Merged Relativity+ / Farsight
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
The Koide formula does have the benefit of being dimensionally correct, though.
(about a Wikipedia article on two-photon processes)
Propagators are an important part of both classical and quantum field theories. You insert a particle at position x and remove it from position y and calculate a strength function for going from x to y: P(x,y).
The inverse-square law of gravity and electrostatics is a simple example of a propagator in action, and there are fancier ones that I could point out.
When one tries to calculate a photon's propagator with quantum field theory, one gets the bare-photon one + photon-electrons-photon + photon-electrons-photon-electrons-photon + ...
But by redefining the bare-photon one and various other quantities, it's possible to get the appropriate zero-four-momentum limit for the photon, the one that we commonly experience. That's renormalization, and it got Richard Feynman his Nobel Prize.
So Farsight's attempts to laugh away this effect are a miserable failure.
(John Archibald Wheeler...)
He understood the equations of general relativity, and he even wrote a big fat book about GR with two of his colleagues.
Measurement units are essentially arbitrary, while something like the electron's mass isn't.
It may seem totally silly, but that's indeed what happens.
Propagators are an important part of both classical and quantum field theories. You insert a particle at position x and remove it from position y and calculate a strength function for going from x to y: P(x,y).
The inverse-square law of gravity and electrostatics is a simple example of a propagator in action, and there are fancier ones that I could point out.
When one tries to calculate a photon's propagator with quantum field theory, one gets the bare-photon one + photon-electrons-photon + photon-electrons-photon-electrons-photon + ...
But by redefining the bare-photon one and various other quantities, it's possible to get the appropriate zero-four-momentum limit for the photon, the one that we commonly experience. That's renormalization, and it got Richard Feynman his Nobel Prize.
So Farsight's attempts to laugh away this effect are a miserable failure.
Yes it does, and you can predict its rate from the Standard Model.
Yes, a Dirac spinor field.
(John Archibald Wheeler...)
How was that supposed to be the case?
He understood the equations of general relativity, and he even wrote a big fat book about GR with two of his colleagues.
Talk about mixing up two different sorts of things.
Measurement units are essentially arbitrary, while something like the electron's mass isn't.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I agree - the successes and failures of the Standard Model are not discussed enough.
So what, Farsight?
What is worse is people displaying ignorance, e.g. your example of mentioning the (not Standard Model and not that good) two-photon physics article on Wikipedia.
You need to think about it, Farsight.
What you quoted was standard quantum electrodynamics. It states that
“A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple”.
This is not a definition of pair production
! That article links to Pair production
The upshot is that you are making up fairy tales about what you read.
Two-photon physics is about real photons.
Pair production is about real photons.
A real photon does really turn into virtual electron-positron pairs all on its own all the time.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You've done it wrong. Planck length is l=√(ћG/c³). When you replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value, l=4πn/√c³) still yields a length.
You made the mistake. The expression is dimensionally correct, ctamblyn knows it, only he isn't honest enough to correct you. What you've done edd is create a straw man, and now you're clutching at straws. You can diffract an electron. Atomic orbitals do employ spherical harmonics. And despite what lpetrich says, a photon does not spontaneously morph into an electron and positron, which manage to morph back into a SINGLE photon which nevertheless manages to propagate at c.edd said:
All: I see my standard-model post has been moved out of the standard-model thread. Did somebody complain about it?
Um, edd did exactly what you said:
"Replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value. Now set n to 1, and work out 4πn/√(c³)."
How exactly does that work out to a length??
No it doesn't. You must know it doesn't, because the electron-positron pair has to morph back into a single photon, which is in breach of conservation of momentum. And if it did, that photon couldn't be propagating at the speed of light, because electrons and positrons can't travel at the speed of light. And of course if the photon energy is less than 1022keV, there isn't enough energy to create an electron and a positron.
Even a child can see the problems.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
You said "set n to 1". 1 banana? 1 fruit-bat? Edd was right, and I was too generous. Even though I was, and even if it hadn't given the wrong answer, all you (or Worsley) had done at best is add a new parameter to the model (namely n) in order to pretend to explain another one. It's pointless.
ETA: What Roboramma said.
Ask in Forum Management.
Last edited:
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
n = 3.1 x 107 mm2.5s-1.5 too. You can "explain" the value of anything if you are allowed to simply pull weird new constants out of thin air.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
By the way, John Duffield / Farsight, when are you going to get round to this? It has been over two weeks since you offered to "nail" me on my "curved space error". It's starting to look like you never will:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9393823#post9393823
Alternatively, you could just admit you were mistaken.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9393823#post9393823
Alternatively, you could just admit you were mistaken.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
Mr. Duffield, the lack of response of the curvature issue - something you promised to address on the previous page of this very thread, but never did - is just as pertinent to the severe shortcomings of Relativity+ as the failure to recognise Andrew Worsley's numerology for what it is. And the curvature issue is but the most recent line of discussion, embarrassing for your Relativity+ theory, which has been abandoned without you properly addressing the issue. There are many more.
Last edited:
ctamblyn: I've been busy, remember? OK, where were we? Looking at your post 1172:
1. I claimed that spatial sections through the Schwarzschild geometry have negative curvature.
No problem, you can claim anything you like.
You claimed that it wasn't actually spatial curvature.
Yes I did, I said it was a curvature of the metric. It's a curvature of your measurements, made using things moving through space over time. It isn't a curvature of space.
3. I showed how GR predicts a departure from Euclidean-ness in the spatial part of metric, using a measurement which doesn't depend on clocks.
But it does depend on the motion of light. You said "measured locally using standard metre sticks". The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. And it's a measurement. It's a curvature in your metric.
4. You tried to claim that my rods were dependent on the motion of light through space.
They are. See above.
5. I pointed out that many choices of rod are possible, not just light-based ones, and all will agree because they are all responding to the same curvature of the same space.
You said you can also use mean travel distance of beta-decaying particles (with no e/m involved). Sorry, but beta decay involves the weak interaction, and e/m is still involved because what we're dealing with is the electroweak interaction. Search on beta decay. You also said this:
For a ruler, just to avoid confusion, I will use a near-monochromatic source of neutral delta baryons, and measure the distance they need to travel before half the the particles have decayed via the strong force. That way we get a perfectly good ruler without needing to appeal to electromagnetic interactions.
See hyperphysics. They decay in about 10^-23 seconds. They don't get very far do they? Not enough for any practical use. That's not a "perfectly good ruler". Before you know it you've got a neutron and a neutral pion. You should look up neutral pion decay on wikipedia:
The π0 meson has a slightly smaller mass of 135.0 MeV/c2 and a much shorter mean lifetime of 8.4×10^−17 s. This pion decays in an electromagnetic force process. The main decay mode, with probability 0.98798, is into two photons (two gamma ray photons in this case):
10^−17s? Electromagnetic force process? Two photons? My oh my. Where did that electromagnetism come from? Magic?
ETA:
As for the "many more", you're playing the naysayer, and you know it. See for example On the Wave Character of the Electron by G. Poelz on arXiv:
"A classical model of the electron based on Maxwell's equations is presented in which the wave character is described by classical physics. It uses a circulating massless electric charge field which moves in the spherical background of its own synchrotron radiation. A finite bound system exists which explains the features of the electron, and the wave character of this system yields a tight connection between the classical and the quantum mechanic world. The size of the object follows from the magnetic moment, and the finite synchrotron radiation requests a quantum mechanic core with a size determined via the angular momentum. The power of the synchrotron radiation yields the elementary charge i.e. the fine structure constant alpha. Two circulations are required to obtain a stable circular orbit which is consistent with the description with the Dirac equation. The mass of the particle follows from the internal movement with speed of light. The system appears in the external world as a standing wave with an amplitude propagating like the de Broglie wave".
Don't get in the way of scientific progress, ctamblyn. Or you will get steamrollered.
1. I claimed that spatial sections through the Schwarzschild geometry have negative curvature.
No problem, you can claim anything you like.
You claimed that it wasn't actually spatial curvature.
Yes I did, I said it was a curvature of the metric. It's a curvature of your measurements, made using things moving through space over time. It isn't a curvature of space.
3. I showed how GR predicts a departure from Euclidean-ness in the spatial part of metric, using a measurement which doesn't depend on clocks.
But it does depend on the motion of light. You said "measured locally using standard metre sticks". The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. And it's a measurement. It's a curvature in your metric.
4. You tried to claim that my rods were dependent on the motion of light through space.
They are. See above.
5. I pointed out that many choices of rod are possible, not just light-based ones, and all will agree because they are all responding to the same curvature of the same space.
You said you can also use mean travel distance of beta-decaying particles (with no e/m involved). Sorry, but beta decay involves the weak interaction, and e/m is still involved because what we're dealing with is the electroweak interaction. Search on beta decay. You also said this:
For a ruler, just to avoid confusion, I will use a near-monochromatic source of neutral delta baryons, and measure the distance they need to travel before half the the particles have decayed via the strong force. That way we get a perfectly good ruler without needing to appeal to electromagnetic interactions.
See hyperphysics. They decay in about 10^-23 seconds. They don't get very far do they? Not enough for any practical use. That's not a "perfectly good ruler". Before you know it you've got a neutron and a neutral pion. You should look up neutral pion decay on wikipedia:
The π0 meson has a slightly smaller mass of 135.0 MeV/c2 and a much shorter mean lifetime of 8.4×10^−17 s. This pion decays in an electromagnetic force process. The main decay mode, with probability 0.98798, is into two photons (two gamma ray photons in this case):
10^−17s? Electromagnetic force process? Two photons? My oh my. Where did that electromagnetism come from? Magic?
ETA:
As for the "many more", you're playing the naysayer, and you know it. See for example On the Wave Character of the Electron by G. Poelz on arXiv:
"A classical model of the electron based on Maxwell's equations is presented in which the wave character is described by classical physics. It uses a circulating massless electric charge field which moves in the spherical background of its own synchrotron radiation. A finite bound system exists which explains the features of the electron, and the wave character of this system yields a tight connection between the classical and the quantum mechanic world. The size of the object follows from the magnetic moment, and the finite synchrotron radiation requests a quantum mechanic core with a size determined via the angular momentum. The power of the synchrotron radiation yields the elementary charge i.e. the fine structure constant alpha. Two circulations are required to obtain a stable circular orbit which is consistent with the description with the Dirac equation. The mass of the particle follows from the internal movement with speed of light. The system appears in the external world as a standing wave with an amplitude propagating like the de Broglie wave".
Don't get in the way of scientific progress, ctamblyn. Or you will get steamrollered.
Last edited:
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
They teach you this sort of thing in school, since it's such a powerful way of spotting one's own mistakes. It's not a very powerful way of spotting other people's mistakes because they've usually caught them this way before publishing them.
It's a damning indictment of your competence in physics that you can't see the glaring flaw in this formula. Even a child can see the problems (it's in the higher parts of GCSE maths syllabuses from a quick dig around).
It's therefore very relevant to the discussion of the basic idea that you have any idea what you're talking about.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
OK, let's accept that it took you two weeks to write two short blog entries.
The distinction you are trying to draw is not there. In GR (which is based on Riemannian geometry), "curvature" means something very specific - it refers to something which has an effect on lengths and angles (i.e. the metric). You, here, are using the word "curvature" to mean something private that you have invented. Something, I suspect, that you are incapable of defining precisely and which is certainly irrelevant to GR.
Anyway, the point remains that if the spatial sections I described were ordinary, flat, Euclidean 3-space you would not detect the phenomenon I described, therefore the spatial slices are not ordinary, flat, Euclidean 3-space. More precisely, they have negative Gaussian curvature.
I'll address your responses to 3, 4, and 5 together by noting that I defined a ruler which is not dependent on light, using strong decays:
ctamblyn said:
To this, you responded:
As anyone with the most basic education in physics and mathematics knows:
(a) How far they go depends on how fast they are moving.
(b) Even if they travel only a femtometre, it doesn't prevent me using that as a standard of length. I can use an old trick called "multiplication" to generate longer lengths.
So, yes, it is a perfectly acceptable length standard. The fact that it is embarrassing for your theory because it doesn't depend on electromagnetism is not my problem.
Last edited:
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
(deleted)
Last edited: