Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[RussDill]

Your level of ignorance as to what makes a theory still astounds me. I suppose it has been going on for several years and is unlikely to change. The fact that you lambast string theory so strongly, without even attempting to understand what makes it a theory, the math behind it, etc, along with your straw man of people "believing in string theory" when it is not yet an accepting theory totally confuses me. How can you completely miss the very first statement in just about every overview of string theory:

String theory is a [bdeveloping branch[/b] of quantum mechanics and general relativity with the aim of merging and reconciling the two areas of physics into a quantum theory of gravity. The strings of string theory are one-dimensional oscillating lines, but they are no longer considered fundamental to the theory, which can be formulated in terms of points or surfaces too.

String theory has trouble producing predictions not because it is "pseudoscience", but because the mathematics behind it are insanely difficult and haven't yet been fully developed. It is by no accident that the exploration of string theory has made quite a few contributions to mathematics.

But string theory is in no way special or unique, there are a large number of theories (quantum loop theory, etc) that attempt to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity to develop a quantum theory of gravity.

Again, the fact that you think that what you are putting forth somehow compares to any of these theories shows me that you a) have made no attempt to understand any of them at the mathematical level, and worse b) have made no attempt to understand any physical theories at the mathematical level.

You've said time and time again that you cannot provide the math, to anyone who has studied physics, you are saying "I don't have a theory, not even a partial one". Anyone can make vague statements, hand gestures, make lay interpretations, show diagrams, read, but not understand various papers, etc. That is all you are doing, something a child could do.

I really wish there was a way to give you the gift of introspection, so that you could look at yourself from the point of view of others. Allow you to judge your ideas from an impartial view point. You keep posting papers and quotes from people whom you believe to be authorities, but that the whole of the physics community has dismissed long ago. Their papers and ideas have zero credibility. Then, you completely dismiss the papers and works of others that do have credibility, that have been vetted by peer review and experiment.

You cannot even understand, much less formulate, the mathematics behind physical theories, yet you are attacking those who have spent their lifetime in the field. Please, do what countless others who cycle through the various forums across the internet, peddling their useless, unfounded, easily falsifiable theories for YEARS could not do. Open your mind, take a look at the world around you. Seriously review and attempt to understand the work of those that have come before you. The world of science is an amazing and exciting place.

 

[ben m]

No. It doesn't point in some given direction at all. Imagine a rigid cubic lattice, now stick your hand in and twist. Now go round 90 degrees and stick your other hand in, and twist again. The twisted lattice is the electrostatic field that separates two co-turning rotors. Move through it and there's a turning action that makes a rotor circle. That's the magnetic field. The rotors are essentially electrons that impart the twist via frame-dragging. Hence gravitomagnetism is effectively a CMP emulation of electromagnetism.

Gibberish. Listen, Farsight, you keep claiming that this is "normal" electromagnetism. Why are you unable to state it in the language of normal electromagnetism? We have an electromagnetic field tensor which obeys Maxwell's equations. There's an electromagnetic 4-potential (the field tensor is its derivative) and there's nothing spirally about it. There's a magnetic field and an electric field, which (despite being not Lorentz invariant) are perfectly well-defined.

You will find nothing spirally in any of this actual electromagnetic behavior of the electron. Your descriptions of spirally things are all descriptions of something other than electromagnetism. (And let me add: before Farsight chimes in with "thats because you haven't taken the mobius geometry of the electron into account yet" nothing whatsoever about this is specific to the electron. The fields around a muon, proton, pion, kaon, charged-pith-ball, Reiner-Norstrom black hole, etc., at the relevant distances have exactly the same form. The EM behavior of the first five of those are experimentally extremely well known.)

 

[RussDill]

You will find nothing spirally in any of this actual electromagnetic behavior of the electron. Your descriptions of spirally things are all descriptions of something other than electromagnetism.

True, something I missed in the post above that has completely flown over his head for who knows how long. He thinks that he correctly understands current theory. I don't think any number of people with any amount of credentials would be able to convince him differently. You'd think that if everywhere you went, people told you that you are misunderstanding the basic principles of electromagnetism, you'd take a few steps back and look at it a little more closely instead of lashing out in anger with statements like "Jesus H Christ, where do they get these people?"

 

[Hellbound]

String theory is pseudoscience. That gravity prediction is a fig leaf that hasn't stood up.

Um, how can it not have stood up when we've never been able to test it until now?

Producing black holes holes is sensationalist garbage.

No, it's actually based on the science. It's unlikely, yes, but possible. Nice that you can declare the truth before experiments are done. That must come in handy.

And LOL! A large part of research into string theory currently is trying to find low-energy tests of said theories cuts no ice after 40 fracking years!

Thank you for confirming your ignorance.

You obviously do not know that current string theories are actually more appropriately known as superstring theories (as they incorporate super symmetry), while the string theories of 40 years ago are completely different (and trivially disproven)? Current superstring theories haven't been around that long, and if you actually knew what the theories were (or the incredible complexity of the calculations involved), you'd knowhow ridiculous your accusations are.

Jesus H Christ, where do they get these people?

From the ranks of the scientifically literate.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

True, something I missed in the post above that has completely flown over his head for who knows how long. He thinks that he correctly understands current theory. I don't think any number of people with any amount of credentials would be able to convince him differently.

The reason he can not possibly change his opinion is that he is really doing some sort of comparative literature-type analysis of the non-mathematical parts of physics papers. He clearly cannot actually do any physics, so no amount of argument based in actual physics will do anything for his understanding.

Take this thread, for example: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=555857

Here it appears, at best, that Farsight is trying to actually learn something about GR. But even here he cannot go very long without trying to undermine the actual mathematical explanation that is demanded of his questions. He is back to questioning the answers, themselves based on Einstein's work, on the basis of the comparative literature analysis he has done previously.

 

[The Man]

Wish it were true, but sadly it isn't. String theory is "an actual theory", replete with mathematics, but it predicts nothing, and even after forty years has no experimental support whatsoever. It's entirely speculation, there's no evidence for any of it. And do note that my descriptions are chock full of supporting evidence.

What, so the math isn’t the hard part anymore? As you claimed it was too hard for you to apply so mathematical formulization to your ‘self bound photon state of an electron’? Again you don’t have “supporting evidence”, the current evidence directly contradicts your “descriptions” that are “chock full of” just speculation. Are you actual positing your ignorance of String theory (and theories in general) as an excuse not to actually do any work in making some quantitative prediction from your “chock full of” [self censored] “descriptions”? You’ve done the easy part Farsight, (well actually I think others have and you have just latched on to it) it’s time to get down to work and do that hard part.

I am not alone, and this hypothesis is not some idle speculation like "the world is made of tiny dancing strings". This is the standard model, but where the wave function is the particle, and it has a topology.

String theory is not, as well as your speculations are not, “the standard model”. Although some forms of string theory are consistent with the standard model and current evidence. It is the evidence we don’t have yet as well as the quantitative predictions of those theories that will test those theories. You are lacking in both of those fronts in your “descriptions”. You have no quantitative prediction thus no theory and what “descriptions” you do assert are simply inconsistent with the standard model and the current evidence. How does a wave (particularly one in at least 3+1 dimensions), even a wave function, not have a topology? I surmise you are just talking about Membrane, M-Theory or just ‘brane’ theories in general (and I do mean quite literally, just talking).

 

[sol invictus]

The reason he can not possibly change his opinion is that he is really doing some sort of comparative literature-type analysis of the non-mathematical parts of physics papers. He clearly cannot actually do any physics, so no amount of argument based in actual physics will do anything for his understanding.

Take this thread, for example: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=555857

Here it appears, at best, that Farsight is trying to actually learn something about GR. But even here he cannot go very long without trying to undermine the actual mathematical explanation that is demanded of his questions. He is back to questioning the answers, themselves based on Einstein's work, on the basis of the comparative literature analysis he has done previously.

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.

 

[Dancing David]

I am not alone, and this hypothesis is not some idle speculation like "the world is made of tiny dancing strings". This is the standard model, but where the wave function is the particle, and it has a topology.

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

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

 

[Farsight]

So there is not a rabbit in the hat? That is too bad, this is now philosophy and the 'you can't explain thoughts with thoughts', perhaps the weakest science argument. You could and can get away with this over in the R&P forum, however, in the forum, the SMT forum, you have to show yor work.

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

Here is the deal, you show how a photon gets the exact mass of an electron and how it gets a charge? Otherwise all you have is "Here is a picture that looks like a rabbit. here is a picture that looks like a hat. Therefore there is a rabbit in the hat?"

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.

Show how your alleged theory produces a value for the mass of the electron and the charge of the electron. You do that and you will get a big prize. And probably a university and a couple of research centers named after you.

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.

(See I have a number of models in my head as well, like "Gravity is like waves crashing on the shore." And other great ideas that have personal meaning to me. But if I can't get them to make the values, then it doesn't matter).

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.

Science is not about great ideas, it is about great ideas that have the ability to model the behavior of reality. You have a great idea...

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

..now show that it is an approximate model, how does the photon get the mass of an electron?

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

How does it express a charge?

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

 

[Farsight]

No. This thread is about your claims, bizarre claims that you have yet to provide evidence for...

They aren't bizarre, I've given ample scientific evidence, and you're boring everybody to death.

Now come on, what was your PhD thesis?

 

[Farsight]

No you’ve described how you would like to think “the photon becomes an electron and a positron”, but you certainly have not described how a bound photon (apparently just bound to itself) results in the charge of an electron or positron.

But I have shown that it does.

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.

Then you simply have not shown “how” those values result from the configuration you imagine.

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.

You certainly have described you speculations, but that is the easy part. The hard part is putting some math, actual values and predictions to those mere speculations “because it really isn't easy”, but that is what separates actual theories from mere speculations.

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

 

[Farsight]

Nope, that shows you don't understand the string theory either. Which of the shapes out of millions is a huge computational problem. It is based upon the maths, unlike your speculative hypothesis. Ground yours in math.

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.

 

[Farsight]

Read what you just quoted. It is a comparative measure of strength of the interaction of one electromagnetic field with another electromagnetic field. There is no other kind of force or field involved.

Let's read it again shall we?

The fine structure constant α has several physical interpretations...

The ratio of two energies: (i) the energy needed to overcome the electrostatic repulsion between two electrons when the distance between them is reduced from infinity to some finite d, and (ii) the energy of a single photon of wavelength λ = 2πd

Now, why is it that this ratio is the same ratio as the relative strength of the electromagnetic force and the strong force? Mere happy coincidence? And where does the "fundamental" strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation where the end product is two gamma photons? Sheesh, this is like trying to teach a kid to read.

 

[Farsight]

Ben_m is right. The EM field is not an E field and B field added together.

Agreed.

One good way to know if two quantities can possibly add together in a meaningful way is if they have the same units. Since E and B have different units, you already know you can't add them together.

Agreed. It was ben_m who suggested I was adding them together. I've reiterated that it's one field, and two ways of experiencing the resulting force. There is no separate electric field and magnetic field to be added together. All that's there is an electromagnetic field. The spiral gives you a depiction of this single field that's in line with Minkowski and Maxwell and the right-hand rule. See the OP.

 

[Farsight]

A) No, it's not "1". It's in the ballpark of 1 when viewed with probes in a certain energy range (the 10-100 MeV scales relevant to mesons). It's much greater than 1 at lower energies (in nuclei). It's much less than 1 at higher energies (at the LHC).

They're all running constants. Even alpha isn't always 1/137, so you're adding nothing of value.

B) Just like "alpha_em = 1/137", the strong coupling constant tells you the (roughly) the probability that a gluon and a quark will interact on a single flyby, versus the probability of not interacting. (alpha_s > 1 means that a typical flyby will include multiple interactions.)

But we've never actually seen a quark flying by a gluon, remember?

C) The web page you cite is simply wrong. Go read a textbook.

Go think for yourself.

 

[Farsight]

Your level of ignorance as to what makes a theory still astounds me. I suppose it has been going on for several years and is unlikely to change.

It's an outline model based on observable scientific evidence along with overlooked papers. It's all these other guys calling it "my theory".

The fact that you lambast string theory so strongly, without even attempting to understand what makes it a theory, the math behind it, etc, along with your straw man of people "believing in string theory" when it is not yet an accepting theory totally confuses me. How can you completely miss the very first statement in just about every overview of string theory:

String theory is a [bdeveloping branch[/b] of quantum mechanics and general relativity with the aim of merging and reconciling the two areas of physics into a quantum theory of gravity. The strings of string theory are one-dimensional oscillating lines, but they are no longer considered fundamental to the theory, which can be formulated in terms of points or surfaces too.

Oh pull the other one. String theory has been going for forty years and get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Problems_and_controversy

"For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing."

String theory isn't theory. It isn't physics. It's pseudoscience.

String theory has trouble producing predictions not because it is "pseudoscience", but because the mathematics behind it are insanely difficult and haven't yet been fully developed. It is by no accident that the exploration of string theory has made quite a few contributions to mathematics.

Funny, you guys dismiss scientific evidence because I can't give you some mathematical, and you snort derision when I say it's difficult. But oddly enough, that doesn't appear to be a problem for string theory.

But string theory is in no way special or unique, there are a large number of theories (quantum loop theory, etc) that attempt to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity to develop a quantum theory of gravity.

Noted. Sadly you can't quantize gravity.

Again, the fact that you think that what you are putting forth somehow compares to any of these theories shows me that you a) have made no attempt to understand any of them at the mathematical level, and worse b) have made no attempt to understand any physical theories at the mathematical level.

Yes, I have.

You've said time and time again that you cannot provide the math, to anyone who has studied physics, you are saying "I don't have a theory, not even a partial one". Anyone can make vague statements, hand gestures, make lay interpretations, show diagrams, read, but not understand various papers, etc. That is all you are doing, something a child could do.

I'm supplying scientific evidence. You're dismissing it because you don't have the maths. That's the wrong approach.

I really wish there was a way to give you the gift of introspection, so that you could look at yourself from the point of view of others. Allow you to judge your ideas from an impartial view point. You keep posting papers and quotes from people whom you believe to be authorities, but that the whole of the physics community has dismissed long ago.

You mean people like Einstein?

Their papers and ideas have zero credibility. Then, you completely dismiss the papers and works of others that do have credibility, that have been vetted by peer review and experiment.

I don't dismiss papers and work that is supported by experiment.

You cannot even understand, much less formulate, the mathematics behind physical theories, yet you are attacking those who have spent their lifetime in the field.

I reserve the right to be critical of somebody who has spent a lifetime in the field of string theory.

Please, do what countless others who cycle through the various forums across the internet, peddling their useless, unfounded, easily falsifiable theories for YEARS could not do. Open your mind, take a look at the world around you.

That's what I did.

Seriously review and attempt to understand the work of those that have come before you. The world of science is an amazing and exciting place.

I have. It's me talking about Maxwell and Minkowski and Einstein and Feynman and Dirac and many others.

 

[Farsight]

Gibberish. Listen, Farsight, you keep claiming that this is "normal" electromagnetism. Why are you unable to state it in the language of normal electromagnetism?

Because that "normal" language repeatedly refers to an electric field and a magnetic field as two separate fields, when there's only one field there.

We have an electromagnetic field tensor which obeys Maxwell's equations. There's an electromagnetic 4-potential (the field tensor is its derivative) and there's nothing spirally about it.

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

There's a magnetic field and an electric field, which (despite being not Lorentz invariant) are perfectly well-defined.

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".

You will find nothing spirally in any of this actual electromagnetic behavior of the electron. Your descriptions of spirally things are all descriptions of something other than electromagnetism.

I did find it. It's there in the right hand rule. And in Maxwell's original work:

"A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw"

(And let me add: before Farsight chimes in with "thats because you haven't taken the mobius geometry of the electron into account yet" nothing whatsoever about this is specific to the electron. The fields around a muon, proton, pion, kaon, charged-pith-ball, Reiner-Norstrom black hole, etc., at the relevant distances have exactly the same form. The EM behavior of the first five of those are experimentally extremely well known.)

With the exception of the Reissner–Nordström black hole, no problem.

 

[Farsight]

Um, how can it not have stood up when we've never been able to test it until now?

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?

No, it's actually based on the science. It's unlikely, yes, but possible. Nice that you can declare the truth before experiments are done. That must come in handy.

Really, I must reiterate that producing black holes at the LHC is sensationalist garbage. See http://cernsearch.web.cern.ch/cernsearch/Default.aspx?query=black hole and have a sniff around. We had physicists using this to seek publicity for themselves, and it has been damaging to science.

Thank you for confirming your ignorance. You obviously do not know that current string theories are actually more appropriately known as superstring theories (as they incorporate super symmetry), while the string theories of 40 years ago are completely different (and trivially disproven)? Current superstring theories haven't been around that long, and if you actually knew what the theories were (or the incredible complexity of the calculations involved), you'd know how ridiculous your accusations are.

Forty years and no predictions isn't ridiculous. And if you understood the electron, you'd know how ridiculous supersymmetry is.

(re where to they get these people):
From the ranks of the scientifically literate.

Literate? You mean well-read? Like a biblical scholar? Is that why you won't look at the scientific evidence that tells you electron spin is a real rotation? Because it isn't in your text book bible? And that's why you're skeptical?

Listen up Hellbound: the answer to that, is yes.

 

[Farsight]

The reason he can not possibly change his opinion is that he is really doing some sort of comparative literature-type analysis of the non-mathematical parts of physics papers. He clearly cannot actually do any physics, so no amount of argument based in actual physics will do anything for his understanding.

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.

Take this thread, for example: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=555857

Here it appears, at best, that Farsight is trying to actually learn something about GR. But even here he cannot go very long without trying to undermine the actual mathematical explanation that is demanded of his questions. He is back to questioning the answers, themselves based on Einstein's work, on the basis of the comparative literature analysis he has done previously.

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

 

[Farsight]

What, so the math isn’t the hard part anymore? As you claimed it was too hard for you to apply so mathematical formulization to your ‘self bound photon state of an electron’?

Yes, the mathematics of dynamical geometry is difficult.

Again you don’t have “supporting evidence”, the current evidence directly contradicts your “descriptions” that are “chock full of” just speculation.

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.

Are you actual positing your ignorance of String theory (and theories in general) as an excuse not to actually do any work in making some quantitative prediction from your “chock full of” [self censored] “descriptions”?

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

You’ve done the easy part Farsight, (well actually I think others have and you have just latched on to it) it’s time to get down to work and do that hard part.

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.

String theory is not, as well as your speculations are not, “the standard model”.

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

Although some forms of string theory are consistent with the standard model and current evidence. It is the evidence we don’t have yet as well as the quantitative predictions of those theories that will test those theories.

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

You are lacking in both of those fronts in your “descriptions”. You have no quantitative prediction thus no theory

Because they're descriptions, not quantitative predictions.

...and what “descriptions” you do assert are simply inconsistent with the standard model and the current evidence.

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

How does a wave (particularly one in at least 3+1 dimensions), even a wave function, not have a topology? I surmise you are just talking about Membrane, M-Theory or just ‘brane’ theories in general (and I do mean quite literally, just talking).

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