|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
27th February 2014, 02:19 PM | #2481 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I understand it, you don't. And it's not fine. Now pay attention:
"Virtual electron-positron pairs, can in principle, be polarised by an external electromagnetic field, thus introducing non-linearities into Maxwell’s equations, which break the familiar principle of superposition of electromagnetic waves in vacuum. Photons from multiple, vacuum-polarising sources, can then become coupled on the common point of interaction of the polarised virtual pairs". It's gamma-gamma pair production remember? But it's saying a photon interacts with a virtual electron-positron pair. It's saying pair production occurs because pair production has already occurred. It's a tautology. It's wrong. A photon does not spend its sad little life magically morphing into an electron-positron pair that magically manage to morph back into a single photon, which nevertheless manages to keep on going at c. QED does not model the photon-photon interaction. Right, I'm off to bed. You've got until tomorrow to try and save some face. |
27th February 2014, 02:25 PM | #2482 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
But that morphing is what one finds when one calculates the photon's propagator, a function which expresses the strength of creating one at one position and then removing it from another position.
Farsight's main argument here is how absurd it seems, which is not much of an argument. |
27th February 2014, 02:35 PM | #2483 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Yep. About as good as a verbal description gets.
Quote:
Oh, I know: because you're looking for an argument, and you don't know how to argue with an equation, because you don't do math. |
27th February 2014, 02:46 PM | #2484 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
That is a really odd statement, Farsight.
* I search Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF) and find no mention of "gamma" let alone "gamma-gamma pair production" * What you quote is about virtual particles but pair production is usually real particles. The paper uses "pair-creation". * What you quote is not about a photon "morphing into an electron-positron pair". It is about virtual particle pairs appearing out of the vacuum and then annihilating each other a short time later. This is standard quantum field theory. * QED does model the photon-photon interaction. The paper is using QED to model the photon-photon interaction! It is impossible to remember something in a paper that does not exist in that paper . ETA: Perhaps an explanation from my perspective will help: * Maxwell's equations say that electromagnetic fields just add up in a vacuum (are linear). * Virtual electron-positron pairs are always popping in and out of existence in a vacuum. * An external electromagnetic field should polarize these virtual electron-positron pairs. * That polarization will add an extra component to the addition of electromagnetic fields thus they will not just add up as in Maxwell's equations. * Photons are electromagnetic fields ! Thus take a couple of laser beams and let them cross. The EM field of each beam will polarize the virtual particles thus affecting the other beam. There will be a non-linear effect that could be detectable in intense laser beams. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
27th February 2014, 02:57 PM | #2485 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Why is there so much crackpot physics?
Sorry, misposted
|
27th February 2014, 04:51 PM | #2486 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
For the sake of accuracy, here is a summary of the exchange about protons and electrons are photons in "loops."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=129 The key being:
Quote:
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
28th February 2014, 10:25 AM | #2487 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It isn't good. It's badly wrong.
Er, no. We're on the crackpot physics thread, I'm pointing some out, you're pretending you can't see it, and trying to hide behind math. Tsk. Watch and learn...
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Originally Posted by Reality Check
|
28th February 2014, 10:33 AM | #2488 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
28th February 2014, 10:39 AM | #2489 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I tell you edd, this is a big issue. And you heard it here first.
|
28th February 2014, 10:41 AM | #2490 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Yeah, all photons having a positive charge at the front and a negative one at the back, and you knowing where QED is wrong - that'd definitely count as big. And I definitely heard it hear first.
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
28th February 2014, 11:51 AM | #2491 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Yes, they're virtual particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm curious which QED books you've read such that you didn't learn this extremely basic fact about virtual particles. |
28th February 2014, 12:03 PM | #2492 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
All verbal descriptions of QED are "really wrong" and "pop science".
All mathematical descriptions of QED are "hiding behind math" (Numerical QED predictions and experimental confirmations do not register in this system. It was just swamp gas. Please look into the neuralyzer---ZAP. What were we talking about? Spring training has started, will Jeter's ankle hold up do you think?) |
28th February 2014, 02:46 PM | #2493 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
28th February 2014, 03:36 PM | #2494 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
I love that Farsight's photons violate charge-reversal and time-reversal invariance. It's not "some sort of charge form factor", it's specifically + at the front, - at the back. When did that start, Farsight? Before or after Ben Franklin decided on the arbitrary sign convention? Does a photon emitted by antimatter have the opposite electric dipole?
How large are these charges and how far apart are they? Are they approximately one wavelength apart, for example? Perhaps I can compare your predictions to an experimental result I have right in front of me which is relevant to this sort of hypothesis. |
28th February 2014, 03:50 PM | #2495 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
The better question is how does that charge separation occur at all?
I mean they would attract and cancel right away. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
28th February 2014, 03:52 PM | #2496 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
1st March 2014, 09:11 AM | #2497 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
They don't have a positive charge at the front and a negative charge at the back. That's not what I said. See two-photon physics and note that it does say this: but half wavelength is a positive charge and the next half wavelength is a negative charge. That's wrong, and I said the front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. Draw a positive field variation followed by a negative field variation.
|
1st March 2014, 09:21 AM | #2498 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It's a popscience myth. It doesn't actually happen. Space is not a seething maelstrom of electrons and positrons popping in an out of existence. A virtual particle is not a real particle. Nor is it a short-lived real particle. As per Matt Strassler's article, it is not a particle at all. Pay attention now:
"The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle". No it isn't. A 511keV photon does not hoppety-skip through space magically morphing into a 511keV electron and a 511kev positron, which magically turn back into a single 511keV photon which all the while manages to keep on travelling at the speed of light. And pair production does not occur because pair production occurred. That's a tautology. That's crackpot. There's plenty wrong with that. Virtual particles are not real particles. Electrons are not massless. An electron and a positron cannot annihilate to a single photon. It's a fairy tale, ben. I "learned this basic fact" years ago. I can't remember where from. But I rejected it as a fairy tale when I learned more physics. You will too.
Originally Posted by ben m
Originally Posted by ben m
|
1st March 2014, 09:31 AM | #2499 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
It IS wrong. It was added by an anonymous user who also added gibberish to the "proton" article.
Quote:
|
1st March 2014, 11:13 AM | #2500 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'm glad we agree about something.
I've never updated Wikipedia, and have no plans to do so. Sorry ben, but you're wrong about this. Like I said, a 511kev photon doesn't spontaneously morph into an electron and a positron which you label as "off shell" so you can break all the rules of physics. Virtual particles are virtual, they don't pop in and out of existence like magic. But QED can handle photon-photon pair production, for a reason. Yes, the anonymous wiki editor got it wrong, but the "given reason" really is crackpot. Think about it. Think for yourself. Gotta go. |
1st March 2014, 12:23 PM | #2501 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Just like all your other posts. Mainstream physics, as represented by pop-science-article quotes, sounds wrong to you. You can't point to an actual error in the math, calculations, or experiments, you just quote the words and declare that you see them as nonsense. You claim to know a better picture, but rather than laying it out you say "think about it".
Same old same old. |
1st March 2014, 12:47 PM | #2502 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Indeed.
What's remarkable is this: after all this time, after thousands of posts, in dozens of forums, Farsight has not convinced even one person of the validity of his models. Nor the validity of his critiques of GR, QED, etc. Not even one. And how does Farsight react to this gigantic failure of his to communicate? If he truly believed he was onto something that no one else in the world had - apparently - understood, you might expect him to try harder, wouldn't you? For example, to learn enough of the relevant mathematics so that he could re-phrase his deep insights in ways that those more familiar with the essentials of GR than he is could more readily grasp. Or write up a key part of his thesis in the form of a scientific paper, and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or ... |
1st March 2014, 01:30 PM | #2503 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
1st March 2014, 03:37 PM | #2504 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Back to the OP, crackpots invariably discuss physics with words, pictures, diagrams, analogies, etc. -- in other words -- anything but mathematics. How else could they maintain their delusional notions of physics?
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
1st March 2014, 03:51 PM | #2505 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Maybe that gets to the crux of it---the difference between a crackpot and a non-crackpot-with-radical-ideas. Someone has some nifty and (they think) important and new idea. They get excited because they think it's right; they try to explain it to you. You tell them it's wrong.
A scientist responds by doing more science---adding more detail, more and clearer explanations, testing edge cases, etc. etc.. A crackpot responds by blaming the audience and staying in exactly the same place. |
1st March 2014, 09:18 PM | #2506 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
|
2nd March 2014, 05:40 PM | #2507 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Yes - virtual particles are virtual
Yes, virtual particles aren't real particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later . ETA: They do have properties like real particles such as charge. Now watch my lips, Farsight : * I search Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF) and find no mention of "gamma" let alone "gamma-gamma pair production" * What you quote is about virtual particles but pair production is usually real particles, e.g. real electron positron production in the presence of a nucleus. The paper uses "pair-creation". * What you quote is not about a photon "morphing into an electron-positron pair". It is about virtual particle pairs appearing out of the vacuum and then annihilating each other a short time later. This is standard quantum field theory. * The paper is about photon-photon scattering and uses QED to model it: Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF). ETA: My guess is that you are going on a semantic nitpicking derail. This is the scattering of real photons from real photons caused by the polarization of virtual electron/positron pairs. The real effects would be measured on the real photons. Thus "photon-photon scattering" rather than "photon-photon scattering caused by the polarization of virtual electron/positron pairs"! The whole point is that photons interact with photons, and * classical mechanics (Maxwell's equations) says it does not happen. * QED says it is possible by interacting with virtual particles. The paper gave you a photon-electron interaction. So does wiki. See this bit: "From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge". Somebody has inserted the next sentence since I've raised this issue. The front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. But the main point is that photons interact with photons, and QED doesn't cover it. Virtual electron-positron pairs are always popping in and out of existence in a vacuum. That is basic quantum mechanics, Farsight. Citing an irrelevant but interesting article (Cargo Cult Science) by Richard Feynman does not change this basic physics ! Citing one of the funders of Quantum Field Theory is especially ignorant since QFT is full of virtual particles!
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
2nd March 2014, 06:13 PM | #2508 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
A bigger issue is why did you not recognize that this was nonsense added to that Wikipedia article, Farsight?
It looks obvious to me since I studied QFT (many years ago!): Quantum electrodynamics never looks at "half-wavelengths" of photons. It is concerned with creation and annihilation operators on whole photons or electrons. There is the minor fact that photons are treated as elementary particles with no extent (and a really small experimental upper limit to their size). Also look at the Talk page. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
27th March 2014, 07:10 PM | #2509 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
disenchantment with Electric Universe
Crackpottery is not a black hole from which there can be no escape. Here's the last paragraph of a long and thoughtful essay written by a layman who fell in with the Electric Universe folks, but got better:
Originally Posted by Hossein Turner
The essay mentions our esteemed Tim Thompson and our departed Michael Mozina. |
27th March 2014, 07:43 PM | #2510 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
A while since I looked at the EU woo.
Came across something interesting - even a creationist (maybe YEC) can see the problems with EU or at least Donald E. Scott’s book, The Electric Sky: An Evaluation of Plasma Astronomy |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
28th March 2014, 08:33 AM | #2511 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
|
28th March 2014, 08:36 AM | #2512 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
|
29th March 2014, 06:25 AM | #2513 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
29th March 2014, 08:53 AM | #2514 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
I fixed that for you by restoring the link on "insinuated".
If you follow that link, you'll find Dave Smith, "independent researcher and Managing Editor of the Thunderblog", speaking with authority on a subject he understands quite well:
Originally Posted by Dave Smith
|
30th March 2014, 02:57 PM | #2515 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
you will also find this Dave Smith essentially exposing EU as a religion, not science
Quote:
It ignores that the Big Bang event is supported by empirical evidence and so EU stating the opposite is dogma not science. He is confirming that "that EU theorists use the same tactics as creationists", e.g. * start with the assertion that X is correct and thus all evidence that X is not correct is wrong. * tend to believe in "holy" books (the EU obsession with the works of Anthony L. Peratt and Hannes Alfven while largely ignoring modern textbooks). * tend to believe in authorities rather than the scientific consensus (Peratt and Alfven again appear a lot). * tend to ignore actual science, e.g. the fact that plasma physics is a well established part of astronomy. No astronomer or cosmologists ignores plasma - they just know what it is capable of doing. Dave Smith seems to be even ignorant about what plasma cosmology is ! Alfven's invalid Plasma Cosmology does not have anything to do with the EU "plasma cosmology" which is not even defined except as set of theories (even if mutually exclusive or invalid) that say that there was no Big Bang and have the word plasma in them. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th May 2014, 08:20 AM | #2516 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Recent discussions in other threads have caused me to think again about this subject.
Many comments have been made here about the roots of crackpot physics, but I have come to believe the most fundamental problem of all leading to crackpot notions is a lack of mathematical skills. Of course, the crackpot must also be driven by a desire to comprehend nature. I say this because of recent experiences relating to my own quest to better understand modern physics. Although I have had a superficial understanding of tensors, in order to get a real grasp on some subjects (e.g.: GR), I've had to spend a great deal of time to become "fluent" with tensor calculus. It's a tough subject! It takes a lot of time and effort. Every time I think I've got it, something comes up to confront my grasp of the subject. I've been at it for weeks and I am still battling away. So, in contrast to my own experiences, I do believe it is the lack of training, patience, ability, pertinacity, inclination, etc. to take the kind of path required to master the math that the crackpot lacks. It's so much easier to just read about physics and come up with home-spun notions than do the hard work of mastering the mathematics. I've come to believe all other factors relating to crackpot physics are secondary. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
4th May 2014, 09:34 AM | #2517 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
I'd say that's only the second most fundamental problem.
Most people lack the mathematical skills needed to understand general relativity, quantum mechanics, or modern particle physics. Very few become advocates for crackpot physics. I disagree. Reading about physics in the popular press is easier than searching out or inventing crackpot physics, and it's much easier to admit you've been wrong when physicists explain your errors than to spend years defending your errors against hundreds of people who know far more math and physics than you do. To acquire a reputation for crackpot physics, you must convince yourself you understand physics better than the physicists. You must also convince yourself of the irrelevance of mathematics, or must convince yourself you understand mathematics better than the physicists. You must hold to those convictions for years despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In my opinion, the primary source of crackpot physics is an extraordinary, off-the-charts sense of illusory superiority. |
4th May 2014, 10:25 AM | #2518 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
I'd say it's pretty common to read some popular physics, start thinking about it, and come up with some ideas of your own. This frequently leads to the following conversation:
"Oh, you're a physicist. I was just reading about this gravity wave discovery in the newspaper." "Great! It's very exciting." "But I was thinking about it and they said gravity waves are plus-shaped, but then they said the polarization is pinwheel-shaped, so it sounds like maybe they actually found a different kind of wave, like a dark-energy wave." "Good question. Yes, this type of wave DOES make the pinwheel pattern, that's not a mistake, but it'd be hard to explain without some math. Interested?" "Oh, no, I was just curious. Sounds like people are on top of it." |
6th May 2014, 10:38 AM | #2519 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
You make some good points, and on further reflection, it seems that determining what is THE most fundamental problem might vary from person to person and is probably a useless question (I have a proclivity for useless questions). In any case, it may be that to some degree many --perhaps most -- people suffer from "illusory superiority," but few fall into the realm of crackpot physics. It still seems to me that skill in mathematics is an overlying aspect.
Let me offer this example: Two people, A and B, would like to attain a good understanding od General relativity. Both may have a sense of illusory superiority. So, they begin by reading some popular books on the subject and then read the Wikipedia article on GR or its equivalent, but the tensor equations are gibberish so they try to interpret the words about the equations and read more discussions of those equations. A, who does have some training in mathematics and is willing to work at it, is not satisfied and decides to undertake a study of differential geometry and tensor calculus. B has little mathematics background and is unwilling to make the effort but just keeps reading more and more literature and creates private interpretations of what he reads. Both A and B may end up with crackpot notions (since neither is trained in physics), but B is by far the most likely to go astray. I think we are familiar with a few examples of Mr. B within these threads. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
6th May 2014, 12:49 PM | #2520 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
Instead of 'skill,' how about 'respect?' Crackpots often seem to view the math as merely a trivial elaboration of the 'real' truth. From that perspective, the fact that they don't understand the math is like, say, a racecar driver not knowing what kind of paint is on the car.
Those who lack the skills but respect the math would be more likely to admit that they simply don't understand the physics well enough to dispute it. |
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|