Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Reality Check]

Yes, but it doesn't prove anything. All we're doing is shuffling terms without actually understanding the reality that underlies them. This is the whole problem. I defy anybody here to explain the reality behind this:

I doubt that ben m will reply to you as he stated here about your implied threat of libel against Cuddles.
The realty behind that equation is that the electric field is caused by the charge contained in the surfeace that you integrate over.

This sounds like you think that science is about something you call "reality" which looks like some kind of ultimate truth.

This is not the case. Science is about producing models that match what the universe tells us about itself. What the universe tells us is that electrons act as if they are described by QED, e.g.

• the most precise result in physics is the match between the QED prediction for the anomalous magnetic moment and that measured for the electron.
• Their maximum size is 10^-20 meters, suggesting that they are point particles (a few more OOM and we are getting to Planck scales)

 

[Reality Check]

Errrr.... charges are sources of electric fields. What am I missing here?

Not much!
I note that the 1997 Williamson / van der Mark paper that Farsight is always citing has that electric fields are the sources of charges. This is how they get a EM wave (photon) to produce a charge.

 

[Farsight]

Yup, after statements like "No, I can't predict the mass of the electron, but I can tell you why the fine structure constant takes the value it does, and why it's a running constant. But you'll doubtless dismiss it all." it really does disappoint me. I was all excited about dismissing your careful work and theory, but now I'll never get the chance.

Yup, because that's the way it is. It's a running constant, the measured value depends on the space you're in, it hinges on permittivity, and that relates to geometry. But hey, if you don't want to discuss it on a discussion forum, that's up to you.

How is this a response to "I'll show an experiment that has a behaviour that is not properly predicted by current models"?

Because Solar Probe Plus will measure how it runs with gravity.

Please express alpha as a ratio between the em force and the strong force.

1/137. Next question.

I'm sure everyone will be relieved to know that you have unified gravity, either with itself, or some other forces, I'm not sure which you mean. But its good to know that it is trivial. Whew, and I thought we'd have people working on the problem for decades.

What you really mean is Oh no, it can't be that simple, let's ignore that and keep up the pretence that it's really difficult. It ain't Russ. It's simple. Do you want to know how gravity works? What's that? No. Didn't think so.

It is you claiming that fundamental means something different than what is meant in the standard model. The way that the standard model claims that the electron is different than the way you are claiming that the standard model claims that the electron is fundamental. Additionally, the primary issue in physics is never interpretation. Interpretation is meaningless unless you somehow use it to uncover something new beyond mere interpretation.

Believe me, the primary issue is interpretation. Because that's what tells you what it all means, and that's what people want to know. That's why people do physics.

That isn't sufficient. You need to show by what method your model reaches that conclusion. You also need to show how your model matches the current behavior of cryogenic electron emission within photomultipiers (length of emission follows power law, etc).

You're ducking and diving. I predict an unexpected effect, and then when it's confirmed, I'm right. There's no method to the sun's variable neutrino emission. More neutrinos, more electron emission. Dressing it up with mathematics doesn't make it science.

After that did you study symmetry groups to understand the underlying mathematics?

I know something about symmetry groups if that's what you mean. But when it comes to physics and gauage theory, they're describing how stress-energy moves via action and rotation. That's what underlies the mathematics, not the other way round.

Re: throw neutrinos at electrons and look for unexpected positrons. OK, first of all, not exactly an easy experiment. Second, to be of any use, you'll first need to calculate the expected number of positrons, and then use your model to predict how many positrons you think there will be. If you don't do this, then how would you know whether or not your model predicts less or more positrons?

Don't dismiss the experiment because nobody has the exact maths. Do the experiment. Look for unexpected positrons. The maths doesn't have to lead.

Or maybe by "unexpected" you just mean that charge is not conserved?

Yes, I did mean that. It was a total surprise. You know I know some physics, I know about conservation of charge. But there I was sitting at my kitchen table with scissors and paper thinking what do you have to do to change the chirality of a moebius strip, and then I saw it, and a shiver went down my spine.

Again, you have no understanding of theoretical physics or even research in general. Things are tried because they seem promising, not because they have been proven to the satisfaction of the researcher. Many researchers even study several conflicting theories at once.

I have a good understanding of theoretical physics. I know about the clamour, the competition, the running with the herd, the need to publish, the conflict between theory and experiment, the issues of peer review, and the imposition of consensus. I know about groupthink, paradigm, and the black swan. And the ugly duckling.

You apparently haven't been paying attention to the past 100 years of theoretical physics and the massive upheaval that has occurred time and time again. People actually do care when you show experiments that give results that are out of line with current theory. In fact, its a really exciting thing! Why do you think so much money is spent on building particle accelerators?

I know the history. Yes, people care when experiments show results that are out of line with current theory. That's why some current theories predict everything.

First of all, I'm not aware of particle physicists dismissing pair production. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of scientists who think that when you provide high energy collisions, all sorts of particles *don't* fly off in every direction. And no one came up with "unsupported assertions that spin is intrinsic", in fact, the scientists who first suggested that electrons have spin decided not to publish because they had no evidence. Perhaps you are missing one the most important experiments in modern physics, the Stern–Gerlach experiment (and those that followed).

They do dismiss pair production. They dismiss the plain vanilla simplest version. That's why they have no electron model. They dismiss that too. And no, I'm not missing the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

I thought you said you could provide an experiment that showed results that deviated from current theory?

I did. Stick an electron gun in an intense neutrino flux and look for positrons. That's non-conservation of charge. Oh, I get it, That doesn't count. Because it deviates from current theory.

Or maybe "insulated from experimental disproof" is just your way of describing a theory that matches current experimental so well.

That's string theory. It predicts nothing, it matches nothing, and it's pseudoscience. But it's held sway for twenty years. What a waste of time. Thank goodness it's now a dead duck.

Yes, clearly the clergy of scientists don't want to understand the electron and there is a massive conspiracy trying to prevent others from understanding it too.

It's called groupthink. And intellectual arrogance. And defending your turf. It's why you've never understood the electron, and don't want to.

 

[Reality Check]

No, they aren't. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

As ben m stated:
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 are all 100% consistent with the electron being a quantum point particle as in QED.

Another way to put it: QED treats electrons as point particles and has no problems with the above phenomena.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Garbage. Replace quantum-mechanical with magic and you'll see what I mean. It's not me with the preconceptions here. It's you.

Garbage. Replace quantum-mechanical with QM and you'll see what I mean. It's not me with the preconceptions here. It's you.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Again, how does Minkowski support your work?

 

[RussDill]

Because Solar Probe Plus will measure how it runs with gravity.

You claim seems to be that the value of the fine structure constant will change depending on the strength of a gravitational field. You do realize that the probe in question will always be in microgravity (except when firing thrusters), right?

Question: "Please express alpha as a ratio between the em force and the strong force."
Response: "1/137. Next question."

That isn't a ratio, that is a "fraction". Are you suggesting that the ratio between the em force and the strong force is exactly 1/137? Are you trying to say that em force is 137 times greater than the strong force?

What you really mean is Oh no, it can't be that simple, let's ignore that and keep up the pretence that it's really difficult. It ain't Russ. It's simple. Do you want to know how gravity works? What's that? No. Didn't think so.

Yes, please to provide the maths. Otherwise, how can you be sure that the math doesn't fall apart, or that it produces results that match current experimental data?

Believe me, the primary issue is interpretation. Because that's what tells you what it all means, and that's what people want to know. That's why people do physics.

Please provide a source explaining why interpretation is important to physics. I was only aware of testable results being important to physicists and interpretation being left to philosophers as it isn't testable.

You're ducking and diving. I predict an unexpected effect, and then when it's confirmed, I'm right. There's no method to the sun's variable neutrino emission. More neutrinos, more electron emission. Dressing it up with mathematics doesn't make it science.

You seriously expect us to believe that your predicted the cryogenic electron emission more than 50 years ago? Why are you suddenly shifting gears away from cryogenic electron emission over to neutrinos? Are you suggesting that cryogenic electron emission is caused by neutrinos colliding with something? The number of events would be off by huge orders of magnitude unless you can provide some other neutrino interaction that isn't currently known. Also, what do you mean by "variable neutrino emission", are you just talking about neutrino oscillation? And sorry, mathematics is part of what makes science, science. Physics particularly would be useless without it.

Mathematics is essential to the sciences. One important function of mathematics in science is the role it plays in the expression of scientific models. Observing and collecting measurements, as well as hypothesizing and predicting, often require extensive use of mathematics. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus, for example, are all essential to physics. Virtually every branch of mathematics has applications in science, including "pure" areas such as number theory and topology.

Don't dismiss the experiment because nobody has the exact maths. Do the experiment. Look for unexpected positrons. The maths doesn't have to lead.

Yes, I did mean that. It was a total surprise. You know I know some physics, I know about conservation of charge. But there I was sitting at my kitchen table with scissors and paper thinking what do you have to do to change the chirality of a moebius strip, and then I saw it, and a shiver went down my spine.

You are actually suggesting an experiment in which charge is not conserved?

Yes, people care when experiments show results that are out of line with current theory. That's why some current theories predict everything.

So...we made theories that do a good job of predict experimental outcome because we don't want to know things?

They do dismiss pair production. They dismiss the plain vanilla simplest version. That's why they have no electron model. They dismiss that too. And no, I'm not missing the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

A) I don't think its possible for anyone to dismiss your version of pair production because you haven't actually provided one. Just vague handwaving and a picture of a spiral. B) Dismissing your version of pair production isn't dismissing pair production, C) There is a perfectly good model for electrons. D) You certainly are dismissing the SG experiment (or just don't understand the implications)

That's string theory. It predicts nothing, it matches nothing, and it's pseudoscience. But it's held sway for twenty years. What a waste of time. Thank goodness it's now a dead duck.

String theory has absolutely no sway in physics. No one is using it to build accelerators, computers, calculate what happens in a nuclear explosion etc. It is within the branch of *theoretical physics* and has been popular there. I fail to see the problem of unproven theories being a part of theoretical physics.

 

[Farsight]

I may be misreading you here, but I think you're out of date by about a decade. Neutrinos have been known to oscillate between different flavours since about 1998. This requires them to have a nonzero mass. We don't know the exact value yet, since the mass is small, and nearly impossible to measure direcly due to how the oscillations superimpose different states

Armillary, I appreciate the above isn't addressed to me, but I'd like to say something of interest:

A photon travels at c, and does not exhibit the property of mass. If however you trap a photon in a mirror-box, the inertia of that system is increased by the mass-equivalence of the photon energy/momentum. The photon is not motionless, but its net aggregate motion is zero. It isn't "travelling" any more.

There's a general rule at work here: when a photon travels at c, it has no mass. If it doesn't travel at all, then all of its energy/momentum is exhibited as mass. And there's a sliding scale in between. If you could make a photon go slower than c, it would start to exhibit mass. If you made it go slower again, it would exhibit more mass. If it speeded back up, the mass would diminish. IMHO this is what's happening with neutrino oscillation. If the spin tightens and slackens, the speed changes, and so does the mass.

 

[Farsight]

Let us know when you work out what either of those things actually are.

Pair production, annihilation, angular momentum, spin, magnetic dipole moment, the right hand rule, the dualism of the electromagnetic field, curl, etc etc.

 

[Farsight]

oooh! Math. Please, work this one out on the chalkboard for us! That is totally amazing that you have found a way to calculate the rest mass of the electron!

No I haven't. The "invariant" mass varies. Because of the factor two difference between the way light and matter respond to gravity.

Do you not understand that everyone else here sees that these things fit perfectly well into current theory?

Yes, the current theory that says charge is fundamental and spin is intrinsic, that offers no explanation of pair production and no electron model. And peddles supersymmetric woo and 11-dimensional snake-oil seasoned with the moonshine of time travel and parallel worlds. Woo!

Hey, you can swallow it if you like, like a bunch of Sunday school kids. Then you can dismiss the evidence and take refuge in name-calling because you can't counter the logic. But me, I'm skeptical.

 

[Farsight]

What is this bizarro obsessions the cranks on this forum have with the "right-hand rule"?

It's no bizarre obsession, it's an examination of the evidence. It tells you there's only one field, and that for a line of electrons, it has a barberpole disposition. A helicity.

The only such rules I know of tell you the direction the B field circles a current

Er, there is no "B field". It's an electromagnetic field.

..in classical electromagnetism (which of course is just a convention), the direction the cross product of two vectors points (another convention), and the definition of helicity or angular momentum given the direction of spin (another convention). None of those things is deep or particularly interesting...

It's interesting when you understand what causes those vectors. But if you're not interested because you want to cling to mystic conviction that explains nothing and derides explanation as "classical", that's up to you.

 

[Dancing David]

So what studies show a photon generating an electro magnetic field again?

 

[Farsight]

You've never seen an electron "just sitting there in front of you" either.

Do you know anything about physics? Search on trapped electron and see http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/070 for this:

The only significant difference between neutrinos and electrons is their electric charge and the fact that neutrinos have a much smaller mass. That means that at a given energy the neutrino will move faster, and it also makes neutrinos much more difficult to detect, trap, or stop - but that's all the difference there is.

Electron mass doesn't vary. Electrons don't oscillate. And you can't actually trap a neutrino, now can you? But that's OK, you're ignoring that evidence. So it doesn't count.

Of course this whole idea is nonsense from the very beginning, because electrons have charge and photons don't. That's all that needs to be said.

Let's see now, a neutrino doesn't have charge like an electron, and it doesn't have mass like an electron, and it goes like the clappers - you can't hold it motionless like you can an electron. But guess what, a photon doesn't have charge like an electron, and it doesn't have mass like an electron, and it goes like the clappers - you can't hold it motionless like you can an electron. So pray tell me about the only significant difference between a photon and a neutrino.

And no, Farsight, pair creation is not evidence for this. Yes, an electron and a positron can turn into two photons,

Groan. The guy knows nothing. Pair production is where one photon becomes an electron and a positron. Annihilation is where the electron and the positron become two photons. And you can do it for protons and antiprotons and other particles too. Sheesh, the way people find all sorts of slippery ways to cling to ignorance. Those YECs are not alone.

...but an electron alone cannot. Why? Because of conservation of charge (among many other reasons).

Huff, puff, bluster, handwave: "mew mew mew many other reasons". Amazing isn't it, that people are so puffed up with their skepticism that they dismiss the scientific evidence that proves their conviction wrong.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Pair production, annihilation, angular momentum, spin, magnetic dipole moment, the right hand rule, the dualism of the electromagnetic field, curl, etc etc.

But you have no idea about what any of these things actually do. As you admitted, you haven't worked out the mathematics, so you do not understand what happens when these things interact.

And, since you have brought it up so many times in this thread, how does Minkowski support your theory? You claimed Minkowski as part of the scientific evidence. Are we supposed to simply take your word that Minkowski supports your theory or are we allowed to see the evidence?

 

[Farsight]

A W- decays into an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. In the rest frame of the electron the neutrino moves while the electron is stationary. In the rest frame of the electron anti-neutrino (assuming it has one, ie assuming it has a mass) the anti-neutrino is stationary while the electron moves. In the rest frame of the W- neither are stationary. In fact, it'd be difficult for someone in the W-'s rest frame to measure the difference, since they'd both be moving ultra-relativistically. Please explain how this is consistent with your electrons don't move while neutrinos do nonsense?

Simple. I can show you an electron, sitting there in front of you. You can't do the same for a photon, and nor can you do the same for a neutrino. And by the way, the W- has a mean lifetime of 3×10⁻²⁵ s. And that means you can't show me one of them, either.

That's pretty much exactly what the standard model says it is.

The standard model doesn't cover neutrino oscillation, so you know that it isn't saying enough.

What are you talking about? We don't see neutrinos much at all.

And you can't stop one either. See that symmetry between momentum and inertia. If the particle is moving, it's got momentum. If it's you moving it's got inertia.

Neutrons bounce around all over the place. What do they have to do with anything?

Neutrons? That must have been a typo. I was talking about neutrinos.

 

[Farsight]

This is the case for photons at the Schwarzschild radius, in Schwarzschild coordinates, when we model a non-rotating black hole. But you may be interested to hear that circular photon orbits are possible at 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius - although they are unstable. I suspect this is what Reality Check is referring to, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

Thank you ct. Perhaps we'll move on to black holes at some point.

 

[Farsight]

Lots of people work at CERN. Most of them don't think electrons and positrons are made of light. What is your point?

That "made of light" isn't my theory, and that the people who conceived it are not crackpots.

And by the way, where's that evidence you were going to put up? You deny the evidence I put up, and can't put up any yourself.

Evidence in physics is quantitative. You have provided nothing quantitative. You have failed.

No, evidence is evidence, it's physical, not quantitative. You're dismissing it, and offering no evidence in return. For the last twenty years string theory has failed for the same reason.

Stop ranting about pair production. You have ably demonstrated for all to see that you don't understand it. You don't even understand when it is and isn't relevant.

I understand it, it's relevant, it's evidence, and you dismiss it, just like YECs dismiss strata and fossils. LOL, and you swan around thinking you're a skeptic!

 

[Kwalish Kid]

No, evidence is evidence, it's physical, not quantitative. You're dismissing it, and offering no evidence in return. For the last twenty years string theory has failed for the same reason.

String theory hasn't failed, but it hasn't succeeded either, and that is because it cannot produce quantitative evidence. String theory does the same thing that you try to do: provide a plausible explanation of why the forces act as they do. The main difference is that they actually work through the calculations and thus they have an actual explanation. The problem with string theory is that some tests have wiped out some versions of string theory and the remaining versions haven't been tested yet.

You seem to be the only one dismissing evidence here, because you are the one dismissing all quantitative evidence.

But I would love to see your evidence as to why dismissing your theory is dismissing Minkowski.

 

[Farsight]

So the photon distorts the space which makes the closed path possible?

Yes and no. The photon is a distortion of space.

The spacetime curvature caused by a photon of energy E will be negligible for distances much greater than 2GE/c⁴. Since the photon has energy m_ec² by hypothesis, the distance in question is 2Gm_e/c².
This is about 10^-57m, whereas, for comparison, the Compton wavelength for the electron is roughly 10^-12m - this being approximate radius desired for the photon's path.

Spacetime curvature isn't the same as curved space. It's associated with a gradient in g_μv that results in curvilinear motion, the latter being labelled as curved spacetime. Did you read my cubic-lattice description of a photon? Think of the g_μv gradient as a pressure-gradient surrounding a small lemon-shaped region where space has been extended by 3.86 x 10 ^-13 m. This region is marked out by curved lattice lines: space is curved.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Spacetime curvature isn't the same as curved space. It's associated with a gradient in g_μv that results in curvilinear motion, the latter being labelled as curved spacetime. Did you read my cubic-lattice description of a photon? Think of the g_μv gradient as a pressure-gradient surrounding a small lemon-shaped region where space has been extended by 3.86 x 10 ^-13 m. This region is marked out by curved lattice lines: space is curved.

Since you have this exact figure, can you show us the calculation?

 

[Farsight]

Thank your for the citation. Unfortunately that PDF does not load for me (or other copies that I can find). I have no idea why you mentioned that they are ex-CERN or where they are working.

That'll be an embedded font problem. Try upgrading your Adobe Acrobat reader. I gave the background to demonstrate that "made of light" is serious physics. It goes back to Newton, who said "Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another?" That's in Opticks, see query 30.