Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Roboramma]

How much energy was put in it when it was made. When we made an electron and a positron using two 511keV photons, we put 511keV into the electron when we made it.

Yes, and the interaction with the Higgs field determines how much energy is required to make an electron

Again, I'm not concerned with whether that's right or not, you are claiming it's inconsistent: show the inconsistency

The rest of your post outlines your own ideas about what electrons are made of, and yes, those ideas are not consistent with the Higgs mechanism, we all know that and accept it, but not being consistent with your ideas (whether those ideas are right or not) doesn't mean that the standard model isn't internally consistent, or that it's not consistent with E=mc²
(I know that the latter is implied by the former as the standard model is a relativistic theory, but I just thought I'd make that last bit more clear)

 

[Farsight]

Wait, it wasn't hard to do the calculation in SI units, but it's too hard to do it in any other system?

Again, I'm not asking for an explanation of why there's a conversion factor, I'm just asking for you to actually do the calculation

I mean, you're not actually going to say that the calculation works in SI, but doesn't work in some other system, are you?

If not, why don't you just do it?

Or, admit that it's not valid, I certainly won't think any less of you

It's valid Robo, because regardless of your system of units E=mc² and KE=½mv² and λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. It's just too difficult to explain, and it's just too much of a distraction.

The thing is that I still agree with you that E=mc² (and so does everyone else), but I still don't understand what contradiction you are trying to get across

See what I said to Kwalish Kid above about the box of radiation where the Higgs mechanism is not involved, and the mass is there because of E=mc². Also note the Stark quote from wiki concerning the electron and E=mc² . Also read Mass energy equivalence on wikipedia:

"In physics, in particular special and general relativity, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy."

The contradiction is that the Higgs mechanism says the mass of a a body such as the electron, is a measure of something else. It blatantly contradicts the most famous expression in physics.

Blink. Now do you understand it?

 

[edd]

The contradiction is that the Higgs mechanism says the mass of a a body such as the electron, is a measure of something else. It blatantly contradicts the most famous expression in physics.

No it doesn't.

 

[Farsight]

Lurker here, but I didn't want this to slip by. Using natural units, you don't "lose" c² even if c = 1. The value may be 1, but the units themselves remain. mc² continues to have units of energy (ML²/T²).

Noted. The "lose" was a reference to the wiki article on natural units which says: The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc² can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. It gives a caveat re Planck units, but nevertheless the c² isn't in the expression. By the way, see what I said earlier about proposed future definitions of the kilogram.

 

[Farsight]

Almost right, finally, except for one thing.

"It's 511 rather than 411 because h and c are what they are?" Nonsense. There is nothing about h, c, or any other macroscopic constant that tells you that there's a resonance at 511 keV, nor that there's another one at 106 MeV, nor that there's another one at 1777 MeV. The laws of relativity and quantum mechanics would be perfectly happy if Nature had presented us with a 411 keV lepton, or a 511.1 keV lepton, etc.

In the real world, we believe that the location of this resonance (511 keV instead of 411 or 512 etc) is determined by the electron-Higgs coupling. The location of muon is determined by the muon-Higgs coupling. Etc.

The Higgs mechanism has determined that all electrons will be 511 keV particles. The creation/destruction/kinematics of electrons obeys the laws of special and general relativity for an m=511 keV particle because the electron is a 511 keV particle.

OK, explain it then. Explain the location of the electron Higgs coupling, and the location of the muon Higgs coupling.

 

[Zeuzzz]

By the way, see what I said earlier about proposed future definitions of the kilogram.

Heh, did my mini thesis on this very subject of kilogram calibration. The current system is crap and geographically vague, with flawed controls on some measured variables. But then again so will be most new systems of defining it until people get used to it. I concluded just leave it as it is in the end due to economic practicality, if I remember correctly.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
The cesium atom is a physical system that oscillates as you describe above. The second is defined as the duration of time it takes for 9,192,631,770 oscillations. The fact that the information is conveyed via electromagnetic waves is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant at all. How can you be so dismissive of everything I said in post 889 above?. After you said let's see if it is possible to have a civil discussion with you. The hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic phenomena too, the electron has a wave nature, we can diffract it, we even made it out light in pair production. When the electromagnetic waves and field changes propagate slower, the second is bigger, and that's it. There is no literal time flowing slower in that physical system, or in the intervening space, or in your eyes and brain.

So the hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic phenomenon and the electron has a wave nature. How is that significant? Be specific. The cesium atom and the observer are in the same rest frame when we count the number of oscillations in question. The duration of time taken by 9,192,631,770 oscillations is defined as a second. There is no "slower propagation" to concern anyone. There is no tautology as you imagine. How specifically does the wave nature of the electron have any relevance? Be specific and stop all the hand waving!

 

[Farsight]

Go ahead. Do the algebra. Derive the proton-electron mass ratio using foot-pound-second units. Distances in feet, time in seconds, mass in slugs, force in pounds, energy in pound-feet, charge in FPSE units.

Every Freshman science student learns unit-conversion problems by actually working them. Why can't you work this one?

Because I change n, you claim it's a fudge, it doesn't do any good, and we go round in circles talking about new physics instead of the solid old Einstein physics you're trying to avoid. Meanwhile, see how ProbablyNot said above that the units of energy are ML²/T²? The units of energy have a mass term in there, c is distance or length over time, so ML²/T² relates to E=mc² rather than E=hf. Now see the Watt balance section of the kilogram article on wikipedia:

The Planck constant defines the kilogram in terms of the second and the meter. By fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter.

Then see my post 747 where I said the second and the metre are defined using the motion of light. That means that just about everything ends up being derived from h and c.

Because, amidst all the physics you don't know you don't know, this was a mistake stupid enough that I thought even you might come to see the hole in your knowledge.

See above.

And, y'know, that's what we do with learners of physics. We walk you through basic physics and make you do problems. If there's a problem you're stuck on, we dwell on it until you understand it.

LOL. OK, I don't understand the location of the electron Higgs coupling, and the location of the muon Higgs coupling. Or why the electron is a body whose mass doesn't depend upon its energy content, or ditto for the Higgs boson.

Over to you ben. In your own time.

When you can't explain these things, maybe we can then talk about the holes in your knowledge.

LOL. I have to go.

 

[edd]

Meanwhile, see how ProbablyNot said above that the units of energy are ML²/T²? The units of energy have a mass term in there, c is distance or length over time, so ML²/T² relates to E=mc² rather than E=hf.

I think this qualifies as 'not even wrong'.

 

[sol invictus]

1) Yes. But if that theory leads you to dismiss those observations you've got a problem.

2) No. The Sun doesn't go round the Earth. Nor does the universe go round Phobos.

Classic Farsight. First line: Don't use theory to dismiss observations. Second line: Dismiss observations because they don't match theory.

The truth is that without much theory, observations do show the sun going around the earth. Haven't you ever noticed? The sun moves across the sky. It rises and sets.

Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton came up with sophisticated theories that account for those observations. According to those theories there's a preferred frame for acceleration and rotation, and the sun does not go around the earth in the preferred frame (although it does in other frames).

But those theories have long since been replaced (by Farsight's supposed hero, Einstein). According to general relativity, the sense in which there's a preferred frame for rotation or acceleration is very subtle. In fact, the foundational principle and great insight of GR is that acceleration and gravitation are extremely similar.

In GR, the "force" of gravity is replaced by geometry, and the only meaningful quantities are geometric invariants (like curvatures). There is no geometric invariant I know of that tells us that the earth goes around the sun - on the contrary, there is a specific, quantifiable description of the solar system in which the sun goes around the earth. It has precisely the same geometric invariants as one in which the earth goes around the sun, it makes precisely the same predictions for all physical experiments, and it therefore matches observations exactly as well.

Is it more complex or less fundamental? Hardly - the two descriptions are related almost trivially mathematically, but one or the other is more convenient depending on your purpose.

 

[sol invictus]

It's valid Robo, because regardless of your system of units E=mc² and KE=½mv² and λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. It's just too difficult to explain, and it's just too much of a distraction.

Nonsense is usually difficult to explain.

 

[The Man]

It isn't irrelevant at all. How can you be so dismissive of everything I said in post 889 above?. After you said let's see if it is possible to have a civil discussion with you. The hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic phenomena too, the electron has a wave nature, we can diffract it, we even made it out light in pair production. When the electromagnetic waves and field changes propagate slower, the second is bigger, and that's it. There is no literal time flowing slower in that physical system, or in the intervening space, or in your eyes and brain.

"When the electromagnetic waves and field changes propagate slower,"? Slower? What definition of a second are you using to determine this "slower" propagation?

No it isn't. Look at the definition again: the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. It isn't 9,192,631,770 hyperfine transistions, it's 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation. I got that wrong on an early Time Explained. Like I said, it's like you sit there with waves coming at you, you count 9,192,631,770 waves going past you, and then you say that's a second. The important thing to remember is that you can't talk about frequency when you're defining the second, because frequency is cycles per second.

So what? To define a second you do have to refer to the second (or more generally time). So what is your definition of a second that makes the referenced cycle period longer (thus "propagate slower") and does not refer to a measure of time like the second?

One of the obvious issues with a lot of crackpot physics is that they are simply not self consistent. One of the ways proponents of such avoid this is by not making clear definitions (like the second in this case) as the self contradiction would be obvious. The assumption above that "field changes propagate slower" indicates a definition of time (a second) not yet presented. One is just begged to indulge the "slower" assumption without the implied definition of a second being provided that would not only have to differ substantially from the current standard but can have no relevance if it does not at least reference a measure of time like the second.

 

[ben m]

Because I change n, you claim it's a fudge,

I haven't seen you "change n", I've seen you talk about how sure you are that it works. Do it.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Crackpots are often compared to fundamentalists, but I don't think that's a particularly useful comparison. In my opinion, fundamentalist religion is more social than intellectual. Fundamentalism has much to do with a religious community's peculiar sense of identity, us versus them, and the members of that community derive social benefits from sticking to the party line.

It's interesting to note that there are crackpot communities. (I can think of anti-relativity.com and physicsdiscussionforum.org as two examples.) Yet it seems that there is not the homogeneity in those groups; each member seems to have their own dogma. It would be interesting to see a sociological study of these groups.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It would be interesting to see a sociological study of these groups.

As would the converse.

I tend to remember physics students as being just as sociologically withdrawn as their crackpot counterparts.

Just one has highly linearized maths and ideologies, whereas the other a more organic yet less empirical mix; that ultimately stills adds to creativity and questioning of long held axioms and assumptions.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Geddoutofit. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content is not some cherry-picked out-of-context quote. It's what E=mc² is all about.

This is an excellent example of a cherry-picked quotation. First, you have presented the equation that is only used in limited form. Second, people here have accused you of using that limited form where it is not appropriate. Third, this formula only makes sense in the greater context of the theories of relativity. One cannot simply choose one formula and expect it to apply to every physical system and fully describe that system. (To make this clear: one can claim that the laws of gravity always apply to every object, but one cannot then ignore the effects of electromagnetism on that object. School children know that static electricity can make a balloon fail to fall to the ground.)

So if one cannot use the proper context of relativity theory, one really cannot be expected to use individual elements properly in general.

Re: For example, Einstein described the electron as a body, and said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. So the latter is utterly contradicted by the mass of a body like the electron is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field.

Except that according to the Higgs theory, at least some of the energy content that mass measures is provided by the Higgs field. That does not seem to be inconsistent in any way. By your logic, it seems that gravity cannot be the cause of weight because scales measure weight.

Oh such a lofty pronouncement. Yes there is a contradiction. The electron is a body, Susskind's box is a body. The mass is there because the energy is there, and E=mc² applies to them both.

But since you only take the results of the box experiment and can't work it through yourself, you are taking this result on the faith of the work of Susskind (or those who reported the result to you), correct? If those who work through such problems reported that it is consistent with the Higgs theory, would you believe them?

Why do you not try to learn how to work through these problems yourself?

Oh change the record. You are not versed in scripture cuts no ice on a skeptics forum.

You misinterpret my statements. In this case, I suspect that you are trying to change the subject, so I will bring up the subject again.

You are making claims about certain systems of coordinates that you do not like, yet that you are unable to understand mathematically. They are systems of coordinates that make certain claims about what relationships can be maintained in physics and what cannot. This same geometrization can be done with Newtonian gravity (i.e. Newton-Cartan theory). They are a consequence of the idea that there are no special properties of spacetime that pick out particular axes of rotation. And this seems to be true. So far, you have not addressed those solutions to the Einstein field equation that do pick out particular axes of rotation. If you want to be taken seriously, you should learn the mathematics and address them.

Given that the question of the geometrization of gravity is a mathematical question, why are you qualified to take positions on particular systems of coordinates that you are unable to follow mathematically?

What, you mean what Einstein said doesn't make any sense mathematically or historically? Well that's a new one!

I notice that you cut out my statement and failed to address it. So I will ask: Why do you dismiss the statements of Einstein that support the use of isotropic and homogeneous cosmological models? Why do you ignore that Einstein's chosen cosmological model in his very first full book on relativity theory was isotropic and homogeneous?

No, you're just a naysayer troll saying Einstein was wrong.

Yet in this case, I am defending the lifelong work of Einstein in supporting a homogeneous cosmological model and you are denying it based on a single quotation in a single public address without bothering to look at what Einstein wrote or said on the subject. Doesn't this make you the naysayer about Einstein?

 

[dafydd]

As would the converse.

I tend to remember physics students as being just as sociologically withdrawn as their crackpot counterparts.

What percentage of the world's physics students did you meet at the time?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Three years A-level and three years degree students. So a negligible amount with extreme subjective sample bias. Though I reckon I can find a meta analysis if pressed

 

[dafydd]

Though I reckon I can find a meta analysis if pressed

Don't bother, I have some drying paint to watch.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

As would the converse.

I tend to remember physics students as being just as sociologically withdrawn as their crackpot counterparts.

This is anecdotal evidence. These kind of observations we expect to be biased by selection effects.

There are sociological studies of physics students and physicists out there; check them out.

Just one has highly linearized maths and ideologies, whereas the other a more organic yet less empirical mix; that ultimately stills adds to creativity and questioning of long held axioms and assumptions.

I think you are dramatically over-estimating the effects of crackpots. They have been at this for decades, mailing physicists and philosophers their physics theories. I suspect that once their basic misunderstanding becomes apparent, their ideas are ignored.

It is tempting to see all physicists as uncreative. I do not think that this is the case.