No. It is serious physics. Everything is comprised of waves moving through space. All your dimensionality fans out from that, and these waves can take the form of standing waves subject to wave harmonics. But see above. The guys just won't have it, or anything about running constants, or any other serious physics discussion. Because they want to peddle the multiverse and similar woo. Google on lpetrich and multiverse. Sorry Robbo, but there really is something else I need to get on with.
Merged Relativity+ / Farsight
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
And yet when you try to apply this idea you get a formula that is either dimensionally incorrect or needs the addition of some completely arbitrary number to make it work.
And when people start to discuss your application of this idea, you say they're not willing to talk about serious physics...
When others attempted to actually discuss running constants, ie. what they would imply with regards to the anthropic principle, you simply didn't respond.
You did mention running constants, but you didn't actually work out the implications with respect to the discussion at hand.
That's cool.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
I think it ought to be obvious to most that if your position was actually defensible, by now you would have provided honest answers to the questions put to you above rather than treating us to all this evasion and meaningless incantations. It might sound convincing to people who have had little exposure to physics, but that doesn't make it valid.
1. Why does n1 = 0.0000578 in natural units?
2. Why does n2 = 978 GeV-1 in natural units?
3. Do you appreciate that by introducing two new parameters which can only be determined by measuring the electron and proton masses, you have not actually explained the values of the electron and proton masses?
Last edited:
I don't get how all these number manipulations are supposed to be connected to the circling-photon theory of elementary particles. One ought to be able to derive the masses of the electron, proton, etc. from the circling-photon theory. But I don't see any such derivations.
That's been a success for mainstream theories of atoms, molecules, nuclei, hadrons, and the W and Z, so why not circling photons?
That's been a success for mainstream theories of atoms, molecules, nuclei, hadrons, and the W and Z, so why not circling photons?
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
I think something like crank magnetism is relevant here. John Duffield's "Relativity+" is not so much a coherent theory as a loose collection of idiosyncratic notions about reality. Though the various components seem related on a superficial level - there are common themes of numerology, waves, relativity and suppression of valuable ideas by the scientific establishment (ETA: and let's not forget the aversion to real mathematics) - the different parts are not truly united or even mutually consistent.
ETA:
Duffield did try to provide a derivation of the electron's mass based on the loopy photon model early on in this thread. It was totally unrelated to Worsley's derivation, and went something like this:
1. Start with a photon of energy 511 keV.
2. This wave - no-one knows how or why - goes around a closed path, a single wavelength being wrapped around twice (destructive interference being avoided by incanting the words "Möbius strip", "torus" and "lemon-shaped pulse" over and over again).
3. The radius of the orbit is therefore 1.93 × 10-13 m.
4. Charge and magnetic moment are supposede to emerge by saying "torus" and "Möbius strip" some more.
5. You now have a charged particle that looks like an electron.
6. Um, that's it.
Temporarily ignoring the many other problems with this picture, a couple of posters asked why only photons of energy 511 keV could do this special dance. John Duffield was unable to provide a reasonable answer, and was reduced to just asserting that it only worked for a radius of 1.93 × 10-13 m. It seems all of his "derivations" of particle masses require the measured values of those masses as inputs in some form.
Last edited:
Not to mention: Remember when Farsight refused to look at LEP e+e- collider data? Rather than working out any scattering-related implications of his electron model, he posted a photo of a whirlpool and announced that LEP data was "world-class wrong".
You know where they actually measured the running of the fine-structure constant? The LEP e+e- collider.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0002035
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0507078
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Crank magnetism does not exclude rigorous rationalism and hyperskepticism toward rival theories, however. I remember a believer in Erich von Daeniken's theory of ancient astronauts who refused to take seriously the idea of free-flying space colonies.
Farsight has a rather curious argument for his nonmathematical approach: if one uses mathematics, one has to define one's terms, so one cannot get the most fundamental results by using mathematics. However, that argument does not work, because the same can be said of nonmathematical language.
As to space and motion being primary and time being secondary, I'm reminded of Martin Gardner on some pseudoscientists' inversions of accepted theories:
(Fads and Fallacies)
It's very clear from relativity that space and time are coequal parts of a space-time continuum. In fact, I can cite the Einsteinian Scriptures in support of this notion.
I've also found this online textbook: Special Relativity - Wikibooks, open books for an open world The idea of space-time is very prominent in it.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What about gravity do you want to talk about, Farsight
The idiocy of calling the quantization of gravity "easy" is obvious
!
Even gravity is relatively hard (pun intended).
You probably missed out a
there, Farsight.
What about gravity do you want to talk about, Farsight?
Maybe the simple fact that the coordinate speed of light varies in GR?
You still have not answered:
What are the units of "c½/3πn", Farsight?
First asked 27th June 2013. 54 days and counting, Farsight!
or
Farsight: What is the definition of n in Worsley's paper?
First asked 15 August 2013. 4 days and counting.
Do you now understand the meaning of Space-time interval and its values (positive, zero and negative)?
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
Farsight: Source for "a homogeneous universe is a flat universe"
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
Remember - "The statements are wrong" is an answer!
Farsight: Can you list the evidence for a finite universe?
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
Farsight Show mathematically that an infinite universe in GR cannot expand.
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
Farsight: Support your assertion that GR conserves energy
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
This is GR in general not the case of black holes.
Yes we would - with someone who knows even basic physics such as what natural units are and what they means to the 2 new fundamental constants (n1 and n2) that you are proposing, Farsight!
The idiocy of calling the quantization of gravity "easy" is obvious
!Even gravity is relatively hard (pun intended).
You probably missed out a
there, Farsight.What about gravity do you want to talk about, Farsight?
Maybe the simple fact that the coordinate speed of light varies in GR?
You still have not answered:
What are the units of "c½/3πn", Farsight?
First asked 27th June 2013. 54 days and counting, Farsight!
or
Farsight: What is the definition of n in Worsley's paper?
First asked 15 August 2013. 4 days and counting.
Do you now understand the meaning of Space-time interval and its values (positive, zero and negative)?
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
Farsight: Source for "a homogeneous universe is a flat universe"
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
Remember - "The statements are wrong" is an answer!
Farsight: Can you list the evidence for a finite universe?
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
Farsight Show mathematically that an infinite universe in GR cannot expand.
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
Farsight: Support your assertion that GR conserves energy
First asked 26 July 2013 - 24 days and counting.
This is GR in general not the case of black holes.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Farsight, If everything is a wave then explain the particle nature of photons
The first bit of serous physics is your delusion that everything is just waves. That is obviously a delusion because everything is a wave and a particle. That is quantum mechanics.
But it needs a question:
Farsight, If everything is a wave then explain the particle nature of photons as shown in experiments. For example:
Good we can talks about the "serious" physics that you are asserting .
The first bit of serous physics is your delusion that everything is just waves. That is obviously a delusion because everything is a wave and a particle. That is quantum mechanics.
But it needs a question:
Farsight, If everything is a wave then explain the particle nature of photons as shown in experiments. For example:
- The photoelectric effect (there is actually a wave explanation!).
- Photon antibunching.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Farsight: List the posts where we "guys" won't have anything running about constants
First asked 19 August 2013. 0 days and counting.
That is basically a lie. We have talked about running constants such as the fine-structure constant many times. We have stated the obvious physics - any running constant is simply an actual constant + an scale dependent part. The fine-structure constant has a zero energy actually constant part and an energy defendant part.
It is simple enough, Farsight.
Change the constant part of a running constant and you change its value for all values of its scale. The fine-structure constant has a measured value at zero energy of 1/137.035999074(44) which approaches 1/128 at interaction energies above 80 GeV. Change that zero energy value to another value (e.g. 1) and you change the value at all energy scales, including above 80 GeV.
Many interactions in our universe happen at low enough energies that we can ignore the energy dependence of the fine-structure constant. Thus a hypothetical universe where fine-structure constant changes will act differently than our universe.
The rest of the interactions in our universe happen at high enough energies that we cannot ignore the energy dependence of the fine-structure constant. But a hypothetical universe where fine-structure constant changes will still act differently than our universe.
Farsight: List the posts where we "guys" won't have anything running about constants.
First asked 19 August 2013. 0 days and counting.
That is basically a lie. We have talked about running constants such as the fine-structure constant many times. We have stated the obvious physics - any running constant is simply an actual constant + an scale dependent part. The fine-structure constant has a zero energy actually constant part and an energy defendant part.
It is simple enough, Farsight.
Change the constant part of a running constant and you change its value for all values of its scale. The fine-structure constant has a measured value at zero energy of 1/137.035999074(44) which approaches 1/128 at interaction energies above 80 GeV. Change that zero energy value to another value (e.g. 1) and you change the value at all energy scales, including above 80 GeV.
Many interactions in our universe happen at low enough energies that we can ignore the energy dependence of the fine-structure constant. Thus a hypothetical universe where fine-structure constant changes will act differently than our universe.
The rest of the interactions in our universe happen at high enough energies that we cannot ignore the energy dependence of the fine-structure constant. But a hypothetical universe where fine-structure constant changes will still act differently than our universe.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Farsight, Please show that everyone posting in this thread is lpetrich
!
I think (as lpetrich seems to do) that the multiverse hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis. Calling it woo just exposes your ignorance.
What other science do you call woo, Farsight
?
Farsight, Please show that everyone posting in this thread is lpetrich
!I think (as lpetrich seems to do) that the multiverse hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis. Calling it woo just exposes your ignorance.
What other science do you call woo, Farsight
?Yes indeed, I consider the multiverse a valid scientific hypothesis.
Let's consider an aspect of relativity that I've seldom seen Farsight discuss: Galilean vs. Lorentz boosts. These are continuous symmetries of flat space-time, along with rotations and translations (shifts) of space and time.
Newtonian mechanics is, in a sense, a relativity theory, because it states that space-time is symmetric under Galilean boosts as well as translations and rotaitons:
x' = x - v*t
y' = y, z' = z
t' = t
v = velocity
Maxwell's equations have vacuum wave solutions where the waves have a fixed speed: c
That clearly breaks Galilean invariance, what Newtonianism has. Experiments like the Michelson-Morley one were consistent with this odd feature of Maxwell's equations, making the problem worse. However, Maxwell's equations are symmetric under a different sort of boost, the Lorentz boost:
γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
x' = γ*(x - v*t)
y' = y, z' = z
t' = γ*(t - v*x/c2)
Special relativity is the revision of Newtonian mechanics to be Lorentz-invariant.
Notice how a Lorentz boost mixes space and time even more than a Galilean boost does. That makes hash out of Farsight's hypothesis that space and time are not coequal.
Rotations and Lorentz boosts make this quantity invariant:
S = c2*t2 - x2 - y2 - z2
S > 0: timelike direction
S = 0: lightlike or null direction
S < 0: spacelike direction
For a spacelike direction, one can shift time to zero:
v = c2*t/x
x' = sqrt(x2 - c2*t2) * sign of x
t' = 0
A spacelike direction can be rotated, so one can reverse the sign of x'.
For a timelike direction, one can shift space to zero:
v = x/t
x' = 0
t' = sqrt(t2 - x2/c2) * sign of t
However, it is not possible to rotate the time, so its sign stays fixed. This divides timelike directions into forward and backward ones. It also answers the question of why we can't jump backward in time -- our motion in time is fixed in one direction.
Some physicists have speculated about multiple time coordinates, and that would make it possible to reverse the direction of time.
For a null direction, x = c*t, and
x' = c*t'
t' = t * sqrt( (1 - v/c) / (1 + v/c) )
The time's sign also stays fixed, dividing null directions into forward and backward ones.
Let's consider an aspect of relativity that I've seldom seen Farsight discuss: Galilean vs. Lorentz boosts. These are continuous symmetries of flat space-time, along with rotations and translations (shifts) of space and time.
Newtonian mechanics is, in a sense, a relativity theory, because it states that space-time is symmetric under Galilean boosts as well as translations and rotaitons:
x' = x - v*t
y' = y, z' = z
t' = t
v = velocity
Maxwell's equations have vacuum wave solutions where the waves have a fixed speed: c
That clearly breaks Galilean invariance, what Newtonianism has. Experiments like the Michelson-Morley one were consistent with this odd feature of Maxwell's equations, making the problem worse. However, Maxwell's equations are symmetric under a different sort of boost, the Lorentz boost:
γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
x' = γ*(x - v*t)
y' = y, z' = z
t' = γ*(t - v*x/c2)
Special relativity is the revision of Newtonian mechanics to be Lorentz-invariant.
Notice how a Lorentz boost mixes space and time even more than a Galilean boost does. That makes hash out of Farsight's hypothesis that space and time are not coequal.
Rotations and Lorentz boosts make this quantity invariant:
S = c2*t2 - x2 - y2 - z2
S > 0: timelike direction
S = 0: lightlike or null direction
S < 0: spacelike direction
For a spacelike direction, one can shift time to zero:
v = c2*t/x
x' = sqrt(x2 - c2*t2) * sign of x
t' = 0
A spacelike direction can be rotated, so one can reverse the sign of x'.
For a timelike direction, one can shift space to zero:
v = x/t
x' = 0
t' = sqrt(t2 - x2/c2) * sign of t
However, it is not possible to rotate the time, so its sign stays fixed. This divides timelike directions into forward and backward ones. It also answers the question of why we can't jump backward in time -- our motion in time is fixed in one direction.
Some physicists have speculated about multiple time coordinates, and that would make it possible to reverse the direction of time.
For a null direction, x = c*t, and
x' = c*t'
t' = t * sqrt( (1 - v/c) / (1 + v/c) )
The time's sign also stays fixed, dividing null directions into forward and backward ones.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Indeed, as how exactly does one define "motion" without, well, time? Simply trying to couch time in some other words like "motion" or "change" doesn't make time secondary but it does make deliberate ignorance primary.
Here are his main arguments:
You can see position in space and you can see motion, but you can't see time. Also, you can't jump backward in time.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well you can see something in some position in space, which is in fact seeing something in some position in time. You can't see time just as you can't see space, you can only see objects in time and space. While you can have objects moving in space that also requires having motion in time, heck just to see an object not moving in space requires having motion in time. Not only can't you jump backwards in time there is no evidence that you could even stop moving in time. Is his 'argument' simply that the restrictive freedom of motion in time somehow makes time "secondary"? Heck one could even argue that since time is more restrictive than the 3 other spatial dimensions that it is more fundamental. Either way any such argumentation are still not a definition of "motion" without time.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Ah good ol’ human perceptions. The thing is I haven’t used an alarm clock in decades, I just wake up when I need to be awake. So my perception of time, even when unconscious, seems pretty well developed. However I cannot recall nor see any need to accurately perceive space when unconscious. So just from the aspect of human perception (as flawed as such perceptions can be and not going quite so far as to be solipsistic) time certainly does seem more fundamental than space as we do seem to require at least some sense of time even when asleep.
He might say that one's sense of time is also a perception of motion.
As to bizarre inversions by crackpots, it's hard to compete with Cyrus Teed's inside-out cosmology. The Earth is hollow, but we live on the inside of it. From KoreshanityWP:
As to bizarre inversions by crackpots, it's hard to compete with Cyrus Teed's inside-out cosmology. The Earth is hollow, but we live on the inside of it. From KoreshanityWP:
He called himself Koresh, after the Biblical version of his first name.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
He might say a lot of things, but I'd still be waiting for a definition of motion (or change) without time. Which gets us right back to four posts ago, making deliberate ignorance primary by deliberately ignoring the necessity of time for motion (or change).