Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[edd]

[qimg]http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m_\textrm{e})\psi - eA_\mu\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}[/qimg]

The problem ctamblyn referred to here is that mimetex isn't real LaTeX. Use the mathtex renderer instead, e.g.
instead of
http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m_\textrm{e})\psi - eA_\mu\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
do
http://www.forkosh.com/mathtex.cgi?\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m_\textrm{e})\psi - eA_\mu\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
(just change the bit before the cgi)
and you'll get
[qimg]http://www.forkosh.com/mathtex.cgi?\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m_\textrm{e})\psi - eA_\mu\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}[/qimg]

edit: only you don't get it in the qimg tags... now that is probably a MIME type bug or something? edit2: and that one you found Farsight gives nicer results anyway

 

[edd]

I didn't actually say that. Try saying it seems you think everything is field. It doesn't sound too unreasonable, does it? Seeing as what we talk about is quantum field theory.

That sounds alright, but you did say that the electron field was a 'disposition' of the photon field. And then seemed to be happy to extend that to fields of other particles too.

When it comes to the electromagnetic field, what I said was true. Classical electromagnetism doesn't have an electromagnetic field and an electron field.

No not as such, but it does have source terms into which you place the information about the charged particles. Strictly speaking in fact, ρ_e is a scalar field. It just naturally isn't quantum, since the theory isn't quantum.

 

[ctamblyn]

It isn't crackpottery. It's reality. Get used to it. It's a photon-photon collider. There is no chocolate teapot. Photons interact with photons. So QED needs a fix.

Once again, you are attacking a strawman rather than what QED actually says.

I repeat:

The whole point is to test whether QED is correct. QED tells us to expect electron/positron pairs to be produced, with a specific probability, and with a specific distribution of momenta. We could test your idea too, except no-one can make quantitative predictions with the vague, contradictory imagery and amusing numerology you have provided over the last seven years or so.

Why don't you lay everyone's doubts to rest and bring to a close these fruitless arguments over analogies and metaphors, by showing that it is possible to write down a field theory of what appear to be interacting charged particles, but in which the only field that really exists is the electromagnetic field, and then show that it reduces to QED in the appropriate limit? Until then, you are proselytizing with great vigour and little rigour on behalf of a theory which doesn't even exist.

ETA: Actually, until you properly address that last paragraph, there is no more for me to do other than keep repeating it. Rather than do that, I'll just ask you to imagine that that's what I'm doing in response to every one of your posts. I'll drop in with the occasional reminder, maybe.

 

[Farsight]

You have referred to them, but not in a way that actually supports the things that need supporting.

If Maxwell and Minkowski talked about the screw nature of electromagnetism, and Heaviside and NASA told you about frame-dragging, what are you going to do? Put your hands over your ears and sing la la la? Because you're with Phunk and you believe electrons and positrons attract one another via photons that pop into existence like magic? And photons interact via electrons and positrons that pop into existence like magic? That's cargo-cult science, Robo. It is exactly the thing Feynman warned of. And here we are on JREF, with people defending it tooth and nail. Sheesh.

 

[ctamblyn]

That sounds alright, but you did say that the electron field was a 'disposition' of the photon field. And then seemed to be happy to extend that to fields of other particles too.

Elsewhere in this thread, Farsight has explicitly claimed that electrons, neutrinos and hadrons are all special configurations of the electromagnetic field:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5749670#post5749670

This reply to ben m seems to suggest that everything else is also included in this model:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5729710&post5729710

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Only don't forget to define your terms.

Although Farsight keeps asking us to define our terms, he never responds when asked which terms he fails to understand.

Over two years ago, I wrote:

You never seem to tell us which terms you don't understand. You don't appear to understand the terms used in differential calculus, but it would be silly to explain freshman-level concepts to "a cage-fighter working out toddlers". At the same time, we don't want to waste time explaining PhD-level material only to find you're still struggling with calculus.

To make it easier for us to know what kind of help you need, I'm going to ask you to answer each of the following questions. (I'm asking for the textbooks you used because some of us may own copies of those same textbooks and can refer you to the relevant sections.)

Questions for Farsight to answer if he honestly wants us to explain the terms he doesn't understand:

• Have you taken a course in differential calculus? If so, please name the textbook you used.
• Have you taken a course in integral calculus? If so, please name the textbook you used.
• Have you taken a course in vector calculus? If so, please name the textbook you used.
• Have you taken a course in differential equations? If so, please name the textbook you used.
• Have you taken a course in linear algebra? If so, please name the textbook you used.
• Have you taken a course in general topology? If so, please name the textbook you used.
• Have you taken a course in differential geometry? If so, please name the textbook you used.
• Have you taken a course in Newtonian mechanics? If so, please name the textbook you used.
• Have you taken a course in electromagnetism that covers Maxwell's equations? If so, please name the textbook you used.

Farsight has never responded. From things he has written at other fora, we know Farsight has never taken a university-level course in mathematics. He claims to understand the mathematics used in physics, but has used this thread and others to present an overwhelming case for the contrary.

 

[ben m]

Here we go again. Remember what happened the first, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 100th times you posted:

If Maxwell and Minkowski talked about the screw nature of electromagnetism,

a) Maxwell speculated once about a "screw nature" to electromagnetism. Once. He then wrote dozens of important papers saying, mathematically, that electromagnetism does not have a screw nature. Remember this? Please tell me you remember?

b) Minkowski mentioned "force screw" in constructing a vague analogy then immediately says the analogy is imperfect. A "screw nature" to electromagnetism appears in nothing he actually worked on, nothing with details, nothing he tested experimentally, nothing. Remember? I hope so.

Here's a hint: I know you will bring this up again and again, because you're Farsight. Can I ask for one modification, just for everyone's sanity? Instead of saying

If Maxwell and Minkowski talked about the screw nature of electromagnetism,

please say

it remains my belief that Maxwell and Minkowski's quotes tell us about about the screw nature of electromagnetism, although I acknowledge remembering the existence, form, and content of everyone's objections

Wouldn't that be nice? A fellow can dream.

and Heaviside and NASA told you about frame-dragging,

You quote Heaviside and NASA talking about gravitational frame dragging, not about electromagnetism; it is only your personal crackpot belief that attempts to make electromagnetism and frame-dragging into the same thing.

Again, you can do better, even acknowledging your essential Farsight-nature:

and Heaviside and NASA told you about gravitomagnetism, which I assert is support for my claims about electromagnetism, although I recall the existence, form, and content of everyone's objections

What an improvement that would be. It's not even a change in your physics beliefs! Just a change of your ... well, I can't think of a Rule-0-compatible explanation of what your main problem is, so never mind.

 

[sol invictus]

Having glanced over some recent posts in this thread, I think there might be an overemphasis on whether the interaction between photons in QED is "direct" or not. While of course I understand what people mean when they say it is not direct, I don't think the distinction is particularly useful.

In the 1-loop effective action you get in QED from integrating out the electron, there IS a direct photon-photon interaction. It's true that coupling arises in the computation due to the interaction of photons with virtual electrons, but so what? In the end, photons scatter off photons - that's the experimentally observable fact. Everything else is interpretation or semantics.

 

[ctamblyn]

You quote Heaviside and NASA talking about gravitational frame dragging, not about electromagnetism; it is only your personal crackpot belief that attempts to make electromagnetism and frame-dragging into the same thing.

Aside: I don't think Heaviside himself even mentioned "frame dragging", did he?

 

[ctamblyn]

Having glanced over some recent posts in this thread, I think there might be an overemphasis on whether the interaction between photons in QED is "direct" or not. While of course I understand what people mean when they say it is not direct, I don't think the distinction is particularly useful.

In the 1-loop effective action you get in QED from integrating out the electron, there IS a direct photon-photon interaction. It's true that coupling arises in the computation due to the interaction of photons with virtual electrons, but so what? In the end, photons scatter off photons - that's the experimentally observable fact. Everything else is interpretation or semantics.

That is true (although Farsight's inability to understand what people mean by "direct", even when they've spelt it out, is perplexing). What is objectively wrong is Farsight's position that observation of photon-photon scattering must necessarily invalidate QED, regardless of the details.

 

[edd]

That is true (although Farsight's inability to understand what people mean by "direct", even when they've spelt it out, is perplexing). What is objectively wrong is Farsight's position that observation of photon-photon scattering must necessarily invalidate QED, regardless of the details.

Except he seems to think what he's saying is QED. Including the stuff about electrons being photons in disguise.

 

[ctamblyn]

Except he seems to think what he's saying is QED. Including the stuff about electrons being photons in disguise.

Sometimes he says he is merely reinterpreting the model, but at other times you get things like this:

Photons interact with photons. So QED needs a fix.

And I can't believe after all these years and (usually) patient explanations that anyone rational could honestly believe that a model in which leptons and hadrons are all twisted photons is merely a reinterpretation of QED. It seems more like a way of dodging the demands for a quantitative model. "You already have the equations."

 

[ben m]

Having glanced over some recent posts in this thread, I think there might be an overemphasis on whether the interaction between photons in QED is "direct" or not. While of course I understand what people mean when they say it is not direct, I don't think the distinction is particularly useful.

I'd be happy to follow that line of discussion (and edd's line of whether non-propagating excitations should be called "virtual particles" or not) when talking to a physicist. At some point I attempted to explain the difference between the Feynman-like approach and the more Schwinger-like approach (the latter lending itself more to effective theory), which explanation went down the memory hole like everything else.

Farsight's particular mental picture of "direct interactions" is nothing at all like an effective theory, but rather a walkthrough of his own crackpot theory. (which he thinks is obvious/well-supported/suppressed; and everyone knows it except you, but it's not written anywhere; and it was proven in 1890 but also needs a photon collider to prove it.) He thinks that a photon is a sort of gravitational wave, with "displacement current" a code word telling you that spacetime is "displaced", and so he thinks going through this "displacement" will get a bump like a car going through a pothole.

And he thinks QED is wrong by construction and/or by experiment as everyone and/or nobody knows.

 

[ben m]

Aside: I don't think Heaviside himself even mentioned "frame dragging", did he?

Heaviside attempted to write a theory of gravity by ... well, by hypothesizing that the gravitational scalar potential obeys the same equations as the electric scalar potential, and then further wondering what happens if gravity has a term that depends on dPhi/dt the same way that E&M does. He ends up writing equations that look like "magnetic" terms for gravity.

That's the beginning and the end of that. There's no geometry or spacetime involved, and the hypothesis is not actually correct; but nevertheless the result uses some of the same language and meets the same dimensional-analysis demands as the (much later) correct theory of gravity, which includes frame dragging, so there you go.

 

[ctamblyn]

Heaviside attempted to write a theory of gravity by ... well, by hypothesizing that the gravitational scalar potential obeys the same equations as the electric scalar potential, and then further wondering what happens if gravity has a term that depends on dPhi/dt the same way that E&M does. He ends up writing equations that look like "magnetic" terms for gravity.

That's the beginning and the end of that. There's no geometry or spacetime involved, and the hypothesis is not actually correct; but nevertheless the result uses some of the same language and meets the same dimensional-analysis demands as the (much later) correct theory of gravity, which includes frame dragging, so there you go.

That's what I thought. He certainly didn't mention it in his original work (that would have been pretty prescient), but I wasn't sure if he said anything on the matter after GR was developed.

 

[ben m]

That's what I thought. He certainly didn't mention it in his original work (that would have been pretty prescient), but I wasn't sure if he said anything on the matter after GR was developed.

From Wikipedia, I gather that Heaviside was at the end of his physical and mental health by the time GR came together.

 

[lpetrich]

More to the point, how can you explain it in a way that makes sense at all. You've got a photon-photon collider, and you're trying to say photons don't interact directly. Hmmn. Run that by me again.

Photons don't directly interact with each other in much the way that charged particles don't directly interact with each other directly by way of their charges. There's a virtual particle in between the incoming particles in both cases, though what happens after that virtual-particle intercharge is different.

But ben m didn't know that light was effectively alternating displacement current.

Argument from etymology, and a literal-minded argument at that. So like a theologian.

(the QED photon-electron Lagrangian...)

Only don't forget to define your terms.

What do you consider acceptable definitions? Yes, acceptable ones, so you don't move the goalposts after seeing people post definitions.

(Sir Isaac Newton's refusing to speculate on the nature of gravity...)

Only in Opticks query 20 he said: "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?"

Those were QUERIES, questions that he was asking, not great truths revealed by him. Even worse for you, he was thinking about what might cause refraction in a material, not gravity.

Shrug. I will not accept quantum mysticism peddled by quacks.

Just as Lactantius refused to accept "round-earth mysticism" peddled by "quacks".

Apparently QED tells us that photons interact via electrons, and electrons interact via photons.

It does, whether or not you want to accept that it does. Farsight, you are not the Pope of Physics.

As if hydrogen atoms twinkle, and magnets shine. When actually, they don't.

Another Lactantius argument. Nothing can be upside down.

And between times, the electron's got its spin and magnetic moment and you can diffract it.

All courtesy of it being a charged Dirac quantum field and not a circling photon.

If Maxwell and Minkowski talked about the screw nature of electromagnetism, and Heaviside and NASA told you about frame-dragging, what are you going to do?

Dismiss it as book-banging that would make a fundie proud, and misinterpreted book-banging at that.

 

[Farsight]

That sounds alright, but you did say that the electron field was a 'disposition' of the photon field. And then seemed to be happy to extend that to fields of other particles too.

Noted. Let's just say that there are field relationships wherein particles decay into other particles.

No not as such, but it does have source terms into which you place the information about the charged particles. Strictly speaking in fact, ρ_{e[/b] is a scalar field. It just naturally isn't quantum, since the theory isn't quantum.}

Again noted. But do note that the electron is always 511keV with unit charge. That's a kind of quantum.

Except he seems to think what he's saying is QED. Including the stuff about electrons being photons in disguise.

What I'm saying is you don't have to throw out the whole of QED just because you've found out that photons interact with photons. You just fix the interpretation, wherein you now say the photon field and the electron field are but two aspects of the electromagnetic field. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Elsewhere in this thread, Farsight has explicitly claimed that electrons, neutrinos and hadrons are all special configurations of the electromagnetic field: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5749670#post5749670

Follow your own link. That isn't actually what I said.

This reply to ben m seems to suggest that everything else is also included in this model: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5729710&post5729710

Again, follow your won link. I give a bit of background, referring to people like Maxwell and Kelvin and Atiyah. I'm not just some "my theory" guy making stuff up.

And I can't believe after all these years and (usually) patient explanations that anyone rational could honestly believe that a model in which leptons and hadrons are all twisted photons is merely a reinterpretation of QED. It seems more like a way of dodging the demands for a quantitative model. "You already have the equations."

You already have the equations for classical electromagnetism too. That doesn't stop you believing in cargo-cult nonsense like electrons and positrons throwing photons at one another. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Farsight has never responded. From things he has written at other fora, we know Farsight has never taken a university-level course in mathematics. He claims to understand the mathematics used in physics, but has used this thread and others to present an overwhelming case for the contrary.

Try to talk physics, Clinger. Everybody here knows that I've got maths A level, did more mathematics during a computer science degree followed by ad-hoc self-teaching, and that I've done private tutoring. Trying to slag me off on my mathematical abilities won't stop it being a photon-photon collider.

There used to be a standard crackpot physics motivation in there somewhere---i.e., Farsight obviously sincerely believes that photons are little spacetime displacements, thinks this is an awesome and obviously-correct model, etc.---but it's been a long time since he's been interested in explaining/promoting this belief. Instead, he's apparently decided to entertain himself by insulting/trolling anyone who doesn't already subscribe, i.e. everyone.

You insult me repeatedly then say I'm insulting and trolling? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

...So like a theologian...

You are all dismissal, lpetrich. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Having glanced over some recent posts in this thread, I think there might be an overemphasis on whether the interaction between photons in QED is "direct" or not. While of course I understand what people mean when they say it is not direct, I don't think the distinction is particularly useful. In the 1-loop effective action you get in QED from integrating out the electron, there IS a direct photon-photon interaction. It's true that coupling arises in the computation due to the interaction of photons with virtual electrons, but so what? In the end, photons scatter off photons - that's the experimentally observable fact. Everything else is interpretation or semantics.

Well said sol. All: see what sol said above. I think that pretty much nails it. And that we've done this one to death. If anybody wants to talk about some spin-off matter, start a thread, ask a question, and I'll tell you what I can.

 

[edd]

I don't think sol said that the electron field is an aspect of the electromagnetic field, so I don't think all you are claiming is settled.

 

[ctamblyn]

Elsewhere in this thread, Farsight has explicitly claimed that electrons, neutrinos and hadrons are all special configurations of the electromagnetic field:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5749670#post5749670

Follow your own link. That isn't actually what I said.

The conversation there for all to see. Here's a representative snippet (with highlights added):

Even if you want to talk about a single photon going around in a circle - looping on itself, with 2 pi phase difference from end-to-end - you would also have to have a state where a photon loops around with 4 pi phase difference - an excitation. Also, 6 pi, 8pi, .... What do these states correspond to?

Short-lived hadronic debris in the main.

Well, look at that, you did say that hadrons are twisted photons after all.

Wait, there's more:

No I'm not. I've repeatedly talked of low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons. You can run this backwards no problem. The difference between the electron and proton is in the topology. The electron is a trivial knot, the proton is the next knot in the series, the trefoil. See post #353 where I described the crossing points and the bag model.

Hi, are you saying that a proton is a photon in a mobius strip or three photons in a mobius strip? Post 353, seems to say, one photon.

I'm saying the electron is the moebius configuration, and the proton is the next knot, a trefoil. I'm also saying it's one photon, not three.

Anyway, it's gibberish. I can fire all sorts of probes into the center of an electron. I can scatter a neutrino off an electron (a process which flips its spin) and optionally turn it into a muon; I can scatter an electron off of a proton and make a neutrino plus a neutron; I can do all sorts of things which obviously deliver a swift kick---much swifter than mere e+ e- annihilation--- to whatever the heck was once inside the electron.

It's all just different configurations.

But, hey, if you are now retracting your claim that leptons and hadrons are twisted photons, fantastic - that's real progress.