This is increasingly strange. Farsight, what experimentally-known properties of the neutrino are you considering when you make this statement? Perhaps you have some of them wrong.
Merged Relativity+ / Farsight
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
This is increasingly strange. Farsight, what experimentally-known properties of the neutrino are you considering when you make this statement? Perhaps you have some of them wrong.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
I've been waiting for an excuse to try out the LaTeX tags, so here goes...
Maxwell's equations in a region of space with no charges:
[latex]
\begin{*align}
\nabla\cdot E &= 0 \\
\nabla\cdot B &= 0 \\
\nabla\times E &= -\partial B / \partial t \\
\nabla\times B &= \partial E / \partial t
\end{align*}
[/latex]
Notice the pleasing symmetry between E and B. Hypnotic, isn't it? Notice that, given any solution, we can generate another valid solution by swapping E and B around via a duality rotation (E, B) -> (B, -E). Since your model postulates that a suitably-confined e/m wave - a solution of the above equations - can give rise to an electric monopole field, it follows that we could obtain an equally valid solution which looks like a magnetic monopole. There's no way around it.
Maxwell's equations in a region of space with no charges:
[latex]
\begin{*align}
\nabla\cdot E &= 0 \\
\nabla\cdot B &= 0 \\
\nabla\times E &= -\partial B / \partial t \\
\nabla\times B &= \partial E / \partial t
\end{align*}
[/latex]
Notice the pleasing symmetry between E and B. Hypnotic, isn't it? Notice that, given any solution, we can generate another valid solution by swapping E and B around via a duality rotation (E, B) -> (B, -E). Since your model postulates that a suitably-confined e/m wave - a solution of the above equations - can give rise to an electric monopole field, it follows that we could obtain an equally valid solution which looks like a magnetic monopole. There's no way around it.
Sorry to disappoint you Russ.RussDill said:
Cut me some slack, I'm run off my feet here. One such experiment is the quantum hall effect. You use it to measure the fine structure constant. This tells you the relative strength of the electromagnetic force versus the strong force. You measure it up in space, and you measure it near the surface of a star. The difference tells you that gravity is a gradient in the relative strengths. That's how you unify gravity. It's trivial, but it isn't predicted.RussDill said:
It isn't me saying the electron is elementary or fundamental. And if you paid more attention you'd appreciate that I support the standard model, apart from the Higgs sector, and the primary issue here is interpretational.RussDill said:
How about this: expect cryogenic electron emission to show seasonal variations. And I did refer to something that surprised even me: the Dirac string trick. Throw neutrinos at electrons and look for unexpected positrons.RussDill said:
Come off it Russ. People have spent their careers on string theory because they believe in it. And now it's a busted flush because other people have finally noticed that it predicts nothing and isn't science.RussDill said:
When you try to explain people why their precious theory is wrong, starting with the basics of electromagnetism, they reject it like a medieval theocracy. They dredge up specious reasons to dismiss it, wilfully disregarding pair production and coming out with the unsupportable assertion that spin is intrinsic. We end up in a situation wherein theory is deliberately insulated from experimental disproof, and where experimental confirmation is contrived to be far-off and difficult, and in truth is employed as a fig-leaf to confer respectability to a speculation. My criticism of supersymmetry is based on the prediction of a whole new set of particles by people who don't understand the electron, don't want to, and don't want anybody else understanding it either.RussDill said:
No it isn't. It's a real rotation in two dimensions, a circulatory motion of the stress-energy that makes up the particle. That's why we see a magnetic dipole moment. It can't happen without that motion. Saying it can isn't scientific, it's mystic.
Agreed. Understanding time is key to this.
Wrong. All its saying is that the quantum world behaves differently to the classical world.
No you don't. The electron cannot ever be comprised of photons in the Standard Model. If you think it can then you truly have not even the faintest idea about it.
It predicts loads of things. But nobody has come up with a way of testing any of these (yet). Your
You don't even understand the very basics of pair production. Why should we listen to a word you have to say?
The fine structure constant has nothing whatsoever to do with the strong force.
I suspect you don't know enough about the Standard Model to understand how deeply your theory disagrees with it. Remember, the Standard Model tells us exactly how photons interact with each other and with themselves (loop diagrams and whatnot) and a "self-trapped photon goes in a twisted circle and looks like a 511 keV charged fermion" is unambiguously not compatible with the Standard Model.
I'm sorry Russ, but you have to get over this wall called intrinsic. The charge is there because the "current" is moving in a twisted turning path going round and round. Something has to be moving, otherwise how on earth can we see that magnetic dipole moment? Call it wavefunction if you prefer, but note the references to current in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation. Whatever you call it, the result is a charged particle. When you move it, the result is "current". Move it back and forth and it's alternating current. An electromagnetic field rises and falls in a sinusoidal fashion. Just as it does when a photon zips past.RussDill said:
I agree that there's some room to discuss what The Man said. But the nucleus is not in itself essential. Check out photon-photon pair production.RussDill said:
Fair enough.RussDill said:
Yes.RussDill said:
I prefer a moebius double-rotation to a statement that essentially says "it's magic, and you mere mortals can't ever hope to understand it". Like I said, I'm the skeptic here, not you.RussDill said:
Again: The quantum world does not behave in the same way as the classical world.
Nope. A sceptic is not someone who rejects experimental results that are some of the most precise in physics history because they want the quantum world to behave the same way as the classical world.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
Begging your pardon, but the fine structure constant is given by [latex]$\alpha = e^2 / \hbar c$[/latex]. It's a dimensionless measure of the strength of e/m interactions, and the strong force doesn't come into it.
Also, do you have a link to an experiment which shows this gravity-dependence of the ratio of the strength of the strong force to the strength of the e/m force? I'd find that very interesting.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
As I said earlier, you can't get a spin of 1/2 with orbital angular momentum. You can only get whole-integer spins.
Photons normally travel in straight lines, and when they don't space is curved. It's in two dimensions so and diminishes with distance so curled is a better word, but it's easier to think of a flat spiral:ben_m said:
The charge is the amount of twist, permittivity is the "twistability" of space. Gauss's law is the degree of twist at a surface. The divergence tells you how much it changes.
Is saying how many electrons you're moving past when you travel down a vertical column of electrons. Or how much charge you move past and how fast.ben_m said:
Sorry I'm not clear what you're asking for. It's an electromagnetic field. Move through it and you see a magnetic field. A magnetic field is not created by any particle, it's merely an aspect of a particle's electromagnetic field when you're in motion with respect to it.ben_m said:
As above. This is sounding like a defensive barrage ben.ben_m said:
Apart from pair production and annihilation and Compton wavelength, and electron spin, magnetic dipole moment, anomalous magnetic dipole moment, dual-slit electron interference, and the Aharanov-Bohm effect which reprises Ehrengerg & Siday's The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics. The spin angular momentum is the killer. Point particles cannot exhibit angular momentum. Those scattering experiments are like throwing rocks at a spinning elastic hoop exerting a frame-dragging effect on a rubber sheet extending away in all directions. They deform a portion of the hoop into a v shape then bounce back. The smaller the rocks and the harder you throw, the sharper the v. The pointlike inference is looking at the tip of the v, and it's like expecting a billiard ball at the heart of a whirlpool. It just ain't there.ben_m said:
Wanna bet? You sit there watching microwave peaks go by. One goes by. You count 1. Another goes by. You count 2. And so on. When you get to 9,192,631,770 that's a second. If those microwaves are moving slower, your second is bigger. That's it.
I'm not saying time dilation doesn't occur. I'm saying why it occurs. The motion of light defines the thing called time. It's just a cumulative measure of motion. Yes, I think I'm going to have to give you guys Time Explained.
I don't hold truck with "the laws of nature". It's symmetry that underpins them anyway, and it's all to do with rotations and action and how stress-energy moves. What tells me electrons are composed of something else is pair production and annihilation, along with spin, magnetic moment, etc, see above. So don't give me all that genesis stuff. You're the one dismissing scientific evidence here, along with Minkowski and Maxwell etc. Because it isn't what you were taught, and because it isn't in your textbook. You're treating mathematics like runes that are more important than experiment and observation, and you're treating your textbook like a bible that's more important than logic and discussion. Now come on, start thinking for yourself.ben_m said:
Thanks. I do accept your point. But actually, I don't want to cast this as a coherent mathematical model myself. That might sound odd, but think about it. If I locked myself away and came up with something that really flew, every theoretical physicist in the world would then be redundant. It's too late for them to get involved once it's finished. Moreover they'd look like crystal-sphere fools, and the public would feel betrayed. There would be a backlash, and the upshot would be a disaster. I'm trying to help physics, not destroy it.ctamblyn said:
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
That is right. And we can do this at rest wrt the clock and see that the one second remains as one second. Thus the motion of the light has no effect. That is it.
If we move the clock then there are all sorts of effects to take in account and when we do that we also see that one second remains as one second.
And of course the postulate that the speed of light is a constant is needed for special relativity to work and it does - Experimental Basis of Relativity.
Of course you could postulate that the speed of light is not a constant. In that case you have to state how it varies, e.g. that a specific transformation between coordinates is needed (e.g. the Lorentz transformation). In that case you get the same theory from a more complex set of postulates.
That leads so a question for you which I will put into another post.
Who cares "why" it happens. What science is interested in in modeling how the universe presents itself to us. How it happens is explained by relativity.
I'm afraid I have to go, but let's talk more on this. The torus motion picked out by the dark line demands two rotations to return to the original orientation and location, with hbar neing the diameter of the torus.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Farsight, How does the speed of light change in your theory
First asked 22 March 2010
Farsight states that the speed of light changes.
The posulates of special relativity are
Farsight,
How does the speed of light change in your theory in order to reproduce the experimental results?
First asked 22 March 2010
Farsight states that the speed of light changes.
The posulates of special relativity are
and special relativity has been extensively tested, e.g. Experimental Basis of Relativity.
Farsight,
How does the speed of light change in your theory in order to reproduce the experimental results?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Then your idea remains as wrong.Huh? It predicts a decay rate of zero. Like the measured decay rate. And that says charge is conserved. I suppose the next nasty problem will be that "my model" doesn't predict the price of eggs.Originally Posted by Reality Check
That does pose a yet another nasty problem for Farsight's idea:
Farsight:
FYI: Particle physics experiments have observed trillions of interactions. The results are extensively studied. Physicists are especially interested when particles "vanish", i.e. a charged particle is tracked to a point and then is no longer visible. This is a signature of a decay process, e.g. muon decay. Of course what they always see is that there are one or more charged particles resulting from the decay.
- What does your idea predict for the decay rate of an electron into a single photon?
- What is the measured decay rate of an electron into a single photon?
- What does this say about the conservation of charge?
As I stated before (and other posters have told you):
The electron would have to have
- The same mass as the photon (zero).
- The same charge as the photon (none).
- The same spin as the photon (1).
- The same magneic moment as the photon (zero).
!) radius does not change the mass, charge, spin or magnetic moment of the photon. - A mass of zero remains as zero.
A photon with an energy of 510.9810 KeV has an equivalent mass as an electron. But then you have the problem of explaining why a 510.9811 KeV photon cannot form an electron.
My guess is that you will assert that your magical path can only be travelled by photons at 510.9810 KeV because you want them to. - A charge of zero remains as zero and thus the magnetic moment remains as zero.
- The spin remains as 1. This is an intrinsic quantum mechnaical property of a photon. If a photon has a spin of 1/2 then it is not a photon. It is a massless neutrino. And if neutrinos turn out to have mass then I think that it is a totally new particle.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
If the idea could be shown to be correct, it would be welcomed - eventually. Yes, you can always expect some degree of resistance to a new idea, but if you can show that (a) your theory doesn't contradict existing experimental data and (b) can predict - correctly! - phenomena which the standard model cannot, then the scientific community as a whole will be grateful. Most people did not feel redundant or betrayed when Einstein produced his explanation for the photoelectric effect (he got a Nobel prize in 1921). Same for SR and GR. Same for any other new theory that has turned out to be correct, at least in the long run.
And if it's wrong, then no problem - it's better to know, and to find out sooner rather than later. The best way to find out is to dig down into the details and hunt for logical/mathematical inconsistencies or disagreement with known experimental data, i.e. try to falsify the theory.
On that note, I think your main problem areas are going to be:
- You need a mechanism which allows a photon to become "self-trapped" in a stable bound state, that does not contradict the known attributes of photon-photon scattering.
- Standard QM isn't going to let you get spin 1/2 from an orbital motion, unless you actually change the spatial topology.
- The theory, as presented so far, allows for a continuous spectrum of electron masses.
- From what I've seem so far, if you theory can produce charged particles, then it also allows magnetic monopoles (not to mention some bizarre part electric-part magnetic particles).
- Photon-electron scattering in this model reduces to photon-photon scattering, so the cross-sections are going to come out wrong.