Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Farsight]

Too bad - I could answer the question he posed in that thread (which is actually a sensible one) and make the connection with Einstein's comment about gravity gravitating clear. But it's not worth it.

No you couldn't. You've already demonstrated just how weak your physics is.

 

[Dancing David]

It isn't philosophy, I'm giving the scientific evidence to support my case. That's science.

No you haven't, you have vaguely waved your arms in general directions, that is different.

Garbage. Pair production is the scientific evidence that a massless photon is transformed into an electorn and a positron, both of which exhibit mass and charge and angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. Giving a mathematical derivation for the mass of the electron isn't scientific evidence, and for you to use that as an excuse to dismiss scientific evidence isn't scientific.

No that is not a demonstration of your idea at all. In pair production there is parity of charges and the overall charge is neutral, in your system, which is just vague and speculative, you have the production of mass and charge, but no parity.

Your analogy to pair production is yet again proof that you are engaging in philosophy.

I can't. And if you knew anything about physics, you'd know that. Take a look at the parameters of the standard model at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Theoretical_aspects and look what's there.

You are wrong, wrong wrong. When Gell-ann gave out his theories he said exactly why they had the values that they did.
When people who study high energy collisions do so, the study the values that are produced.

You are silly.

It does matter. We do physics to understand the universe via the scientific method. Not to ignore scientific evidence in favour of playing with mathematics which is then used as an excuse to disregard scientific evidence.

Nope that is just crack pot there. You should really avoid those kind of statement, that is what make you look like a kook. Right there.

Your theory produce nothing that is why it is speculative.

Why thank you, but please do appreciate that it isn't mine.

Sorry, this is the JREF, you present ideas, they are your ideas.

A photon is massless. An electron isn't. I can explain why, but I cannot give you an ab initio derivation of electron mass.

Then how does an electron in a know acquire mss.

That is the problem right there, and why it is speculation.

Via a geometrical distortion of space. Again, I cannot give you an ab initio derivation of electron charge.

Um, see, you do not understand what they are saying at all, do you.

Pity, try to google tensor and electro magnetism and gravitation.

 

[Farsight]

Pointing to other theories makes you look like a kook, it does not help your case.

Yes it does. String theory has predicted nothing for 40 years, so don't use the lack of quantitative prediction to dismiss scientific evidence.

The fact that you can't produce the math shows something... you have a speculative hypothesis, not a theory.

It isn't speculative, it's evidential. But OK re hypothesis rather than theory.

 

[Dancing David]

String theory isn't a theory. It predicts nothing, and has no experimental support. And what I give you here might be mere hypothesis, but it's grounded in scientific evidence. And with respect, that's more important than the maths.

And again with respect, that statement makes you look like a kook.

 

[Dancing David]

But I have shown that it does.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Pairproduction.png[/qimg]

The electron has angular momentum, and magnetic dipole moment. So that intrinsic spin is a real rotation. So what's rotating? And when you annihilate the electron with a positron, what do you get? Two photons.

[qimg]http://japan.gehealthcare.com/cwcjapan/static/rad/nm/etraining/images/annihilations.gif[/qimg]

The standard model can't derive its parameters, which include a list of masses. It never ceases to surprise me that so-called scientists erecting barriers that allow them to deny scientific evidence. But I suppose the underlying problem is The Trouble with Physics, wherein physics is burdened by mathematicians who have no regard for the scientific method.

No, it isn't easy. But the evidence is there. This is no speculation.

And in those diagrams, it shows what?

Conservation of charge, parity?

So you do not understand the evidence you present, now do you?

You show pictures that show a positive and a negative charge being produced.

You do not do that with your knotted photon becoming an electron, now do you?

 

[Dancing David]

I've changed my view many times. If you give me new evidence, I'll examine it carefully, and I'm quite prepared to change my view in the light of this evidence. You're not.

Then answer me this,

Why do you violate conservation of charge?

Where does the positive charge go when the photon gets knotted and becomes an electron?

In every picture of pair-production you show there is this thing.

It is called a pair. You know becuase there are two things of opposite charge.

So... you are violating conservation of charge.

 

[Farsight]

No you haven't, you have vaguely waved your arms in general directions, that is different.

Dismiss all that scientific evidence if you like.

No that is not a demonstration of your idea at all. In pair production there is parity of charges and the overall charge is neutral, in your system, which is just vague and speculative, you have the production of mass and charge, but no parity.

Pair production creates mass and it creates charge. You can measure them. Alternatively you can dismiss this on specious grounds of parity just because I haven't mentioned it.

Your analogy to pair production is yet again proof that you are engaging in philosophy.

Get real. It's experimental science.

You are wrong, wrong wrong. When Gell-Mann gave out his theories he said exactly why they had the values that they did. When people who study high energy collisions do so, they study the values that are produced.

So give a reference to those Gell-Mann values, and as for people who study collisions, this "zeptospace" book tells you about it.

You are silly.

You're losing it and resorting to abuse.

Nope that is just crack pot there. You should really avoid those kind of statement, that is what make you look like a kook. Right there. Your theory produce nothing that is why it is speculative. Sorry, this is the JREF, you present ideas, they are your ideas.

Yep, abuse. People who dismiss scientific evidence always resort to this as a last line of defence.

Then how does an electron in a know acquire mss.

Huh?

That is the problem right there, and why it is speculation.

It's scientific evidence, not speculation.

Um, see, you do not understand what they are saying at all, do you.

Yes, I do.

Pity, try to google tensor and electro magnetism and gravitation.

Long since done. Years back.

 

[Farsight]

And in those diagrams, it shows what? conservation of charge, parity? So you do not understand the evidence you present, now do you? You show pictures that show a positive and a negative charge being produced. You do not do that with your knotted photon becoming an electron, now do you?

Yes I do. Pair production creates an electron and a positron. They're have opposite chirality. Conservation of charge applies as does conservation of angular momentum. I gave an example of an astronaut rotating a satellite, and suffering a counter-rotation as a result.

 

[Farsight]

Then answer me this, Why do you violate conservation of charge?

I don't. I've talked about a possible surprise concerning neutrinos, but I don't talk about violating conservation of charge when an electron is created. It's created in pair production, along with a positron.

Where does the positive charge go when the photon gets knotted and becomes an electron?

Into the positron.

In every picture of pair-production you show there is this thing. It is called a pair. You know becuase there are two things of opposite charge. So... you are violating conservation of charge.

Sigh. No I'm not. That's why I show the pair production picture.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

The evidence begs to differ. And Maxwell and Minkowski beg to differ. See post 2.

You have just said, again, that Minkowski supports that the EM field is spiral. Please show in his specific work, in the actual physics not in an analogy, where he makes this claim.

No, there's an electromagnetic field. One field, two forces. Read what Minkowski said:

"Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicuous way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

Right there Minkowski is saying that there are two fields and the nature of the fields is based on the choice of time axis. If you want to defend an interpretation of that passage that is different, show us with content from the actual paper.

Your claims about Minkowski are prime examples of your failure to provide actual evidence. You have never shown how Minkowski's work interacts with any actual physics problems or predictions. Nobody can possibly look at what you have said and figure out how to actually do anything in physics.

A fig-leaf prediction is one that's tacked on to a "theory" to give it an air of scientific respectability, even though the author knows full well that it will not be realistically testable for many many years, if ever. General relativity was tested within three years. String theory has been going for forty. Spot the difference?

And how can we test your theory? The one thing closest to a prediction that you have made is that a correct GR calculation of the rotation curve of a galaxy will get rid of the need for dark matter, but you have never actually shown anyone the correct calculation. As it stands, your theory is actually falsified, since there are many GR calculations out there of galaxy rotation curves and they all fail to match your prediction.

It's a genuine question: Is the energy of the gravitational field included in the Einstein Field Equations? I gave the references to support it, highlighting what looks like a contradiction. I'm not undermining Einstein or general relativity.

But by your question you obviously do not understand the mathematics of the theory. Do you worry that you are missing something important?

Now, what was your PhD thesis? Wouldn't have been string theory by any chance?

Hah! No, it's not string theory. I don't even think that string theory is on the right track. If anything, I probably lean toward loop quantum gravity.

I would ask you not to dodge any questions, Farsight, but it's clear that you can't do anything else. How could you explain the Williamson paper when you don't understand it. You couldn't even pick out the equation in the paper that governs the specific motion of the photon in the special state that you claim you support. Of course, you could surprise everyone by actually picking out the right equation, or by actually showing how charge is produced, or by actually backing up your dark matter predictions with some observational evidence, or by actually showing what Minkowski does with electromagnetism but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes I do. Pair production creates an electron and a positron. They're have opposite chirality. Conservation of charge applies as does conservation of angular momentum. I gave an example of an astronaut rotating a satellite, and suffering a counter-rotation as a result.

So where is the opposite charge? In your photon become electron.

As to the acquisition of mass, it comes from the vacum energy. Duh, even I know that.

When I called you silly and warn you of being a kook, it is because you have strayed into foolish politics.

So where is the conservation of charge when a photon becomes an electron, that is where you do not understand the diagrams.

i will get out my Gell-Mann and get back to you on the prediction of mass, it is there.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't. I've talked about a possible surprise concerning neutrinos, but I don't talk about violating conservation of charge when an electron is created. It's created in pair production, along with a positron.

And where is that positron?

Into the positron.

And where is that pesky positiron?

Sigh. No I'm not. That's why I show the pair production picture.

Nope you have talked about how a phton becomes an electron, where is the positron?

 

[Tubbythin]

But I have shown that it does.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Pairproduction.png[/qimg]

No you have shown that you don't understand pair production.

The electron has angular momentum, and magnetic dipole moment. So that intrinsic spin is a real rotation.

Please show your calculation.

So what's rotating? And when you annihilate the electron with a positron, what do you get? Two photons.

At a centre of mass energy of 91 Gev you may well get a Z⁰, at 161 GeV a W⁺W^- pair.

 

[Farsight]

Do the research Tubby:

Electron angular momentum

electron magnetic dipole moment

electron annihilation

 

[Farsight]

As to the acquisition of mass, it comes from the vacum energy. Duh, even I know that.

Duh. it doesn't. It comes from the photon energy/momentum. Let's see if anybody backs me up on that huh? How about...

You have just said, again, that Minkowski supports that the EM field is spiral. Please show in his specific work, in the actual physics not in an analogy, where he makes this claim.

No, I said he refers to a wrench, and a wrench employs a screw mechanism as referred to by Maxwell to convert linear to rotational motion or vice versa. The spiral depiction is only appropriate when you take a slice through the EM field of an electron and as I said, it's actually three-dimensional like Fibonacci spirals curved in two orientations. The supporting evidence is in the right hand rule and electric motors and dynamos and all the electromagnetic phenomena that's out there. That's the actual physics. Not mathematics that describes the electric field as something separate to the magnetic field and has you convinced that one "produces" the other. Get used to it. And stop boring everybody to tears.

 

[Tubbythin]

Do the research Tubby:

Electron angular momentum

electron magnetic dipole moment

electron annihilation

I know about all of these things. Why are you posting these links to google?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

No, I said he refers to a wrench, and a wrench employs a screw mechanism as referred to by Maxwell to convert linear to rotational motion or vice versa.

You have just lied to us in a gross and obvious manner. When someone asked you to defend your claim that EM worked "spirally", you claimed that this was supported by Minkowski.

Now you have to defend this claim of the spiral action of EM with your own equations and evidence and show specifically where Minkoswki uses this screw mechanism.

The spiral depiction is only appropriate when you take a slice through the EM field of an electron and as I said, it's actually three-dimensional like Fibonacci spirals curved in two orientations.

Again, show this using the appropriate equations and show this specifically in Minkowski's work.

The supporting evidence is in the right hand rule and electric motors and dynamos and all the electromagnetic phenomena that's out there.

Show where, in the equations governing dynamos, where this specific spiral pattern shows up.

That's the actual physics. Not mathematics that describes the electric field as something separate to the magnetic field and has you convinced that one "produces" the other. Get used to it. And stop boring everybody to tears.

Show the actual equations governing the one field. You can't have the "actual physics" without the actual mathematics that governs the physics as described in every textbook and every application.

I noticed that you have still dodged the most substantive questions and you have failed to directly address the questions of others.

 

[ben m]

Farsight keeps citing "the right hand rule", but he is unable to produce any example of any right-hand-rule in an actual EM field equation which generates that spiral.

C'mon, Farsight---if your spiral is supposed to be the reality underlying E and B fields, show us the equations that make it work. If I'm an observer sitting 1cm to the left of the "electron" in your spiral-drawing, how does the local spiral-field-thing lead to a force? If your spiral is a vector field G(r), what's the equation for the force F(q,v,G) on a charge q moving at speed v in this field? Can you show how your "real" force got "mistaken" (as you seem to believe it did) for a force like F = qE + qvxB due to two fields?

Type in the proof---heck, type in a vector equation for G instead of a jpg---don't just cite Maxwell saying something about wrenches and expect that to convince us. Maxwell isn't remembered as a genius because of his vague analogies, nor because of his (failed) quaternion program, nor because of his keen insight into the theory of the luminiferous ether. He's remembered because he put together an intelligible set of vector equations and solved them.

 

[The Man]

But I have shown that it does.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Pairproduction.png[/qimg]

The electron has angular momentum, and magnetic dipole moment. So that intrinsic spin is a real rotation. So what's rotating? And when you annihilate the electron with a positron, what do you get? Two photons.

[qimg]http://japan.gehealthcare.com/cwcjapan/static/rad/nm/etraining/images/annihilations.gif[/qimg]

No you have not, that a photon can result in pair production does not infer that an electron can be a ‘self bound state of a photon’. Pair production produces, well, a pair. You are claiming that a single electron is some kind of self bound state of a photon (that is not an electron positron pair). Pair production does not support such a claim, because your claim is not about pair production, much that you might like to imagine it does.

The standard model can't derive its parameters, which include a list of masses. It never ceases to surprise me that so-called scientists erecting barriers that allow them to deny scientific evidence. But I suppose the underlying problem is The Trouble with Physics, wherein physics is burdened by mathematicians who have no regard for the scientific method.

The standard model makes quantitative predictions that have been tested and verified. It never ceases to amuse me that people who think they have found some “Trouble with Physics” often think of math as a ‘burden’ to physics and that requiring they make some testable quantitative assertion for their idea du jour is somehow “no regard for the scientific method”.

No, it isn't easy. But the evidence is there. This is no speculation.

Again the evidence you tout (pair production) is specifically not evidence of your claim (that an electron is some kind of self bound state of a photon). You just erroneously speculate that it could or must be evidence of your claim.

Yes, the mathematics of dynamical geometry is difficult.

Well, it’s time to stop avoiding the difficult part.

Yes, I do have supporting evidence. Pair production, electron angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment, and annihilation. There isn't any evidence that contradicts my description. It contradicts intrinsic spin.

Once again your claim is not that a photon can result in pair production, it is that an electron is some kind of self bound state of a photon. Pair production actually refutes your claim as it shows that a photon does not result in just the charge of an electron as would be required for the electron to be some kind of self bound state of a photon.

I'm not ignorant of String "theory" or theories in general. So that's a no.

Really? Let’s see if the rest of your post supports that claim.

Yes, other have. All I've done is described it in a way that the layman can understand whilst added bits and pieces here and there. That's why it isn't my theory. But as for the formalism, it'll come. There are people working on it. If there weren't, I couldn't do it all anyway, and even if I could, I'm not happy about where that would leave everybody else. Hence I try to get others interested.

So it is not your concept, you are not attempting to develop any formalism; you even claimed that it was too hard. So that basically leaves it up to everyone else to do that hard work for you (which you are happy with) so you “try to get others interested”. Sorry, Tom Sawyer you ain’t, you want that particular fence painted then you paint it yourself.

String theory is not the standard model. But what I describe is.

No it is not, the standard model does not have an electron as some self bound state of a photon or such a state resulting in the charge of an electron.

So here we go again: what are the predictions of string theory?

So here we go again, you are ignorant of string theories. Some of those predictions like extra dimensions were explained to you before. Others are certain particles that might be discovered in higher energy collisions. So your “no” before has been shown by you to be actually yes.

Because they're descriptions, not quantitative predictions.

As we have bee telling you and if this is the fence you want painted, then you’d better start painting it.

No, they're consistent with the standard model and the current evidence.

The evidence is that a photon can not result in just the charge of an electron so the current evidence directly contradicts your claim that an electron is some self bound state of a photon.

No I'm not talking about M-theory, just an electromagnetic wave. It's a transformation rather than a topological space.

Ok, but you’re still just talking, it’s time you stopped just talking and get down to the hard work. Stop talking and start painting, because you are not likely to talk anyone here into painting your fence for you.

 

[ctamblyn]

OK, I'm a little behind, but I'll try to pick up where I left off:

The problem with this "by definition" approach is that there is no such thing in reality. An electron has an electromagnetic field, not an electric field. The approach is misguided - it separates one field into two distinct fields, and then suggests that each field has an independent existence. They do not.

I had to trace back through the posts to remember the context here (my memory is not so good these days). Way back in this post, I was arguing that the model you are presenting (or "your" model, for brevity) would predict the existence of magnetic monopoles. I pointed out that given any solution (E, B) of Maxwell's equations in the absence of charges, you can always construct an equally physical, equally valid solution (E', B') given by E' = B, B' = -E (this being in natural units).

At this stage I should be careful, given the thread topic, to point out that I am talking about explicitly charged objects. In the language of E and B, we're talking about non-zero divergences - or pictorially speaking, field lines beginning and/or ending somewhere. A photon, being neutral, does not act as a terminus for field lines.

I then carried on to say that if an "electric monopole" - i.e. a field (E, B) proportional to (1/r², 0) - were a possible solution of Maxwell's vacuum equations (which it would need to be if charge arises from photons), it would also be possible to find vacuum solutions that look like a "magnetic monopole" - having (E, B) proportional to (0, -1/r²).

You then replied:

I dispute this. The E and the B are two aspects of the same field, you cannot have an electric monopole, it's an electromagnetic monopole. That's what an electron is.

So, in this post I defined what is meant by "electric" and "magnetic" monopoles. Mostly my motivation here was as follows: it's important to understand what the two types of field look like in order to follow my earlier argument. The term "electromagnetic monopole" is unfortunately ambiguous in the current context, despite the fact that you might get away with it in real life (because there are no magnetic monopoles) - in this area of the discussion the distinction between electric and magnetic monopoles is crucial.

Hopefully that context makes the reason for the definitions clearer. Even if we don't observe magnetic monopoles, it's still important to define exactly what it is that you're not seeing.