Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Farsight
No it isn't, and I'll use this to illustrate my point. See on wiki where p₀ is given as E/c?

Consider a cannonball in space, moving at 10m/s towards you. What you've been saying about electromagnetism is like saying "a cannonball has momentum and it has kinetic energy, and I can take away the momentum whilst leaving the kinetic energy unchanged". You can't.
...
...

You are so focused on being right that you do not pay attention to what is being said. You have totally missed the point!
You can analyze the energy and do calculations regarding the energy of your cannon ball while disregarding the momentum -- if an analysis of the energy yields useful results in the context under consideration. That does not "take away the momentum." We are merely not looking at he momentum while doing some mathematics regarding the energy.
When using F=qE ( a FIELD equation), we are doing something similar. As long as E and q are stationary that's all we need. Stop quote mining and think, man!

Right, I have to go. Bye for now.

 

[edd]

No it isn't, and I'll use this to illustrate my point. See on wiki where p₀ is given as E/c?

Consider a cannonball in space, moving at 10m/s towards you. What you've been saying about electromagnetism is like saying "a cannonball has momentum and it has kinetic energy, and I can take away the momentum whilst leaving the kinetic energy unchanged".

That's not what I'm saying.

That cannonball's momentum and its kinetic energy are nothing more than two aspects of its energy-momentum. You can't have one without the other, and so it is for the electromagnetic field.

That's closer to what I'm saying. I'm drawing an analogy between the four-momentum (which has the three momentum components plus an energy component) and how it Lorentz-transforms and how the same sort of things applies to electromagnetism, notably in the case of the electromagnetic four-potential (which I assume you're familiar with since it's described on the page you link). The Lorentz transform will convert between energy and momentum when translating between frames, just as it converts between electric and magnetic fields between frames. This doesn't mean it is not useful to talk about energy and momentum separately, or electric and magnetic fields separately, and it certainly doesn't mean they don't exist in a given frame.

Hence no magnetic monopoles.

This does not follow. I'll go back to your post on that in a bit I think.

The rest of your post involves even more non-sequiturs than usual.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

That's closer to what I'm saying. I'm drawing an analogy between the four-momentum (which has the three momentum components plus an energy component) and how it Lorentz-transforms and how the same sort of things applies to electromagnetism, notably in the case of the electromagnetic four-potential (which I assume you're familiar with since it's described on the page you link). The Lorentz transform will convert between energy and momentum when translating between frames, just as it converts between electric and magnetic fields between frames. This doesn't mean it is not useful to talk about energy and momentum separately, or electric and magnetic fields separately, and it certainly doesn't mean they don't exist in a given frame.

It's like you're drawing exactly the same analogy as Minkowski!

 

[Reality Check]

What that is, is me pointing out the hard scientific evidence that demonstrates that the electron is not a point particle. The Schrodinger equation is a wave equation. I say yes to 1/q² because it relates to the Coulomb's Law.

What that is, is you pointing out your ignorance once again - we can measure the upper limit of the radius of an electron, Farsight !

The hard scientific evidence is that the electron is a point particle:

The electron has no known substructure.[2][74] Hence, it is defined or assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.[10] Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap shows the upper limit of the particle's radius is 10−22 meters.[75]

What The Schrodinger equation is a wave equation.

Yet more ignorance, Farsight !
The Schrodinger equation is a partial differential equation where everything is treated as a point particle, i.e. the wave function has a specific (not extended) location for each particle in the system.

It looks like you are obsessing with the word wave in the term wave function or are juts ignorant about what a wave function is:

A wave function or wavefunction in quantum mechanics describes the quantum state of a particle and how it behaves. Typically, its values are complex numbers and, for a single particle, it is a function of space and time. The laws of quantum mechanics (the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time. The wave function behaves qualitatively like other waves, like water waves or waves on a string, because the Schrödinger equation is mathematically a type of wave equation. This explains the name "wave function", and gives rise to wave–particle duality.

(my emphasis added)

In addition, the Dirac equation treats an electron as a point particle

In particle physics, the Dirac equation is a relativistic wave equation formulated by British physicist Paul Dirac in 1928. It describes fields corresponding to elementary spin-½ particles (such as the electron) as a vector of four complex numbers (a bispinor), in contrast to the Schrödinger equation which described a field of only one complex value.

(my emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

No it isn't, and I'll use this to illustrate my point. See on wiki where p₀ is given as E/c?
...snipped cannonball rant....
And get this: an electron at rest has energy 511keV, and because we know that what we're really dealing with is energy-momentum, we know that that that it has momentum too.
...more off-topic ranting !...

Wrong, Farsight.
Relativistic four-momentum is given as a four-vector with the first component as E/c and the other 3 components as the classical momentum

Relativistic four-momentum is ( E/c, 0, 0, 0 ) for an particle at rest.

ETA: Replaced with a better explanation.
The momentum is not hidden (except to you, Farsight).
The first component is due to the total energy of the system, i.e. the total energy E = P⁰c. For a massive particle this reduces to E=mc² for a particle at rest.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Maxwell?

Well, that is an answer to the question, and certainly is of the non-rigorous variety. And that I think is the real problem. Surely you realize by now that you are supremely alone in your claim that the electric "field" is actually a "force" and not a "field".

That answer was backed up by an Einstein reference. And whilst I'm "supremely alone" here on JREF, I'm not elsewhere. And I've got Minkowski and Maxwell on my side too.

Reference: A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd edition (1891, Clarendon Press, reprinted by Dover Publications). See "article" 44 (as it is called in the index in the 2nd volume), page 47, entitled "The Electric Field". In the first two sentences, this is what Maxwell has to say:

"The electric field is the portion of space in the neighborhood of electrified bodies, considered with reference to electric phenomena. It may be occupied by air or other bodies, or it may be a so-called vacuum, from which we have withdrawn every substance which we can act upon with the means at our disposal." (James Clerk Maxwell)

He goes on in the next few paragraphs to show that if F is the force and e is the electric charge, then F = Re, where R "depends on the distribution of electricity on the other bodies in the field.", and he goes on to designate R as "the Resultant Electromotive Intensity at the given point of the field". In any modern text, if E is the electric field and q is the electric charge on a particle, then the force (F) is give by the equation F=qE. Advance training in mathematics is surely not required to see that F = Re and F = qE are the same equation, and that what we call the "electric field intensity", Maxwell called the "Resultant Electromotive Intensity". Furthermore, Maxwell makes clear that the force and the resultant electromotive intensity, both of which are explicitly defined, are not the same thing. Maxwell has explicitly called the electric field a "field", and he has explicitly distinguished the "force" from the "field".

In light of this observation, how do you justify your own explicit claim that you have Maxwell "on your side", supporting your claim that the electric field is not really a field, but only a force?

 

[ben m]

In light of this observation, how do you justify your own explicit claim that you have Maxwell "on your side", supporting your claim that the electric field is not really a field, but only a force?

I'll ask the same question for the B field. If B is not an actual field in space, but merely a shorthand for "the force per unit charge on a moving test particle", how do you explain the energy density attributed to fields? When you energize an inductor, you perform net work, but that work doesn't result in (e.g.) adding kinetic energy to the conduction electrons. When you discharge the inductor, something does work on the circuit. You cannot explain this just using forces---"oh, the charge over here does work on the charge over there"---without violating conservation of energy. The field itself stores energy, the field itself does mechanical work during discharging. Farsight's "ignore the field, just calculate forces" approach is nonsense.

 

[Farsight]

But you are demonstrating that you are never skeptical.

Wrong. I'm demonstrating that I'm far more skeptical than many people here, who believe in things they simply don't understand, and in bad science. For example here's Perpetual Student promoting the megaverse. Look at what he said:

"It seems to me that the "megaverse" conjecture presents an intuitively resonating rationale within which to consider the proposition of the fine tuned universe. What are the alternatives -- Coincidence? Anthropic principle? Intelligent design? Deities?"

The alternative to the megaverse is intelligent design? Sheesh? Everything I've ever said about running constants counts for nothing against that kind of "skepticism". It isn't skepticism at all. It's a desire to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and reject the evidence that demonstrates what a fallacy it is. This is the recurrent theme of our conversations here, with me referring to hard scientific evidence and bona-fide papers, and others rejecting it.

 

[edd]

Everything I've ever said about running constants counts for nothing against that kind of "skepticism".

It's probably less related to a kind of skepticism and more related to the lack of relevance for what you were going on about, as was explained often enough.

 

[Farsight]

That's closer to what I'm saying. I'm drawing an analogy between the four-momentum (which has the three momentum components plus an energy component) and how it Lorentz-transforms and how the same sort of things applies to electromagnetism, notably in the case of the electromagnetic four-potential (which I assume you're familiar with since it's described on the page you link). The Lorentz transform will convert between energy and momentum when translating between frames, just as it converts between electric and magnetic fields between frames. This doesn't mean it is not useful to talk about energy and momentum separately, or electric and magnetic fields separately, and it certainly doesn't mean they don't exist in a given frame.

Pretty good, edd. I'd say the point to remember is that a frame isn't something that actually exists. You can't look up at the clear night sky and say there's a reference frame. It's best to think of it as a "state of motion". You start off motionless with respect to the charged particle, and then you say this:

In my state of motion I see only the electric aspect of this electromagnetic field

Then you start moving and say this:

In my new state of motion I can now see the magnetic aspect of this electromagnetic field

Yes it can be useful to talk of electric fields and magnetic fields separately, but IMHO it's important to understand that you didn't "create" a magnetic field merely by moving, or by moving the charged particle. Instead all you did was reveal this aspect of the electromagnetic field, wherein electromagnetic field interactions result in linear and/or rotational motion.

This does not follow. I'll go back to your post on that in a bit I think.

Think it through.

The rest of your post involves even more non-sequiturs than usual.

Take it one step at a time.

 

[Farsight]

Reference: A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd edition (1891, Clarendon Press, reprinted by Dover Publications). See "article" 44 (as it is called in the index in the 2nd volume), page 47, entitled "The Electric Field". In the first two sentences, this is what Maxwell has to say:

"The electric field is the portion of space in the neighborhood of electrified bodies, considered with reference to electric phenomena. It may be occupied by air or other bodies, or it may be a so-called vacuum, from which we have withdrawn every substance which we can act upon with the means at our disposal." (James Clerk Maxwell)

He goes on in the next few paragraphs to show that if F is the force
and e is the electric charge, then F = Re, where R "depends on the distribution of electricity on the other bodies in the field.", and he goes on to designate R as "the Resultant Electromotive Intensity at the given point of the field". In any modern text, if E is the electric field and q is the electric charge on a particle, then the force (F) is give by the equation F=qE. Advance training in mathematics is surely not required to see that F = Re and F = qE are the same equation, and that what we call the "electric field intensity", Maxwell called the "Resultant Electromotive Intensity". Furthermore, Maxwell makes clear that the force and the resultant electromotive intensity, both of which are explicitly defined, are not the same thing. Maxwell has explicitly called the electric field a "field", and he has explicitly distinguished the "force" from the "field".

In light of this observation, how do you justify your own explicit claim that you have Maxwell "on your side", supporting your claim that the electric field is not really a field, but only a force?

Here's what you're referring to:

http://archive.org/stream/treatiseonelectr01maxwrich#page/44/mode/2up

That's in volume 1, early on, where he's introducing the reader to known phenomena. He moves on to the magnetic field and thence unification later on. For example in volume 2 he's now referring to the electromagnetic field:

http://archive.org/stream/treatiseonelect02maxwrich#page/248/mode/2up/

He talks about electromagnetic stress in a medium...

http://archive.org/stream/treatiseonelect02maxwrich#page/254/mode/2up/

...which is what my depiction is intended to represent. Note his repeated references to vortices, such as here:

http://archive.org/stream/treatiseonelect02maxwrich#page/426/mode/2up

There's some marvellous stuff in there, such as this:

http://archive.org/stream/treatiseonelect02maxwrich#page/164/mode/2up/

about Faraday. Look at the last paragraph on page 165. "He even speaks of the lines of force belonging to a body as in some sense part of itself". Smart bloke was Faraday. He'd have known the electron isn't a point particle. Shame nobody had discovered the electron back then.

 

[Farsight]

...Farsight's "ignore the field, just calculate forces" approach is nonsense.

I don't take that approach. I say things like "it's quantum field theory, the electron's field is part of what it is, and in fact is all that it is".

Sorry, I must go. No doubt that will attract another scathing little running dog from Perpetual Student. I have to say my patience is wearing thin with that sort of thing.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Wrong. I'm demonstrating that I'm far more skeptical than many people here, who believe in things they simply don't understand, and in bad science.

Then, please, show us your proof that an infinite universe cannot be expanding. This is something that you claim an intimate understanding with even though Einstein and the vast majority of practicing cosmologists disagree with you. You have to show why their mathematical models are wrong, using relevant physics to the relevant mathematical detail. Otherwise, you are the one demonstrably believing in bad science on the basis of your beliefs about things that you do not understand.

For example here's Perpetual Student promoting the megaverse. Look at what he said:

"It seems to me that the "megaverse" conjecture presents an intuitively resonating rationale within which to consider the proposition of the fine tuned universe. What are the alternatives -- Coincidence? Anthropic principle? Intelligent design? Deities?"

It doesn't seem irrational to promote something like that as a possible research program. You don't seem to know what the science is related to the various multi-verse proposals.

The alternative to the megaverse is intelligent design? Sheesh?

Now you are simply lying, in a way that we can all see, about the content of Perpetual Student's post. PS said that intelligent design is an alternative, not the alternative. PS's writing indicates that he does not hold these ideas in high regard.

Everything I've ever said about running constants counts for nothing against that kind of "skepticism".

This is because you constantly make basic mistakes about physics, you make basic mistakes about your citations, and you make grandiose claims (like the one about infinite universes) that you never produce evidence for. All the while you insult other posters and practicing scientists. You continually duck questions and often selectively quote other posters in order to duck questions.

Those who notice your errors of fact don't believe you because they see that you are in error. Those who don't catch them are unconvinced because they see your untrustworthy behaviour.

This is the recurrent theme of our conversations here, with me referring to hard scientific evidence and bona-fide papers, and others rejecting it.

But you either were grossly mistaken about the quantum mechanical nature of the paper you cited on the Ahrinov-Bohm effect or you were lying about it. This is what happens with almost all of your citations. Is it surprising that people do not believe your false claims about papers?

 

[Farsight]

Then, please, show us your proof that an infinite universe cannot be expanding. This is something that you claim an intimate understanding with even though Einstein and the vast majority of practicing cosmologists disagree with you. You have to show why their mathematical models are wrong, using relevant physics to the relevant mathematical detail. Otherwise, you are the one demonstrably believing in bad science on the basis of your beliefs about things that you do not understand.

It doesn't seem irrational to promote something like that as a possible research program. You don't seem to know what the science is related to the various multi-verse proposals.

Now you are simply lying, in a way that we can all see, about the content of Perpetual Student's post. PS said that intelligent design is an alternative, not the alternative. PS's writing indicates that he does not hold these ideas in high regard.

This is because you constantly make basic mistakes about physics, you make basic mistakes about your citations, and you make grandiose claims (like the one about infinite universes) that you never produce evidence for. All the while you insult other posters and practicing scientists. You continually duck questions and often selectively quote other posters in order to duck questions.

Those who notice your errors of fact don't believe you because they see that you are in error. Those who don't catch them are unconvinced because they see your untrustworthy behaviour.

But you either were grossly mistaken about the quantum mechanical nature of the paper you cited on the Ahrinov-Bohm effect or you were lying about it. This is what happens with almost all of your citations. Is it surprising that people do not believe your false claims about papers?

All: you know, this ↑ kind of ad-hominem stuff really amazes me. Why a place like JREF lets it continue I don't know. It doesn't make me look bad. Everybody can see my posts and the evidence I refer to, and my civil manner. Instead it makes JREF look bad. Like they're providing a home for dogma and ignorance and belief in multi-verse [SIC] woo, then permitting and even encouraging abuse directed at anybody who challenges it. Ironic really.

Anyway, since Kwalish Kid isn't talking physics and doesn't even know that it's the Aharonov-Bohm effect rather than the "Ahrinov-Bohm" effect, I'm not replying to him.

 

[ben m]

I don't take that approach. I say things like "it's quantum field theory, the electron's field is part of what it is, and in fact is all that it is".

If you meant the electron's fermion field (its Dirac spinor, if you like) then this would be fine.

But you don't mean that.

If you meant "I, Farsight, have invented a new hypothesis in which the electron is a whirlpool-like bit of electromagnetic field", that'd be at least a true statement, after which we could set about discussing experimental proof/disproof of your hypothesis.

But you don't mean that either.

Rather, you mean "everyone knows the electron is a whirlpool-like bit of electromagnetic field, as I can show with quotes from Maxwell etc., I don't know why you uneducated nitwits disagree", which is the spectacularly double-down Farsight-patent-special wrongness that's been keeping JREFfers entertained for years.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Wrong. I'm demonstrating that I'm far more skeptical than many people here, who believe in things they simply don't understand, and in bad science. For example here's Perpetual Student promoting the megaverse. Look at what he said:

"It seems to me that the "megaverse" conjecture presents an intuitively resonating rationale within which to consider the proposition of the fine tuned universe. What are the alternatives -- Coincidence? Anthropic principle? Intelligent design? Deities?"

The alternative to the megaverse is intelligent design? Sheesh? Everything I've ever said about running constants counts for nothing against that kind of "skepticism". It isn't skepticism at all. It's a desire to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and reject the evidence that demonstrates what a fallacy it is. This is the recurrent theme of our conversations here, with me referring to hard scientific evidence and bona-fide papers, and others rejecting it.

Skepticism is the state of mind involving the suspension of judgment and the maintenance of doubt until convincing evidence is available. When one demonstrates strident disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence in science, we have ignorant incredulity. When that same person misunderstands the science he professes to disbelieve, he is a crackpot!

The alternatives to the megaverse I mentioned were clearly intended to be ironic -- but clearly that kind of subtly is beyond you. I am not "promoting" Susskind's concept of a megaverse. However, I do find it a provocative conjecture. Fine tuning presents a genuine cosmological problem. If you had a viable conjecture as an alternative to the megaverse to explain fine tuning, you might have contributed it on that thread, As it is, as usual, you have NOTHING -- just more bluster, ignorance and arrogance!

 

[ctamblyn]

All: you know, this ↑ kind of ad-hominem stuff really amazes me.

...

Anyway, since Kwalish Kid isn't talking physics and doesn't even know that it's the Aharonov-Bohm effect rather than the "Ahrinov-Bohm" effect, I'm not replying to him.

(My highlighting.)

Pointing out the errors and misrepresentations in someone's arguments is not a fallacy at all, let alone argumentum ad hominem.

On the other hand, implying that an error in spelling affects the validity of someone's argument - and then using that as an excuse not to address any of the points they raised regarding your previous arguments - is in general (and certainly is in this case) a very obvious fallacy indeed.

This discussion would be a lot more interesting and productive if you would actually answer the questions put to you rather than continually dodge them. I won't repeat the AB-effect questions as we're still waiting for your answers in the "why is there so much crackpot physics?" thread. For now, how about answering this (which several people here have asked you): Where is your proof that an infinite universe cannot be expanding (in the context of GR)?

 

[godless dave]

All: you know, this ↑ kind of ad-hominem stuff really amazes me. Why a place like JREF lets it continue I don't know.

Because it's not ad hominem. The poster is pointing out - correctly - that your posts demonstrate ignorance of physics. It also points out - correctly - that you misrepresented the content of one of Perpetual Student's posts.

 

[catsmate]

All: you know, this ↑ kind of ad-hominem stuff really amazes me.

Like many woosters you through around the term 'ad hominem' without understanding what it means.

<snip>Like they're providing a home for dogma and ignorance and belief in multi-verse [SIC] woo, then permitting and even encouraging abuse directed at anybody who challenges it. Ironic really.

You mean by pointing out your mistakes and evasions?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

All: you know, this ↑ kind of ad-hominem stuff really amazes me. Why a place like JREF lets it continue I don't know. It doesn't make me look bad. Everybody can see my posts and the evidence I refer to, and my civil manner. Instead it makes JREF look bad. Like they're providing a home for dogma and ignorance and belief in multi-verse [SIC] woo, then permitting and even encouraging abuse directed at anybody who challenges it. Ironic really.

Anyway, since Kwalish Kid isn't talking physics and doesn't even know that it's the Aharonov-Bohm effect rather than the "Ahrinov-Bohm" effect, I'm not replying to him.

It is not an ad hominem to point out that you are not actually providing any content.

Yet again, you have avoided answering any direct questions about the content of your theory. You cannot help but know that you are doing this. Thus you are actively engaged in deceit.

As it stands now, the moderators of this forum have done little but aid you in your deception by continually removing posts that try to address your actions.

That you use a spelling mistake to avoid answering for your errors of fact and your deceptive use of citation reflects badly on your character, not mine.

You have yet again simply avoided answering any question that I have made about your physics claims.