantity's dimensions.

You could choose another basis than mass length and time however. Force length and time would work but it is unconventional.

Okay, that's what I was looking for. Thanks.

That doesn't change any underlying physics either of course.

Agreed.

 

[dafydd]

Hows the paint drying Daffyd?

Who is Daffyd?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I duno, but he sounds too welch to make me bothered to spell his name correctly.

 

[dafydd]

I duno, but he sounds too welch to make me bothered to spell his name correctly.

If you're going in for stand-up, don't give up your day job.

 

[ben m]

LOL. OK, I don't understand the location of the electron Higgs coupling, and the location of the muon Higgs coupling. Or why the electron is a body whose mass doesn't depend upon its energy content, or ditto for the Higgs boson.

The electron obeys E=(0.511 MeV/c^2) c^2 . To create an e+ e- pair by colliding photons, the photons need to bring in at least 2 x 0.511 MeV plus any additional kinetic energy. The electron's mass (the thing that goes into F=ma, the thing that goes into F = GMm/r^2) is 0.511 MeV/c^2.

YES, MASS-ENERGY IS INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRON ENERGY BUDGET ACCORDING TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY. How many times do we have to say this? YES, E=MC^2. How many times?

Maybe (?) I understand a bit better what's wrong with your mental picture of the Higgs mechanism. You obviously think of it as doing something other than what it's doing.

What happens when you collide 2 photons with 0.45 MeV each? It doesn't make a phelectron-phositron pair with m = 0.4 MeV/c^2 each. Why not? It would obey relativity if it did. What happens if you collide two photons with 0.0001 MeV each? Why doesn't it make a pair of low-mass electrons, each with m = 0.0001 MeV/c^2 ? That'd be perfectly consistent with relativity. You can walk through Einstein's original thought-experiments and calculate the velocities, momenta, etc., of such particles created in such collisions.

Why are electrons only found at m=0.511 MeV? Why do 0.4+0.4 MeV photon collisions fail to produce low-mass electrons? Why do 10 + 10 MeV collision produce two fast-moving objects, rather than (as E=mc^2 allows) two heavy slow ones? Because the Higgs mechanism sets the electron mass to be 0.511 MeV/c^2. The Higgs mechanism sets the number that gets plugged in to "m" in all other physics equations, including the SR equations of kinematics, the GR equations of gravity, etc.

I repeat for the 10th time: The Higgs mechanism tells you what the mass will be. Everything about the behavior of this mass obeys Special Relativity.
Everything. "Energy content", gravitational pull, inertia, energy needed to create, energy needed to annihilate.

 

[The Man]

The Man: it is usual to consider dimensions using mass length and time as the fundamentals - hence the MLT stuff Farsight gave. So you'd say energy has the dimensions of mass length^2 time^-2. And you'd consider the kilogram a base unit of SI, and the Newton a derived unit.

Right a consequence of how those units in that system were defined and how those definitions have changed since then, as noted by ben m. In fact we really can't perceive mass directly so it actually did start out with what was a force [weight] being one of those defined dimensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_units

Original (1793): The grave was defined as being the weight [mass] of one cubic decimetre of pure water at its freezing point.FG

As you note..

That would simply change your choice of units - it doesn't change the quantity's dimensions.

You could choose another basis than mass length and time however. Force length and time would work but it is unconventional. That doesn't change any underlying physics either of course.

and as has been noted here crank physics (more of just numerology than physics though) often only seem to work out in a particular system of units.

 

[xtifr]

A-a-a-and, once again Farsight successfully hijacks another thread to make it all about his Relativity+ nonsense. Although it's fairly amusing that he chose this particular thread.

Is it too much to ask that we split off the attacks/defense of Relativity+ to a more appropriate thread, and keep this one about the hows and whys of crackpottery? Whether or not you think Relativity+ is an example of crackpottery, discussions of its details are not an answer to the original question.

 

[Roboramma]

It's valid Robo, because regardless of your system of units E=mc² and KE=½mv² and λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. It's just too difficult to explain, and it's just too much of a distraction.

Did you even read what I wrote? IF it's valid, just do the calculation, it wasn't difficult in one system of units, it shouldn't be difficult in another

The contradiction is that the Higgs mechanism says the mass of a a body such as the electron, is a measure of something else. It blatantly contradicts the most famous expression in physics.

Blink. Now do you understand it?

Blink.

I explain why it doesn't say that the mass of an electron is something else, and you just reply with the assertion that it says it's something else?

Can you please just reply to what I am writing?

Thanks

 

[dafydd]

A-a-a-and, once again Farsight successfully hijacks another thread to make it all about his Relativity+ nonsense. Although it's fairly amusing that he chose this particular thread.

Farsight never loses an opportunity to hijack a physics thread with his own idiosyncratic and erroneous version of physics. There's an upside, lurkers like me with a layman's interest in physics learn a lot from the real physicists here who correct his mistakes. Thanks to you all.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

fundamentalist physics

I haven't seen you "change n", I've seen you talk about how sure you are that it works. Do it.

When you're driving a truck, you can haul stuff. When you're playing with a toy truck, you can only pretend to haul stuff.

It's interesting to note that there are crackpot communities. (I can think of anti-relativity.com and physicsdiscussionforum.org as two examples.)

OMFSM. I had no idea.

According to Wikipedia's current article on fundamentalism,

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy.

In some forms of fundamentalism, those demands are backed by the authority of holy scripture, which the modernists are supposed to be guilty of ignoring.

Crackpot physics seldom demands we reject modern physics by returning to the specific theories of an earlier age. Crackpot physics seldom accuses modern physicists of misinterpreting holy scripture given to us in the remote past by some alleged deity.

But there are exceptions. At times, crackpot physics does indeed resemble a fundamentalist's calls for returning to (the fundamentalist's peculiar interpretation of) some holy scripture.

Farsight has contributed several examples:

I'd say some element of what I say is what Einstein thought. Unfortunately when I give the quotes to back that up, people tend to dismiss them.

Get real. I haven't made myriad mathematical mistakes. And I'm the guy who puts up what Einstein wrote and points out how different it is to what the experts write.

I'm the guy here who's saying Einstein was right. It's the recurrent theme of our little chats. And what do we see in response? Dismissal such as bah, cherry-picking and physics has moved on, all amounting to Einstein was wrong. The irony is just delicious.

No Pixel, the recurrent theme is that I'm the guy who gives the Einstein quotes, which are then dismissed by people who don't understand his work.

But I do know enough physics to say here's what Einstein said, and when some self-appointed "top experts in the world" flatly contradict that, I know enough physics to take them apart. LOL. My little knowledge is a dangerous thing all right. Dangerous to people who dismiss Einstein and peddle woo.

...the main thing about our little chats is that I want you guys to appreciate what Einstein actually said. And think for yourself.

I was thinking about how to describe it with squares and cubes and c=λf, where for two harmonic standing waves λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. But then I thought it's too tricky and it's too novel, I'm here to talk about what Einstein said and knock the woo on the head, not this.

So I have to admit religious fundamentalism does bear some resemblance to Farsight's calls for what he regards as a return to the fundamentals of Einstein's scriptures.

It's particularly bizarre in Farsight's case, because what he claims Einstein meant bears very little relation to what Einstein actually thought (or said, for that matter). Part of the reason is that if you can't follow Einstein's math, you can't understand what he did - because all of what he did was based on mathematics.

That's true, and sol invictus has identified one of the main reasons for the great gulf that lies between what Einstein actually said and what Farsight believes Einstein to have said.

Religious fundamentalists often disagree amongst themselves concerning the meaning of their holy scriptures. Wars have been fought over those disagreements.

Had their holy scriptures been written in the language of mathematics, they'd have been less ambiguous, and we might have had fewer religious wars. Einstein wrote in the language of mathematics.

If you can't read the language in which your holy scriptures were written, you're unlikely to understand what they say.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Similarly, remember how often we saw Mozina quoting something Alfven said. It was very reminiscent of someone quoting sacred texts.

 

[catsmate]

It's not unusual for crackpots to be professionals, especially from the ranks of professions other than the one in which they demonstrate crackpottery.
Linus Pauling comes to mind.
Some feel that Fred Hoyle became somewhat of a crackpot even though he made major contributions in cosmology. Would DeiRenDopa consider Hoyle to be a crackpot?

There's the Salem Hypothesis regarding engineers and woo. This could be extended to others (e.g. computer scientists) who have a smattering in a particular field, enough to get it wrong when applied to science.

 

[DavidS]

...dirty diapers are too concrete...

If you're seeing that, your change and disposal frequencies aren't nearly as high as they should be.

Oh, the physics and math stuff? I'm in no position to question your work. Carry on.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There's the Salem Hypothesis regarding engineers and woo. This could be extended to others (e.g. computer scientists) who have a smattering in a particular field, enough to get it wrong when applied to science.

The descriptions in those links are quite remarkable. I have an acquaintance (an EE with a master's degree), who fits the descriptions in those links extraordinarily well. He has his own "alternative explanations" for relativity and quantum theory. He believes in some peculiar 9/11 conspiracy and has religious views that relate human consciousness to some vague "first cause."
He insists he is correct in his opinions because of his superior perspective as an engineer. I wonder if these guys convince each other of this stuff as they interact with each other in their work -- thereby creating some kind of subculture.

 

[dasmiller]

The descriptions in those links are quite remarkable. I have an acquaintance (an EE with a master's degree), who fits the descriptions in those links extraordinarily well. He has his own "alternative explanations" for relativity and quantum theory. He believes in some peculiar 9/11 conspiracy and has religious views that relate human consciousness to some vague "first cause."
He insists he is correct in his opinions because of his superior perspective as an engineer. I wonder if these guys convince each other of this stuff as they interact with each other in their work -- thereby creating some kind of subculture.

Does he work with a lot of other engineers? I have my 'lone engineer' theory.