Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Farsight]

That would be a lie...

you are simply lying...

dogma free of evidence...

No, you failed to produce evidence...

it seems clear that you are lying...

Only I'm not. See this post on the other thread. And you know I'm not lying.

All: sorry about this. I was saying something to Darat that I think is worth reapeating. Imagine you notice that there are no threads on JREF featuring homeopathy. No scepticism of homeopathy, and no critical thinking about it. When you look into it, you find that every time some guy started talking about homeopathy, he got shouted down by a snarling pack of homeopaths, and ended up giving up and going somewhere else. So the forum became a homeopathy-free zone. The homeopaths don't contribute to the forum. They lurk. And they only come out of the wallpaper to trash any threads that could be critical of homeopathy. They're only there as a troll-patrol to make sure homeopathy doesn't catch any flak. Now replace homeopathy with physics, and that's pretty much where we're at.

Only with this thread we're poised for a breakthrough, because Perpetual Student has just cottoned on to the fact that the speed of light varies in the room you're in. And that I'm not the crackpot. And if I'm not, then who is? Duh duh duh!

 

[dasmiller]

Only I'm not. See this post on the other thread. And you know I'm not lying.

All: sorry about this. I was saying something to Darat that I think is worth reapeating. Imagine you notice that there are no threads on JREF featuring homeopathy. No scepticism of homeopathy, and no critical thinking about it. When you look into it, you find that every time some guy started talking about homeopathy, he got shouted down by a snarling pack of homeopaths, and ended up giving up and going somewhere else. So the forum became a homeopathy-free zone. The homeopaths don't contribute to the forum. They lurk. And they only come out of the wallpaper to trash any threads that could be critical of homeopathy. They're only there as a troll-patrol to make sure homeopathy doesn't catch any flak. Now replace homeopathy with physics, and that's pretty much where we're at.

To make the analogy work, also imagine that homeopathy was routinely curing people and that it had convincingly passed thousands of well-designed double-blind tests.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Only with this thread we're poised for a breakthrough, because Perpetual Student has just cottoned on to the fact that the speed of light varies in the room you're in. And that I'm not the crackpot. And if I'm not, then who is? Duh duh duh!

Hold on! I am not a physicist! Nevertheless, it is still my understanding the speed of light will be measured as c by any observer in any reference frame. Can anyone come up with a counter example to that? And -- I question the concept of "global observer," which seems to me to be contrary to GR. So, I am still waiting for some counter examples and a valid description of global observer under GR. The only new thing I have come to understand, is that there are ambiguities in defining the term "reference frame" in GR. Review my conversation with Clinger above to confirm that.

 

[ben m]

LOL, he's made no argument at all. There's various internet sites where people refer to the positive and negative field variation. Here's one picked at random. It says this: "The magnetic field around a photon fluctuates from its maximum-positive to its maximum-negative strength as the photon travels..."

Hilariously, ctamblyn (other thread) read a little further in your hand-picked source, the source you chose (out of millions available) to use to tell me that me and all my textbooks are wrong. My bold:

This is a cherry-picked excerpt from "Light - Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting" by Fil Hunter, Steven Biver, Paul Fuqua. Not a physics reference, mind you, but a digital photography one. Perhaps you shouldn't pick things "at random", and should actually read your sources before citing them. Perhaps you should have taken their advice when they said this:

A complete definition of the nature of light is complex. In fact, several Nobel Prizes have been awarded for various contributions to the working definition we use today. We will simplify our discussion by using a definition adequate for applied photography. If you are still curious after reading this, see any basic physics text.

 

[Farsight]

Hold on! I am not a physicist! Nevertheless, it is still my understanding the speed of light will be measured as c by any observer in any reference frame. Can anyone come up with a counter example to that?

No they can't, I explained the tautology that Magueijo and Moffat referred to. The local motion of light defines your second and you metre, which you then use to measure the local motion of light.

And -- I question the concept of "global observer," which seems to me to be contrary to GR.

What isn't contrary to GR is Einstein saying the speed of light varies with position. Or that the speed of light varies in the room you're in.

So, I am still waiting for some counter examples and a valid description of global observer under GR.

Don't worry about global observer. You're the actual observer. You've got two NIST optical clocks in front of you, and the lower clock is going slower than the clock 30cm above it. Because the light goes slower when its lower. That's all you need to understand. It's that simple.

The only new thing I have come to understand, is that there are ambiguities in defining the term "reference frame" in GR. Review my conversation with Clinger above to confirm that.

I read it. Clinger said things like The coordinate velocities of light within a GR frame are therefore equally arbitrary. I imagine he's now read the Baez article and the Ned Wright article. He isn't contesting me any more is he? The speed of light really does vary in the room you're in. And Einstein really did say a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. So I'm the expert not the crackpot. So who is?

Note how some other posters are rather desperate to change the subject.

 

[Farsight]

To make the analogy work, also imagine that homeopathy was routinely curing people and that it had convincingly passed thousands of well-designed double-blind tests.

Yes, and I'll imagine that CERN have found a way to producing clean cheap energy and manufacture hover bikes and space drives. But they haven't. What have they achieved? Er, the discovery of the Higgs boson? When the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc²? You should take a look at The Discovery of What? It's on vixra because the Unzicker wasn't allowed to put it on arXiv.

Also see The Higgs Fake and arXiv for other papers by Unzicker, including the VSL discussion.

 

[edd]

You're completely wrong when you claim the Higgs mechanism violates relativity.

 

[dasmiller]

Don't worry about global observer. You're the actual observer. You've got two NIST optical clocks in front of you, and the lower clock is going slower than the clock 30cm above it. Because the light goes slower when its lower. That's all you need to understand. It's that simple.

Let's talk about that. You've complained about rubber rulers, so let's pick definitions that don't have an obvious dependence on light. For distance, how about sodium chloride crystals? It's a nice repeating structure. For time, let's use a single oscillation of the Cesium clocks that you linked.

So suppose I make a portable speed-of-light measuring device that sends a photon past a NaCl crystal with a known number of cells, and counts the number of Cesium oscillations it takes (there's a mirror involved). We'll call it a CsSalt device.

Now, I take my CsSalt device, and take a measurement on the floor of my living room and find that the speed of light is 60,319,475 NaCl cells per oscillation.

If I then take the CsSalt device to the ceiling, what would it say the speed of light is?

 

[Farsight]

Let's talk about that. You've complained about rubber rulers, so let's pick definitions that don't have an obvious dependence on light. For distance, how about sodium chloride crystals? It's a nice repeating structure. For time, let's use a single oscillation of the Cesium clocks that you linked.

It doesn't help. See the GR time dilation article and note the bit that says "electromagnetic radiation and matter may be equally affected, since they are made of the same essence"

So suppose I make a portable speed-of-light measuring device that sends a photon past a NaCl crystal with a known number of cells, and counts the number of Cesium oscillations it takes. We'll call it a CeSalt device. Now, I take my CeSalt device, and take a measurement on the floor of my living room and find that the speed of light is 60,319,475 NaCl cells per oscillation. If I then take the CeSalt device to the roof, what would it say the speed of light is?

60,319,475 NaCl cells per oscillation. You're using the motion of light (or electromagnetic phenomena) to measure the motion of light. Hence the tautology. It's like a clockwork man using a clockwork clock to measure the speed of his own clockwork. Then when he jumps into a viscous oil bath with his clockwork clock, he claims the speed of clockwork is unchanged. Even though it's now half the rate it was.

 

[dasmiller]

It doesn't help. See the GR time dilation article and note the bit that says "electromagnetic radiation and matter may be equally affected, since they are made of the same essence"

60,319,475 NaCl cells per oscillation. You're using the motion of light (or electromagnetic phenomena) to measure the motion of light. Hence the tautology. It's like a clockwork man using a clockwork clock to measure the speed of his own clockwork. Then when he jumps into a viscous oil bath with his clockwork clock, he claims the speed of clockwork is unchanged. Even though it's now half the rate it was.

So . . . do you have a distance or time metric that can be used locally and doesn't involve any EM phenomenon?

 

[Farsight]

You're completely wrong when you claim the Higgs mechanism violates relativity.

Oh no I'm not. The mass of a body is not the measure of its interaction with some mystic cosmic treacle. Note this in Einstein's E=mc² paper:

"The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent of the properties of the body. Moreover, the difference K0 − K1, like the kinetic energy of the electron (§ 10), depends on the velocity."

It should be clear to you that Einstein considered the electron to be a body. And this should be clear to you too:

"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content"

The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. Not the measure of its interaction with some mystic cosmic treacle. So if you're rooting for the latter, you're going to have to throw away that E=mc² T-shirt. And buy yourself a new T-shirt, like this: E=mc².

 

[Farsight]

So . . . do you have a distance or time metric that can be used locally and doesn't involve any EM phenomenon?

Not really. There's such a thing as a nuclear clock, but you can do low-energy proton/antiproton annihilation to gamma photons, so there's no getting away from the electromagnetism. Have a read of The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. He refers to the wave nature of matter. When everything is made of waves, you use the local motion of waves to calibrate your rods and clocks. There isn't anything else. Then you use your rods and clocks to measure the local motion of waves. So regardless of how you move or where you go, you always measure the local speed of waves to be the same. Even when it isn't.

Sorry, I have to go now.

 

[edd]

Look it's quite simple. The 'energy content' comes from the interaction, and so therefore does the mass. The ideas are not mutually exclusive.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Not so. The quantum nature of light relates to the h in E=hf, and h is action. The dimensionality of action has the dimensionality of momentum x distance. It's the same distance for all photons, regardless of wavelength. Those common-amplitude pictures are a pretty good depiction actually. Think of a guitar string. Regardless of where you put the fingers of your left hand on the frets to change the wavelength, the amplitude of your pluck stays the same. Do you know what's crackpot? The idea that the quantum nature of light means it's made up of billiard-ball particles. It isn't.

Your final argument is a straw man - no one believes that light is made up of billiard-ball particles. It's made up of quantum particles that have a wave and a particle nature. But you don't seem to understand the mainstream physics view of anything - only the view that you claim your heroes Einstein and Maxwell espouse. With that out of the way, the "amplitude of the pluck" varies based on how hard I pluck the string. Cartoon diagrams, however, are often normalized to the same amplitude in order to easily visualize other concepts.

 

[dasmiller]

Not really. There's such a thing as a nuclear clock, but you can do low-energy proton/antiproton annihilation to gamma photons, so there's no getting away from the electromagnetism. Have a read of The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. He refers to the wave nature of matter. When everything is made of waves, you use the local motion of waves to calibrate your rods and clocks. There isn't anything else. Then you use your rods and clocks to measure the local motion of waves. So regardless of how you move or where you go, you always measure the local speed of waves to be the same. Even when it isn't.

Sorry, I have to go now.

When you get back, then, am I correct to understand that you're saying that any conceivable way to measure a local speed of light would always return the same value, and yet it's a crackpot idea to think that the local speed of light always has the same value?

Speed is always time vs. distance. How do you know that it's not local time that's varying, rather than local speed?

 

[ctamblyn]

Not really.

A more "can do" attitude is needed. Take a strong decay like Δ⁺ --> p + π⁰ and see how long it takes, on average, in the rest frame of the Δ⁺. That's your time standard. In the same reference frame, how far do the produced protons travel, on average, in that standard time? That's your distance standard.

ETA:

And, just to be clear, if you did define your time and distance standards in this way you'd still find the locally-measured speed of light was 299,792,458 m/s everywhere.

 

[Reality Check]

I explained it, I referred to a paper, ...

No, Farsight, You referred to an unpublished, not cited preprint from 2008. The authors are so wrong that even you should know it!
A photon is a particle when it acts like a particle and the entire wave when it acts like a wave (wave/particle duality).
See: Length of a Photon

 

[Reality Check]

All: do excuse ben m, ....

All: do excuse Farsight for his inability to distinguish between cartoons drawn by artists and actual science. Along with his delusion about ben m (a working particle physicist!) physics knowledge being poor.
This is actually another symptom of a crackpot - when someone knowledgeable about physics points out the flaws in their argument, the crackpot response is to accuse that other person of being ignorant rather than citing the scientific literature that shows that they are right.

The fact that artists are free to start drawing pictures of electromagnetic waves starting at any point on the wave has still totally escaped Farsight !
The fact that a Google search on electrometric waves is not a reference to the scientific literature is still not understood by Farsight.

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: Where is the "partial neutron" in your idea

There's various internet sites where people refer to the positive and negative field variation.....

Of course there are many internet sites stating the obvious fact that has been known since Maxwell - in electromagnetic waves, electric fields vary and magnetic fields vary, Farsight - Duh !
The fields go from a positive field strength to a negative field strength and back.

Where the "crackpottery" comes in is associating that positive/negative field strength with a "partial electron" or "partial positron" just because the words positive or negative are there. That is what ben m, I and other posters are pointing out. There are no charges there. There are no masses there. There are no spins there. There are electromagnetic fields whose strength goes from a positive to a negative value and back.

To take that delusion to the maximum: Why are you not asserting that the position of zero field strength is a "partial neutron"? Or a "partial Higgs boson"?

For that matter where do you get a "partial electron" from? - why not a "partial muon" or a "partial down quark"?

 

[Reality Check]

All: sorry about this....

All: Imagine the real world. In this real world homeopaths come to this forum and start threads on homeopathy.
Posters here point out that they are supporting scientifically invalid concepts (laws of similarity and dilution).
Posters point out that there is no scientific evidence for homeopathy working better than a placebo.
Posters point out that there is no viable mechanism that allows homeopathy to work.
Posters point out that the support for homeopathy is mostly anecdotes.
Posters point out that the homeopaths sometimes rely on stories from the 1850's ("provings").
Posters start threads that contain valid (scientifically based) medicine which are occasionally derailed a little by homeopaths.
In this forum, Farsight with his various invalid ideas is the "homeopath" !
I am sure that you can see the parallels.

Also homeopaths imagine that because one person has learned some physics it somehow means that they are not a crackpot !
The reality is that even crackpots get some things right - it is what they get wrong that makes them a crackpot.