Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[ctamblyn]

That it would be a bit of a damp squib. There haven't been any spectacular discoveries. What it has done though is knocked a whole lot of woo on the head. That's good.

In your book, you were much more emphatic. You said "...I take the view that we'll obtain unspectacular information. It'll be nothing to write home about. It'll be a damp squib. It'll be CERN's nightmare scenario, ten billion dollars to prove nothing worthwhile..." (p. 157).

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm the one rooting for relativity and giving the Einstein quotes.

You're the one rooting for what you claim is relativity. Just because you can quote Einstein doesn't mean you're getting it right. I could quote Darwin, doesn't make me an expert in evolutionary biology.

It's wrong to say a photon has mass and therefore travels at less than c.

It is wrong, but only because a photon doesn't have mass.

What's correct is to say if a photon travels at less than c it has mass whilst it's doing so.

You have a strange definition of "correct".

It's the same for a neutrino. And if it's facts you're looking for, neutrinos travel at a speed that is indistinguishable from the speed of photons, and we have never ever observed a neutrino at rest, just as we've never observed a photon at rest.

The fact that it is difficult to measure the speed difference between photons and neutrinos does not mean there isn't one. Conversely, the fact that neutrinos oscillate requires that (at least two of the three flavours of) neutrinos have mass.

I'm not confused about SR. You're confused about mass.

You seem to be very very very confused about the difference between what is easily measurable and what is reality. And you seem completely unable to comprehend that we can establish that neutrinos have mass independently of measuring their speed.

 

[Tubbythin]

In your book, you were much more emphatic. You said "...I take the view that we'll obtain unspectacular information. It'll be nothing to write home about. It'll be a damp squib. It'll be CERN's nightmare scenario, ten billion dollars to prove nothing worthwhile..." (p. 157).

The ridiculous thing about this quote is that the ONLY way the LHC could prove nothing worthwhile is if it hadn't got up and running. The non-discovery of the Higgs, for example, would be every bit as important to physics as its discovery.

 

[ctamblyn]

The ridiculous thing about this quote is that the ONLY way the LHC could prove nothing worthwhile is if it hadn't got up and running. The non-discovery of the Higgs, for example, would be every bit as important to physics as its discovery.

Exactly.

Concerning the search for the Higgs in particular, even Farsight's alternative view of reality has something to say about it (namely, that the Higgs won't be found). So even he must concede that the result, whatever it may turn out to be, will be something to get excited about.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Exactly.

Concerning the search for the Higgs in particular, even Farsight's alternative view of reality has something to say about it (namely, that the Higgs won't be found). So even he must concede that the result, whatever it may turn out to be, will be something to get excited about.

(bold added)

There's a key assumption here; namely that Farsight's worldview is logically consistent.

There's ample evidence to show that that's not the case.

Ergo, there's no reason to think - or expect - him to concede anything.

 

[ctamblyn]

(bold added)

There's a key assumption here; namely that Farsight's worldview is logically consistent.

There's ample evidence to show that that's not the case.

Ergo, there's no reason to think - or expect - him to concede anything.

Good point. Claim withdrawn

 

[Farsight]

Photons do not interact directly with other photons. They can only do so through their coupling to charged fields. That's why photon-photon scattering amplitudes are so amazingly tiny that you can shine one high-power laser through another without observing a single scattering event. Only charged particles interact directly with photons.

It simply isn't true. Go search google on photon-photon pair production SLAC.

Massive neutrinos have rest mass, Farsight, even when not travelling through matter.

You're just not getting it, ct. Rest mass is "rest energy", it's "how much energy-momentum is there in front of you not travelling with respect to you". It's doing this in the case of the photon-in-the-box and the electron because whilst it's still moving at c, it's in a closed path. When the energy-momentum takes the form of a neutrino it isn't in a closed path any more. The path can change like a slinky spring changes when you stretch it, but it's never closed. If you do close it, the damn thing isn't a neutrino any more. Just as a photon isn't a photon any more after pair production.

Irrelevant. No-one's saying that, because photons are massless. At least two flavours of neutrino, however, are not massless - they have rest mass, just like electrons. And therefore they always travel at less than c, just like electrons, as a consequence of SR.

No, as a consequence of SR if they're travelling at less than c they have effective mass. And if they travel at zero that effective mass is rest mass.

No, a photon interacting with an e/m field producing an electron/position pair is an observable fact.

Yes, it's called pair production.

A single photon by itself can never do that.

Of course it doesn't. I never said that.

Besides, this is irrelevant - electrons (and neutrinos) participate in weak interactions, have rest mass, have spin-1/2 and obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. Electrons are also charged. Photons, whether they're trapped in a box or not, are neutral, massless, do not participate in weak interactions, have spin-1 and obey Bose-Einstein statistics.

And all you do to convert a photon into an electron is chop it in half over a proton whereupon each half rolls up on two planes and traps itself in a closed path. Job done. The wave nature of matter isn't there for nothing. You can diffract electrons for a reason. And you can reverse the process easily because the electron and the positron have the opposite chirality, and those chiralites cancel. It's done every day, in a hospital near you. In a PET scanner. It isn't rocket science.

We're talking about particles in vacuo. You can't travel alongside a photon in vacuo, but you can do so with a massive neutrino.

It makes no odds. The principle is exactly the same. If it slows down it gains effective mass.

Nothing on that page supports your position that massive neutrinos cannot be at rest, in the obvious sense that we can find an inertial frame in which the total momentum has all its spatial components equal to zero.

As above. You can do this flying alongside a photon in a fibre-optic cable.

Your misleading portrayal of pair production in the other thread. We can come back to that later if you like, after we've finished clearing up your misunderstanding of SR.

It wasn't misleading. Are you referring to the picture of annihilation? That was a simplification, not misleading. In low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation the strong force is gone, the quarks have gone, the gluons have gone, and in less than a nanosecond all the pions have gone too, and the energy-momentum has departed at the speed of light. Or so close to the speed of light that we cannot measure the difference. That's what happens.

 

[Farsight]

No, don't try to pretend we were talking about the Higgs all along. If you want to talk about the Higgs we can come to that later...

You resurrected this thread with post #712, and the Higgs is what you referred to in your point 1. Of late we've had a great deal of publicity concerning this, and none of that publicity mentions the fact that the Higgs mechanism is "ad hoc" and responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter.

...once you grasp the following two points:

1. A photon trapped in a box does not look like an electron. Photons are neutral, spin-1, obey Bose-Einstein statistics and do not feel the weak interactions. They cannot behave like electrons, which are charged, spin-1/2, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and participate in weak interactions. Furthermore there is no mechanism known to physics by which a photon could self-trap itself.
2. A massive neutrino always travels slower than c (even in vacuo), and can therefore be at rest with respect to certain observers.

I grasp this, you don't. How do you convert a one-wavelength electromagnetic wave into an electron and a positron? Chop it in half!

 

[The Man]

This.

Nobody cares about any new theory unless it predicts something new. True, sometimes a new theory allows for predictions to be calculated easier, or to higher accuracy.

So, predictions and/or calculations: what'll it be?

Both would be best.

About two years now since that recommendation, kalen, and the lack of activity on this thread since then (until recently) seems to have been, during that time, mirrored by a lack of activity by Farsight towards that recommendation.

 

[The Man]

How about if you could explain why a region of space that we call a gravitational field was the result of a gradient in the relative strength of the strong force and electromagnetic force? You could test this by measuring the fine-structure constant near the surface of the sun. Of course this isn't some precise unique prediction, but it does "score points", and with a few more like it the tally starts to look interesting.

Uhm and what exactly would you predict such a measurement “near the surface of the sun” regarding the fine structure constant would show? Particularly considering it can be physically interpreted as (among other things)….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant#Physical_interpretations

• Given two hypothetical point particles each of Planck mass and elementary charge, separated by any length, α is the ratio of their electrostatic repulsive force to their gravitational attractive force.

a ratio of electrostatic force to gravitational force?

To put it in terms of the Electron mass, the fine structure constant equals the electron charge squared times the gravitational coupling constant over 4 times Pi times the permittivity of free space times the electron mass squared times the gravitational constant.

Q_e²α_g4^-1π^-1ε₀^-1M_e^-2G^-1

 

[Tubbythin]

You're just not getting it, ct.

Nope. It is you that is not getting it.

Rest mass is "rest energy", it's "how much energy-momentum is there in front of you not travelling with respect to you".

That sentence makes so little sense it is impossible to even say it is wrong.

It's doing this in the case of the photon-in-the-box and the electron because whilst it's still moving at c, it's in a closed path. When the energy-momentum takes the form of a neutrino it isn't in a closed path any more. The path can change like a slinky spring changes when you stretch it, but it's never closed. If you do close it, the damn thing isn't a neutrino any more. Just as a photon isn't a photon any more after pair production.

Nope. More gibberish.

 

[Farsight]

That sentence makes so little sense it is impossible to even say it is wrong.

You need to learn some very basic physics Tubby, then it will make perfect sense. Here, see mass in special relativity on wiki. Pay attention to this bit:

"If a stationary box contains many particles, it weighs more in its rest frame, the faster the particles are moving. Any energy in the box (including the kinetic energy of the particles) adds to the mass..."

The same applies if you trap a massless photon in a mirrored box. Now have a read of what's known as Einstein's E=mc² paper. He used L for energy, and said "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²". When you open the box your massless photon escapes, taking energy-momentum away, and the mass of the system is reduced. No kidding! It's all really simple once the penny drops. Here's an easy way to remember it: inertia is the flip side of momentum. Once you've got that, have a read of this. If you struggle to understand any of it, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

 

[Tubbythin]

You need to learn some very basic physics Tubby, then it will make perfect sense.

I'm already fairly well educated in physics thanks.

Here, see mass in special relativity on wiki. Pay attention to this bit:

"If a stationary box contains many particles, it weighs more in its rest frame, the faster the particles are moving. Any energy in the box (including the kinetic energy of the particles) adds to the mass..."

And...?

The same applies if you trap a massless photon in a mirrored box. Now have a read of what's known as Einstein's E=mc² paper. He used L for energy, and said "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²". When you open the box your massless photon escapes, taking energy-momentum away, and the mass of the system is reduced. No kidding! It's all really simple once the penny drops. Here's an easy way to remember it: inertia is the flip side of momentum. Once you've got that, have a read of this. If you struggle to understand any of it, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

Nope. The sentence "Rest mass is "rest energy", it's "how much energy-momentum is there in front of you not travelling with respect to you". " is stiil utter gibberish.

 

[Farsight]

Uhm and what exactly would you predict such a measurement “near the surface of the sun” regarding the fine structure constant would show?

That it reduces with gravitational potential.

Particularly considering it can be physically interpreted as (among other things)…. a ratio of electrostatic force to gravitational force?

Not directly. What you quoted says "Given two hypothetical point particles each of Planck mass and elementary charge, separated by any length, α is the ratio of their electrostatic repulsive force to their gravitational attractive force". But Planck mass is 2.389 x 10²² times the electron mass, and you've got two of them. The fine structure constant is usually described as being 1/137, but it's a running constant, see NIST. It isn't constant.

To put it in terms of the Electron mass, the fine structure constant equals the electron charge squared times the gravitational coupling constant over 4 times Pi times the permittivity of free space times the electron mass squared times the gravitational constant.

Q_e²α_g4^-1π^-1ε₀^-1M_e^-2G^-1

Let's write that as α = e²α_g/4πε₀m²G and compare it with α = e²/4πε₀ħc. The e is said to be "effective charge", but the electron unit charge doesn't actually vary, only the effect of it when it's in a different environment. Since the 4π doesn't vary, what's actually varying is ε₀ and/or ħ and/or c. Since permittivity is intimately related to permeability, and since c = √(1/ε₀μ₀) let's say that ε₀ and c are both varying. This is borne out by the way the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame - optical clocks run slower at lower gravitational potential. I'll leave Planck's constant alone for now, but note that nothing in sacrosanct. Anyway, your expression employs α_g and m² and G instead of ħ and c. I prefer to work with the latter myself, but nevermind. If c is varying one at least one of your terms is varying too. The m is varying for sure. If you lift a brick you do work on it, and you give it gravitational potential energy. This is real energy, and it's now in the in brick. So the mass of the brick has increased. The energy isn't in the gravitational field, because if you lift the brick so much that it escapes the earth's gravitational field, the energy you supplied has gone. And if m varies with gravitational potential, the gravitational coupling constant is looking a bit shaky. Sorry, the wife is calling me, I have to go, but note that constants aren't always constant, and see mass in general relativity.

 

[ctamblyn]

It simply isn't true. Go search google on photon-photon pair production SLAC.

Nothing contradicts what I said - photons do not interact directly with other photons.

You're just not getting it, ct.
(...snip...)

No. And before we continue any further on issues such as the internal structure of electrons and pair production, let's come to an agreement on these SR/neutrino issues. I need to understand exactly what your position is, so if you don't mind could you indicate whether you agree with each of the following points? A simple yes or no for each is required.

1. In SR, given any particle with non-zero rest mass, travelling in a vacuum, all inertial observers will agree that the particle travels slower than c = 299792458 m/s.
2. In SR, given any particle travelling slower than c, there exist inertial reference frames in which that particle is at rest.
3. In SR, given any particle with zero rest mass, travelling in a vacuum, all inertial observers will agree that the particle travels at exactly c.
4. In SR, given any particle travelling at exactly c, there does not exist any intertial frame in which that particle is at rest.
5. Based on currently available data, it is more reasonable to believe that at least two of the three known flavours of neutrino have non-zero rest mass than to believe otherwise.

 

[ctamblyn]

You resurrected this thread with post #712, and the Higgs is what you referred to in your point 1.

The posts you responded to did not have anything to do with the Higgs at all.

...once you grasp the following two points:

1. A photon trapped in a box does not look like an electron. Photons are neutral, spin-1, obey Bose-Einstein statistics and do not feel the weak interactions. They cannot behave like electrons, which are charged, spin-1/2, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and participate in weak interactions. Furthermore there is no mechanism known to physics by which a photon could self-trap itself.
2. A massive neutrino always travels slower than c (even in vacuo), and can therefore be at rest with respect to certain observers.

I grasp this, you don't.

Is that a slip? Would you like to have another go? Because you seem to be admitting, at last, that you were wrong to suggest that an electron trapped in a box looks like a photon, and that you were also wrong to suggest that a neutrino can never be at rest.

How do you convert a one-wavelength electromagnetic wave into an electron and a positron? Chop it in half!

A single photon all by itself cannot become an electron/positron pair.

 

[The Man]

That it reduces with gravitational potential.

What exactly do you mean “reduces with gravitational potential”? How exactly would such a reduction be a “test” of if “a gravitational field was the result of a gradient in the relative strength of the strong force and electromagnetic force” as you asserted?

Not directly. What you quoted says "Given two hypothetical point particles each of Planck mass and elementary charge, separated by any length, α is the ratio of their electrostatic repulsive force to their gravitational attractive force".

You’ll note the part where it directly says “α is the ratio of their electrostatic repulsive force to their gravitational attractive force.” So yes directly.

But Planck mass is 2.389 x 10²² times the electron mass, and you've got two of them.

How observant of you to note that the plank mass is larger than the mass of an electron and similarly very observant of you to note that there are two charged masses in this consideration. Any other obvious observations you’d care to, well, observer.
I’ll note that you didn’t make note of the fact the mass of the sun is 1.99 x 10³⁸ times the planks mass and you’ve only got one of them in your “test”.

The fine structure constant is usually described as being 1/137, but it's a running constant, see NIST. It isn't constant.

An aspect one could observe as being noted on page one of this thread, as well as your claim that…

...I can tell you why the fine structure constant takes the value it does, and why it's a running constant.

A demonstration that has yet to be observed. Two years have past now, are you any closer to actually fulfilling that claim?

Let's write that as α = e²α_g/4πε₀m²G and compare it with α = e²/4πε₀ħc. The e is said to be "effective charge", but the electron unit charge doesn't actually vary, only the effect of it when it's in a different environment.

“different environment”? What’s different about the “environment”?

Oh and if you compare “α = e²α_g/4πε₀m²G” with “α = e²/4πε₀ħc” as you assert to do then you will find α_g/ m²G = 1/ħc

Since the 4π doesn't vary, what's actually varying is ε₀ and/or ħ and/or c. Since permittivity is intimately related to permeability, and since c = √(1/ε₀μ₀) let's say that ε₀ and c are both varying.

Why? As “e is said to be "effective charge", and "effective charge" can vary (see your own citation NIST)? Just to give you a hint that’s why it’s called the “effective charge". Also “Since permittivity is intimately related to permeability” that means μ₀must remain constant or change in such a way that c does not remain constant. Oh I know why, because all you want to actually say is just that c is varying.

This is borne out by the way the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame - optical clocks run slower at lower gravitational potential. I'll leave Planck's constant alone for now, but note that nothing in sacrosanct.

“nothing in sacrosanct”? You mean except for your desire to have c vary as opposed to just the "effective charge" varying (as your own citation claims) or even both ε₀ and μ₀. Heck you could have even went for ħ but choose to leave it alone for now to preserve the sanctity of your varying c.

Anyway, your expression employs α_g and m² and G instead of ħ and c. I prefer to work with the latter myself, but nevermind. If c is varying one at least one of your terms is varying too. The m is varying for sure. If you lift a brick you do work on it, and you give it gravitational potential energy. This is real energy, and it's now in the in brick. So the mass of the brick has increased. The energy isn't in the gravitational field, because if you lift the brick so much that it escapes the earth's gravitational field, the energy you supplied has gone.

Wait, what? “the energy you supplied has gone”? Has gone where in you notion exactly? Under the consideration of binding energy and bound states “the energy you supplied has gone” into increasing the gravitational potential energy of the brick in relation to the Earth. Unless of course your claim is that as the brick get higher its gravitational potential energy increases and then suddenly at some mysterious point “it escapes the earth's gravitational field” and no longer has any gravitational potential energy in relation to the earth.

And if m varies with gravitational potential, the gravitational coupling constant is looking a bit shaky. Sorry, the wife is calling me, I have to go, but note that constants aren't always constant, and see mass in general relativity.

You mean “constants aren't always constant” unless you just want them to be, so the constant c will vary. If the "effective charge" varies then so does the fine structure constant without any change in the other, well, constants.

 

[Farsight]

I'm already fairly well educated in physics thanks.

No you're not. Anybody fairly well educated in physics would have read and understood Einstein's E=mc² paper, and you obviously haven't. A radiating body loses mass. Even though it emits a massless photon. Which has kinetic energy? Duh?

If a stationary box contains many particles, it weighs more in its rest frame, the faster the particles are moving. Any energy in the box (including the kinetic energy of the particles) adds to the mass..."

And...?

And when some of the kinetic energy gets out of the box, the mass of the box is reduced. Come on Tubby, think for yourself instead of being a groupie. Work it out. When energy-momentum gets out of the box, the box loses inertia. Symmetry? Ever heard of that? Between momentum and inertia?

...utter gibberish...

Sorry Tubby, but we're talking about Einstein's E=mc² here. Mass is a measure of a system's energy content. And that system loses mass when kinetic energy is removed from that system. What I said isn't utter gibberish. Not a bit.

 

[sol invictus]

What I said isn't utter gibberish. Not a bit.

That's what guys talking to themselves on street corners would say, Farsight. It all makes perfect sense to them. Not a bit of gibberish there, no sir.

 

[ctamblyn]

Farsight, if your contention is that what we call "rest mass" of an electron or neutrino is really due to the kinetic energy of some internal moving parts, you will run into exactly the same two problems you did in the black holes thread.

A little background first (someone knowledgable please correct me if I get any of this wrong). In the Standard Model, leptons, quarks, gluons, the photon, W^±, and Z⁰ have no internal structure (they are not modelled as self-trapped photons, for example, or bound states of "more fundamental" particles). The SM makes quantitative and qualitative predictions about the outcomes of experiments. When those experiments are performed, the results agree very well with the theory. Not perfect, AFAIAA - there is evidence for physics beyond the SM, neutrino masses for example - but very good nonetheless.

That understood, here's your first problem: It is not enough to simply claim (no matter how many times) that electrons are "photons trapped in a box". You must show how your model either leads to more accurate predictions than the SM, or matches the predictive power of the SM while having a simpler structure. However, you haven't developed your vague framework of ideas into a proper mathematical model, so there is no way to extract such predictions from it.

Your second problem is that some of the claims you are making contradict what we already know. For example, photons are bosons and so do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle (if this were not true, lasers wouldn't work). Electrons, on the other hand, are fermions and do obey the exclusion principle (if this were not true, chemistry would be radically different). If electrons really were photons whizzing around in little loops, the exclusion principle would not apply and none of us would be here.