Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Reality Check]

Please do not try to confuse other readers edd. Stick with charged particles which have an electromagnetic field. Wherein like particles repel and unlike particles attract like this:

Please do not mislead other readers, Farsight: as has been pointed out to you, item c in your cartoon has nothing to do with real physical systems.
Item c is not a charged particle - it is a fantasy about a combination of a charged particle and a current.

You can probably assume that other readers know about high school science, e.g. Hyperphysics re "two wires carrying current in the same direction attract each other, and they repel if the currents are opposite in direction".
and that this is irrelevant to your cartoon where item a is a charged particle, not a current.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

succinctly

NB: please try to keep your posts succinct.

That was a fantastic—literally incredible—summary of your research program.

All kidding aside: It's better to describe a wrong idea so clearly it is easily seen to be wrong than to describe a good idea so poorly no one can tell. You're making progress, even if you can't see it.

 

[Farsight]

But it isn't wrong. I can explain why the electron and positron attract one another.

You can't. And like ben, you will fight shy of the electron and the positron slinging photons at one another. It ain't magic, Clinger.

 

[edd]

Farsight - you've not shown anything like your depiction exists around an electron, and other than claiming that things rotating one way somehow attract things rotating the other (which is itself poorly justified - and in the case of currents producing magnetic fields with the same sign curl clearly outright wrong) and ignoring the pretty obvious issue of flipping the spin of one electron by applying generous amounts of word salad, you haven't explained anything any better either.

You certainly can't use it to explain why two alpha particles repel, since you're even further from justifying your diagram in that case (which to some of us barely seems possible, I admit).

 

[Farsight]

...One can do a bit better if one treats the relationship between the EM tensor and its dual as a constituent relation appropriate to free space in standard electrodynamics but actually independent of Maxwell's equations themselves. Let's say the standard electromagnetic 2-form F, corresponding to (E,B) fields, and an extra 2-form H corresponding to (D,H) fields...

...where λ₀ = √(ε₀/μ₀) is the admittance of free space

You need to think elastic, Vorpal. The inverse of vacuum admittance is vacuum impedance Z₀ = √(μ₀/ε₀). Impedance is resistance to alternating current. The electromagnetic wave is alternating displacement current. Think of Maxwell's "transverse undulations", but take the spatial and time derivatives of a "hump" of four-potential for the sinusoidal electromagnetic waveforms. Relate c = √(1/ε₀μ₀) to shear wave speed v = √(G/ρ) where G is the shear modulus of elasticity and ρ is the density. Think of permittivity is "how easy is it to displace space" and permeability is "how well does it bounce back". You can displace the space whereupon it's curved, and as you do this it's rotating. But it's elastic. It's all connected. You can't make a lump of space rotate like a roller bearing. Hence no magnetic monopoles. And hence the photon is more fundamental than the field it is said to mediate.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight - you've not shown anything like your depiction exists around an electron

You're happy with the frame-dragging of the gravitomagnetic field, so you shouldn't be too unhappy with something similar for the electromagnetic field. Particularly since you've heard of spinors and know that Maxwell talked of vortices, and that the physicsworld monopole article refers to vortices repeatedly.

other than claiming that things rotating one way somehow attract things rotating the other (which is itself poorly justified

It isn't. Counter-rotating vortices attract and co-rotating vortices repel. Go look it up.

and in the case of currents producing magnetic fields with the same sign curl clearly outright wrong) and ignoring the pretty obvious issue of flipping the spin of one electron by applying generous amounts of word salad, you haven't explained anything any better either.

So you say. But see above. You aren't paying sufficient attention. How do you think the electron and the positron attract one another? By slinging photons around? By some kind of magical mysterious action at a distance? No. They're dynamical spinors whizzing around in frame-dragged space.

You certainly can't use it to explain why two alpha particles repel, since you're even further from justifying your diagram in that case (which to some of us barely seems possible, I admit).

So far I've told you about the spindle-sphere torus in the centre of the spiral electron depiction. For your alpha particles I need to the depict a proton as something like a tight trefoil version of the electron, like three vortices in one. Then I need to depict a hydrogen atom as an electron going round a proton. Then I need to depict a neutron as something like a close-coupled hydrogen atom (see Beta decay). Then I need to depict neutron linkage and a four-part alpha particle consisting of 3 + 4 + 3 + 4 vortices which combine as one "supervortex" then I'd have to depict two of them and how co-rotating vortices repel. It isn't easy edd. I can't even depict the electron/positron chirality in three dimensions.

But to get across that I'm not just making this stuff up, read On vortex particles by David St John. Note the references to Thomson and Tait. They coined the phrase "spherical harmonics". Then see A circular history of knot theory and do your own research on TQFT.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This removal of metric dependence from Maxwell's equations, though not in the language of forms, was first done by Einstein in 1916: here, esp. equations (2) and (5), with (4) playing the role of the constituent relation. I could swear that one of MTW's exercises did that as well, deriving Einstein's results exactly, but I can't find it there now.

Exercise 3.15?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The following question does not seem to have been asked before, yet it is quite relevant (I think): Farsight, using your understanding of electromagnetism, relativity, etc, what specific, concrete changes do you think should be made to practical things such as the design and operation of antennas, satellite communications systems (e.g. TDRS), very long baseline radio interferometry (VLBI), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), plasma torches, absolute gravimeters, etc?

My impression is that you cannot answer this question, because you have not done the work necessary to convert your ideas and understandings into quantitative form, and without it being in such a form, you can't design any of the instruments, systems, tools, etc in my short list. Is that true?

For other readers: do you recall reading anything written by Farsight which could be used for the practical purpose of designing and operating devices, systems, tools, etc?

 

[lpetrich]

To edd:

You're happy with the frame-dragging of the gravitomagnetic field

Why is it a matter of being happy with something?

(scriptural percussion and empty word-drool about vortices snipped)

Counter-rotating vortices attract and co-rotating vortices repel. Go look it up.

After you, Farsight. Cite your sources.

How do you think the electron and the positron attract one another? By slinging photons around?

What gives you that idea?

It seems like a projection of macroscopic intuitions onto the idea of virtual photons.

For your alpha particles I need to the depict a proton as something like a tight trefoil version of the electron, like three vortices in one. Then I need to depict a hydrogen atom as an electron going round a proton. Then I need to depict a neutron as something like a close-coupled hydrogen atom (see Beta decay).

Except that it isn't. Neutrons don't contain some electron that's just waiting to get out. There is no way that they can do so, because a neutron's size would push a confined electron's kinetic energy up to a few hundred MeV, the sort of value that one gets for quarks in bag models of hadrons. Instead, neutrons behave like protons with different quark content. Proton: up-up-down, neutron: up-down-down.

Quarks themselves are Dirac fields, electronlike particles, not parts of circling-photon loops.

But to get across that I'm not just making this stuff up, read On vortex particles by David St John. Note the references to Thomson and Tait.

So like a theologian, talking about references to long-ago physicists who are presumably prophets of revealed truth.

They coined the phrase "spherical harmonics".

Farsight, do you know what they are?

Then see A circular history of knot theory

How does that demonstrate the circling-photon theory of elementary particles?

and do your own research on TQFT.

Farsight, I dare you to submit a paper to a reputable journal with search-engine result pages' URL's in its biblography. I dare you.

 

[Ziggurat]

It isn't. Counter-rotating vortices attract and co-rotating vortices repel. Go look it up.

So electrons and positrons attract because they're counter-rotating?

What happens then if you flip one of them upside down, so that they're co-rotating? Shouldn't they then attract each other?

In fact, your theory demands an angle dependence for the attraction. No such angle dependence exists.

 

[Farsight]

So electrons and positrons attract because they're counter-rotating?

Yes. They aren't throwing photons at one another. It isn't magic.

What happens then if you flip one of them upside down, so that they're co-rotating? Shouldn't they then attract each other?

Flipping it upside down doesn't work because they're chiral, because the rotation is "biaxial". Think bispinors, which "are used to describe relativistic spin-½ wave functions". See Dirac's belt and Dirac spinor.

For something you can grasp, imagine a disk standing on its edge rotating clockwise like a steering wheel. Now spin it like a coin with your left hand. Then imagine another disk standing on its edge rotating clockwise like a steering wheel, and spin it like a coin with your right hand. The spin of the two disks is not the same, and flipping one upside down doesn't change this. They have the opposite chirality.

In fact, your theory demands an angle dependence for the attraction. No such angle dependence exists.

There isn't any.

 

[Farsight]

The following question does not seem to have been asked before, yet it is quite relevant (I think): Farsight, using your understanding of electromagnetism, relativity, etc, what specific, concrete changes do you think should be made to practical things such as the design and operation of antennas, satellite communications systems (e.g. TDRS), very long baseline radio interferometry (VLBI), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), plasma torches, absolute gravimeters, etc?

I've never thought about it.

My impression is that you cannot answer this question, because you have not done the work necessary to convert your ideas and understandings into quantitative form, and without it being in such a form, you can't design any of the instruments, systems, tools, etc in my short list. Is that true?

No. The quantitative form isn't vital to propose some kind of device or improvement to an existing device. Check out Faraday.

 

[ben m]

No problem. Dirac was something of a Heaviside fan. But note that Heaviside said they are in pairs, and his overhasty was fine because it was circa a hundred and twenty years ago.

Wow, I'm glad we have you as an authority on exactly which Heaviside statements we should ignore and which we should rely on as the One True Authority.

Heaviside says something and justifies it in equations that continue to make theoretical sense today? Forget it. Heaviside mentions the word "screw" once, an explanation no one is able to expand on and/or add equations to? This is clearly the only source of truth about electromagnetism. Bow down and worship.

 

[ben m]

There isn't any.

Then stop posting your "spiral" pictures, which clearly contradict you on this point. A 180-degree flip of one of your spirals will result in the opposite spiral.

Either you want a spin-independent force OR you want your "spiral" to be a good description of it. Can't have both.

 

[Farsight]

Wow, I'm glad we have you as an authority on exactly which Heaviside statements we should ignore and which we should rely on as the One True Authority.

Heaviside says something and justifies it in equations that continue to make theoretical sense today? Forget it. Heaviside mentions the word "screw" once, an explanation no one is able to expand on and/or add equations to? This is clearly the only source of truth about electromagnetism. Bow down and worship.

Oooh, so sour. I do declare that you are being evasive about how the electron and positron attract one another. I shall repeat what I said in post #1594: Come on now, you don't seriously think the electron and the proton are playing catch with photons do you?

Then stop posting your "spiral" pictures, which clearly contradict you on this point. A 180-degree flip of one of your spirals will result in the opposite spiral...

Pay attention ben. The spiral isn't just some flat spiral. That's just a depiction. It's chiral.

 

[Ziggurat]

Flipping it upside down doesn't work

Then there is no sense in which these are analogous to vortices which either attract or repel because of their rotation direction, since flipping one of those really DOES work.

I'm sure others have noted this before, but it's worth pointing out again that you cannot attach any math to your ideas. All you can do is draw pictures, which you then end up basically saying are inaccurate anyways.

 

[ben m]

Pay attention ben. The spiral isn't just some flat spiral. That's just a depiction. It's chiral.

So stop posting the depiction of the wrong thing. Stop using features of the depiction---you sure seemed to think that "opposite spirals attract" was a useful source of intuition; apparently not. Stop using non-electromagnetic analogies (like eddies) which have precisely the features you're telling us not to use.

You think there's something "chiral" with spirally features that's actually a good depiction of Heaviside's "screw"? Go ahead, draw it and post it. (Or post equations and I'll draw it for you. I have Mathematica open already. In fact, I have a notebook full of electromagnetic field plotting routines.)

 

[ctamblyn]

...Let's not muddy the waters with his outdated model, and just stick to gravitoelectromagnetism (henceforth "GEM", and I'll abbreviate plain electromagnetism to "EM").

No, let's not.

So you'd rather not focus on what GR says? OK, but I struggle to see how you will make your point in that way.

Hmm, I think that calls your claim to understand the GEM-EM analogy into serious doubt. Did you realise that your sentence above is exactly synonymous with "I'm not fond of the concept of mass"?

It isn't.
...

In an analogy in which I was clearly using "gravitational charge" as a synonym for "mass", you said "I am not fond of the concept of gravitational charge" (my emphasis). Little more needs to be said.

I said the principle of equivalence was an "enabling principle". It applies to an infinitesimal region. Which means it doesn't apply at all. A real gravitational field is not equivalent to accelerating through space, you cannot transform it away.

Right, so something which is only valid for infinitesimal ranges of the parameters is not, in your view, something which applies at all. In other words, if you value self-consistency in your arguments, you should accept that gravitoelectromagnetism (which is only exact for infinitesimal perturbations) doesn't apply at all either. We're talking about exactly the same type of approximation in both cases.

Well, at this stage I don't hold out much hope that you will make your case successfully, but perhaps you could now make a start? To remind you, the point of my reviving this thread was to give you the opportunity to address this matter:

...

How about you provide some credible references that support your assertion that the electromagnetic field is due to a twisting/turning of three dimensional space, instead of (a) references that don't support that assertion (but perhaps contain a couple of "magic words" like "screw" and "magnet"), (b) mere repetition of your unsupported assertions, and (c) Google search results?

And since I'm bumping this thread anyway, perhaps you could answer this question from earlier?

To return to another sub-topic which I'd prefer didn't get dropped just yet - perhaps when you return from your 2-week suspension you could get around to addressing the lack of predictive power of these loopy photon models?

So, how about supplying those credible references and demonstrations of predictive power?

 

[ben m]

Come on now, you don't seriously think the electron and the proton are playing catch with photons do you?

I think that the Lagrangian density

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\mathcal{L}=\bar\psi(i\gamma^\mu D_\mu-m)\psi -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}

is the correct way to predicting the electromagnetic force on a charged fermion. I furthermore know a good series-expansion of this formula---which is correct because it's algebraically the same thing as the above. Viewed a certain way, the 1st term in this expansion has some things in common with as "fermions playing catch with photons" although there are many counterintuitive things about that statement. The "catch" analogy is good insofar as it correctly represents the flow of energy and of momentum through different terms in the Lagrangian. The catch analogy is bad insofar as a game of catch occurs in a certain time/space sequence (the Lagrangian interaction does not), and classical-behaving exchanged object (nope), and classically determinate events (nope, wavefunction amplitudes and phases).

Do you want me to stop believing in the QED Lagrangian? I welcome your suggestion of a better Lagrangian and a set of experimental tests thereof. Do you want me to do a different series expansion so I don't see the order-alpha term? Suggest one.

Do you want me to agree that anything YOU can't understand about QED should be blamed on me? I can't agree to that. I blame most of your misunderstandings on you, and this is no exception.

 

[ctamblyn]

*ponders*... if Farsight's model of electric charge has to do with the "chirality" of tiny whirlpools, how is CPT symmetry respected? It looks to me that applying all three operators might leave the whirlpools going the wrong way.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'd like to see this worked out in detail. Farsight?