Merged Relativity+ / Farsight
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
No, the "evidence" you cite is all explained within standard quantum mechanics and QFT. QFT makes predictions for both electron diffraction and pair production and pointlike outcomes of elastic scattering. These predictions agree with experiment.
You are pointing out that you believe the theory is inconsistent, i.e. that the pair-production part disagrees with the pointlike-scattering part, or something along those lines.
Last edited:
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
Why do you disown it? Although your model bears some superficial resemblance to other crackpot electron models out there on the internet, and clearly owes something to them, you've come up with your own unique twist (pun intended) on the theme. You're the only person in the world specifically saying that the electron is somehow a photon which is somehow a "lemon-shaped pulse in a lattice" which somehow gets twisted into a pulse which "travels through itself", and the only guy to attempt to make that into the One True Explanation for time dilation (ETA: and the explanation for the fine structure constant's value - almost forgot that one!).
Last edited:
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
You were asked to show how your theory can be used to make concrete predictions.
Last edited:
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
If his ideas are patently nonsensical, it does.
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
But it's not his theory, he's just asking questions.
Honestly, I get enough of that schtick in the Conspiracy Theory forum, from whence I came. If you're going to present a theory, at least have the guts to own it and do the research so that you can answer questions about it. As it is, your presentation falls flat because it presents no predictions that scientists can use to test the theory, no matter whose it is.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
But it's not his theory, he's just asking questions.
Honestly, I get enough of that schtick in the Conspiracy Theory forum, from whence I came. If you're going to present a theory, at least have the guts to own it and do the research so that you can answer questions about it. As it is, your presentation falls flat because it presents no predictions that scientists can use to test the theory, no matter whose it is.
In fairness, I should say that Farsight / John Duffield did make I think three predictions:
1. Expect cryogenic electron emission to show seasonal variations.
2. If we throw neutrinos at electrons, we should find unexpected positrons.
3. The LHC will not turn up anything interesting, in particular not the Higgs boson.
You can find the first two predictions earlier in this thread. They are so vague they are not really testable, and there is no indication as to how they were derived from his model; they were just plucked from fresh air. (As an aside, you'll note that Duffield does not object to this being called his theory back in those days...)
The third is in his "Relativity+" book, but it is also referenced in this thread, in and around these posts:
I think little more needs to be said about that last prediction, except that it did at least rise to a standard of incorrectness that the rest of his model struggles to achieve.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Maybe.
But how would you - Senex - ever know?
For avoidance of doubt, that's a serious question.
Maybe.
But how could anyone - you, me, Farsight - tell ... today?
For avoidance of doubt, that's a serious question.
Why do you need a "math minion", Senex?
For avoidance of doubt, that's a serious question.
Maybe they will.
How can you - Senex - tell, today, if there's "something to that stuff"?
Whoa, what's with the quotes? It's evidence. Let's look at it again shall we? You can make electrons and positrons out of light waves in pair production. You can diffract an electron. It's got a magnetic moment. In atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves". The Einstein-de Haas effect "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". And electron-positron annihilation results in light waves again. The wave nature of matter is beyond doubt. And you refer to this as "evidence", as if it's not?
No, I'm pointing out the evidence that flatly contradicts your assertion. And I'm also pointing out your misunderstanding of QFT re two-photon physics. One of the photons is alleged to spontaneously transform into an electron-positron pair, and the other photon interacts with the electron. Only photons don't spend their time spontaneously morphing into electron-positron pairs which then magically transform back into a single photon which nevertheless manages to keep on propagating at c. Pair production does not occur because pair production occurs. That's nonsense.
What you mean is that you can't deal with the issue, so you'll have an ad-hominem pop at me instead. Bah.
Last edited:
Read the OP and the follow-on posts. I was challenged to start a thread on electromagnetism that would lead on to other things, and the naysayers were slinging mud immediately. It's like they're the self-appointed guardians of ignorance. Any attempt to talk physics here is shouted down.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Looks like to me you started saying stuff, and people said you were wrong and then you had to, well, defend your theory.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
No-one "challenged" you to do anything. You stated that you would start a thread (and confirmed it here) to talk about your ideas.
ETA: I suppose Kwalish Kid's statement could be interpreted as a challenge to support you ideas about electrons and so on. Not to start a thread merely about electromagnetism though.
I note that you are still avoiding the actual point though: where are the predictions?
Last edited:
Yes. Much of this is evidence that we need a theory which accounts for the wave nature of matter that also including quantization, high-energy scattering, spatially-localized states, etc.. Quantum mechanics, specifically QFT, is exactly such a theory. The things you cite are evidence for QFT.
You seem to think evidence of waves is evidence against particles. Nope. QFT includes all these wave behaviors in a manner 100% compatible with the particle-like (indeed point-particle-like) behavior I've mentioned.
Weird, isn't it? Wave-particle duality, even more than "uncertainty", is the aspect of quantum mechanics that beginners, even mathematically-savvy beginners, have the hardest time grasping. You are not alone in failing to understand it. You are pretty much alone in thinking that all of the experimental physics of the 20th century is a giant disproof of all of the theoretical physics of the 20th century.
Not so long ago (this thread? another? I forget) I put a fair amount of effort into a clear and accurate explanation of the "virtual pair" business that you are mangling again. I welcome you to quote that explanation and attempt to understand it again. I'm not re-explaining it.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The standard analogy for the properties of half-integer spin particles.
I like Penrose's strip of paper and book analogy better but that does not mean that I am ignorant enough to think that all half-integer spin particles are made up of a strip of paper and a book
!Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Learn about weave/particle duality, Farsight.
There are no waves or particles in your examples. There are electrons behaving as waves or as particles and being treated as point particles in the theory.
atomic orbitals is you quote mining Wikipedia as I pointed out back in 13th August 2013.
Ignoring history and experimental results is not good, Farsight
.Wave Nature of Electron and from the same site
Wave-Particle Duality
(my emphasis added)
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Wait a second, Farsight, once again you are presenting half of the facts
.The wave nature of matter is beyond doubt.
The particle nature of matter is beyond doubt. Thus the tile of the Hyperphysics page: Wave-Particle Duality.
And once again with the idea that you understand two photon physics from a rather mangled Wikipedia article, Farsight!
Neither of the two photons that interact transform only into real electron-positron pairs
. They "fluctuate into a charged fermion/ anti-fermion pair" (virtual particles) which can be any lepton or quark. This is not pair production which is the production of real electron/positron pairs.theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm beginning to think that "Einstein the Patent Clerk" is as good a litmus test of crackpottery as any. Einstein's job at the patent office was to apply mainstream physics, which he had learned in mainstream schools from mainstream physics professors, to patent claims. If you brought your idea to Einstein, it wouldn't be judged by a maverick outsider. It would be judged by a card-carrying member of The Club.
I think the constant refrain in this thread is that Farsight's ideas could use a liberal dose of the same stifling Einstein got.
Last edited:
Only it's not my theory. See Minkowski’s Space and Time:
"In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect."
And see Maxwell's On Physical Lines of Force:
"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".
But when I try and tell people about the screw nature of electromagnetism, I get shouted down by the troll-patrol.
Last edited: