IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags cern , higgs boson , physics

Reply
Old 7th February 2013, 12:16 PM   #881
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
You cut out bits of text, wrap them in quote tags, and refer to them.

That does not mean that they back up your case.

You're so wrong, even Abraham Lincoln knew you were wrong...
Aw, you've got nothing. Tell you what, I'll give the physics and the supporting references, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

I have to go. Catch you later guys. Apologies if I've missed any salient posts. I'll take a look through the recent part of the thread tomorrow.

Last edited by Farsight; 7th February 2013 at 12:18 PM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 12:19 PM   #882
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Only one wavelength and therefore energy is the right energy to match h and convert a gamma photon moving at c into the standing-wave structure called an electron.
Again: why that one wavelength?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 12:48 PM   #883
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Change the record lpetrich. I'm the one quoting bona-fide references here. You're the one behaving like a theologian dismissing the science I'm referring to.
Take a closer look at theological "reasoning" some time, and you'll see what I mean.
(Wikipedia as a sacred book...)
Quote:
It doesn't. It merely gives a fairly accurate description of current physics knowledge whilst demonstrates that I'm not just making this stuff up.
Justify that contention. Especially with your ignoring a no-sources warning added to one of the articles.

Quote:
What's absurd is the notion that gluons are real particles. They aren't. They're virtual particles. ...
Why is that?
Quote:
We do not see gluons spilling out of proton-antiproton annihilation.
Because of color confinement. If they are very energetic and much closer than 10-15 m, then they act as almost independent particles.

(Can't get a fermion from a boson...)
Quote:
Not that old canard. Pair production happens. You get an electron and a positron from your integer-spin field.
A *pair* of them. Two fermions together form a boson. I did not mention that case because I was addressing your electrons-are-photons contention. You can't get a *single* fermion from a boson or any set of bosons.
Quote:
How you think you can get away with vague assertions about "classical-limit intuitions" beats me.
Because that's what you are doing. In any case, it all works out correctly when you do the math.
Quote:
And note that spherical harmonics are used for atomic orbitals, where the electron exists as a standing wave. And that we can diffract an electron. Because it exists as a standing wave even when it isn't in an atomic orbital. Which rather suggests that harmonics also play a role.
I learned about wave-particle duality long ago. The Dirac equation is a wave equation, like other elementary-particle equations of motion.

(the Einstein-de Haas effect...)
Yawn. Wikipedia-thumping is no argument against the true nature of electron spin. A result of its field geometry, like photon polarization.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 01:06 PM   #884
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Aw, you've got nothing. Tell you what, I'll give the physics and the supporting references, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe.
The funny thing is, I actually wrote most of the content of the (former) Wikipedia articles on proton-antiproton annihilation and neutron-antineutron annihilation. You're welcome to quote me when you argue with me.

(Why are they deleted? Long story. There was a malicious bad-article-creating bot, and I'd found and edited two of those articles, but there was a clean-sweep cleanup of the bot's damage, from which I didn't bother to merge my edits into the "Annihilation" or "Antiproton" articles which are pretty good.)
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 01:25 PM   #885
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
I'm still trying to figure out how we could see things moving without a perception of time. Wouldn't my fingers appear to be in multiple places simultaneously?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 02:09 PM   #886
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm not criticizing almost every scientist. I told you what CERN physicists think about this. Their views are at odds with the publicity pap that you lap up.
You've just offered insults rather than a defense. You have once again attacked the work of actual scientists without being able to follow their work. You claim that these people do not understand GR, yet you know that you cannot do it.
Quote:
I haven't responded with insults and refusals. You simply waggle your hands and you see that they don't stay in the same place. When that happens, we call it motion. It's that simple.
Please explain what it means to observe motion.
Kwalish Kid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 02:35 PM   #887
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm not criticizing almost every scientist. I told you what CERN physicists think about this. Their views are at odds with the publicity pap that you lap up.
You found a quote from a popular science book by Guidice. You interpreted this quote via your custom Farsight-is-right lenses, the same way you interpret everything you see everywhere.

Guidice is right, the rest mass of protons is something like 1% quark mass and 99% gluon field energy. Frank Wilczek, who I know in passing, is particularly fond of this point. By repeating it, you are disagreeing with no one whatsoever.

What is Guidice actually disagreeing with? You. It sounds like you have a nonsensical mental picture of how the Standard Model works. You made this up yourself; let's call it the Farsight Strawman Standard Model (FSSM). Guidice disagrees with the FSSM. Wikipedia disagrees with the FSSM. (Heck, everyone disagrees with the FSSM, because it's nonsense that you made up.)

You are misidentifying these disagreements. You think that Guidice disagrees with the actual standard model (SM)---so now, with the Guidice quote backing you up, you're rejecting the SM and insulting/belittling anyone who doesn't agree. (But you're mistaken. Guidice agrees with the SM, and contradicts the FSSM.)
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 05:00 PM   #888
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Have a read of mass-energy equivalence on wikipedia. It isn't theological-like woo:
It is not theological-like woo: an ignorant attempt to interprete this as meaning that the Higgs mechanism does not work would be theological-like woo.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
See above - it's from the kinetic energy supplied to the protons.
Some actual Farsight theological-like woo !
You're clutching at straws and engaging in wishful thinking, Farsight.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It's pathetic junk that explains nothing at all.
What is a Higgs Boson? video is a nice simple explanation of what the Higgs boson is.
That you cannot understand it and so have to fall back on inane insults is no surprise, Farsight !

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
People have speculated along these lines for decades, but no actual evidence for a new fundamental particle has shown up.
Actually: People have observed the existence of dark matter for decades and have speculated along these lines for decades, but no actual evidence for a new fundamental particle has shown up.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I imagine that he knows that the energy of a gravitational field, which acts gravitatively like any other form of energy, has a mass equivalence.
No connection with dark matter.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
He's just being honest.
...snipped a bit of irrelevant paranoia from Farsight...
You need to understand what you read: The quesrion is why is Giudice is concerned about that 1% number in his popular science book?
The science is that the Higgs mechanism should only account for 1% of matter.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Gluons are virtual particles, ...
You do not understand what the phsysics is.
Add up the mass of the quarks in a proton (or neutron) and you do not get the mass of a proton .
A proton is made of 2 up quarks and a down quark (8 to 11 Mev) but has a mass of 938 Mev.

Necleaon get 99% of thir mass:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Nucleons get most of their masses from color confinement. Their quarks and gluons cannot get more than about 10^(-15) m from each other without those particles' interactions getting superstrong. This means that those particles' wavefunctions cannot extend over a greater size, and thus that their masses should be about a few hundred MeV. Thus, the nucleons' masses.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th February 2013 at 05:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 05:35 PM   #889
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It's not as if Higgs or anybody else predicted a boson with a mass of 125GeV years ago. There's been postdiction on that, but not prediction.
Whoops, your ignorance is sort of showing, Farsight !
The Higgs boson was predicted with a mass of 125 Gev years ago. To be more exact
Quote:
The Minimal Standard Model does not predict the mass of the Higgs boson.[65] If that mass is between 115 and 180 GeV/c2, then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck scale (1019 GeV).[66]
(emphasis added)

The claim for postdiction is ridulous given the many Higgs-mass predictions
Quote:

Many physicists hope that the electro-weak Higgs scalar will be observed soon at the LHC. The literature contains a plethora of predictions or upper limits of the Higgs mass based on many different ideas, models and calculational techniques. Privileged among them is the value
mH = 150 ± 36 GeV currently given by the LEP Electroweak Working Group, because it only relies on precision electro-weak data, non-observation of the Higgs today and the minimal hypothesis that the standard model is correct as it stands.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
In the LHC, protons are accelerated, and are given kinetic energy. The so-called Higgs boson is quite literally made using this energy.
That is right!
Pity that this has nothing to do with the rest mass of the proton being 938 Mev and the masses of the quarks in it making up ~1% of that rest mass.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 05:47 PM   #890
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
And as for what's interacting with what to create this structure, see two-photon physics and note this.
You should note the insanity of implying that an electron is 2 photons.

In case you are ignorant of the fundamental physics that says this is impossible: Photons have spin 1. So a system of 2 photons has spin 0 or spin 1. An electron has a spin of 1/2.



A few more points:
  • There are no bound states of 2 photons (that I know of).
  • Photons have zero rest mass. Electrons have a rest mass of 511 Kev.
  • Photons can any energy so if you locks at the equivalent mass then you have electrons with arbitrary "masses".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2013, 06:25 PM   #891
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
How plain wrong can it be when you can create an electron and a positron from a photon-photon interaction, and annihilate an electron and a positron to get photons?
How plain wrong can it be when you cannot understand that 2 photons ("photon-photon interaction") have a spin of 0 or 1 and so can create an electron and a positron (spin 0 or 1 again). And vice versa.

This has nothing to so with any ignorant implication that an electron is 2 photons. In fact you are disproving your asserton because by your logic, we can annihilate an electron and a positron to get four photons!
This is simple counting, Farsight:
An electron made up of 2 photons + a positon made up of 2 photons = 4 photons.
So maybe you are implying that an electron is 1 photon but then fundamental physics that says this is impossible: Photons have spin 1. An electron has a spin of 1/2. No fantasy about a helix will change this.
A few more points:
  • Photons have zero rest mass. Electrons have a rest mass of 511 Kev.
  • Photons can any energy so if you look at the equivalent mass then you have electrons with arbitrary "masses".
P.S. Dirac structure
Quote:
...Dirac structure is a maximally isotropic integrable vector subbundle...
But maybe lpetrich was referring to the treatment of electrons as fundamental, structureless particles with quantum spin as in the Dirac equation.

There is a siimple physical reason why the Dirac equation treats the electron as a point particle
Quote:
When the idea of electron spin was first introduced in 1925, even Wolfgang Pauli had trouble accepting Ralph Kronig's model. The problem was not that a rotating charged particle would have given rise to a magnetic field but that the electron was so small that the equatorial speed of the electron would have to be greater than the speed of light for the magnetic moment to be of the observed strength.
In 1930, Paul Dirac developed a new version of the Wave Equation which was relativistically invariant (unlike Schrödinger's one), and predicted the magnetic moment correctly, and at the same time treated the electron as a point particle. In the Dirac equation all four quantum numbers including the additional quantum number, s arose naturally during its solution.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2013, 11:44 AM   #892
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Let me pre-clarify, in case Farsight is paying attention, that when I say "Guidice agrees with the Standard Model", I mean he holds the usual particle-physics position: belief that the methods of modern QFT are sound; belief that SU(3) x SU(2)L x U(1) is correct in the low-energy limit; belief that a new experimental discovery (as opposed to, say, fixing of of a huge previously-unnoticed mistake) will be needed to clarify the high-energy behavior of particles and fields.

What I mean, Farsight, is: don't post something like "Guidice has written about supersymmetry, which is outside the standard model, therefore he doesn't believe in the SM, therefore you're a moron" with the implication "... and I will continue claiming that a CERN physicist agrees that the electron is a bound state of two photons or whatever"
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 02:50 AM   #893
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
I haven't posted something like that. I told you what Giudice said about the 1%, and that he called it the "toilet" of the standard model. What I didn't tell you is what he meant by that: that it's full of ****.

By the way Jodie posted this up on a time travel thread:

What If the New Particle Isn't the Higgs Boson?

I don't like the way it peddles SUSY the busted flush, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Last edited by Farsight; 10th February 2013 at 02:51 AM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 03:05 AM   #894
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Again: why that one wavelength?
Read The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and see the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c. All electromagnetic waves share the same action h, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance. You can see a trace of it in pictures of the electromagentic spectrum. All the waves are the same height. The electromagnetic wave is not wholly dissimilar to gravitational waves that LIGO is trying to detect via length-change. There's a real distance involved. Or a displacement if you prefer. That wavelength is a 2Π multiple of it.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 03:22 AM   #895
jj
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,382
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Aw, you've got nothing. Tell you what, I'll give the physics and the supporting references, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe.
This kind of insult is really quite rude, and is a professional insult directed at Iptr*.

Furthermore, it's one he does not deserve.

You haven't provided any supporting references, except in a way that runs according to your own special pleadings. You didn't say anything about the spin issue, for instance, after your photon-photon interaction was charbroiled into extinction.

You simply engage in ad-hominem attacks. That looks more like malice than physics to me.

ETA: I see Reality Check has also pointed out one of the fatal flaws in your imagination.

Last edited by jj; 10th February 2013 at 03:24 AM.
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 03:48 AM   #896
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Read The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and see the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction."
That is NOT a literal space-time curvature, but a curvature-like quantity in the electromagnetic fields themselves.

Quote:
A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c. All electromagnetic waves share the same action h, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance. You can see a trace of it in pictures of the electromagentic spectrum. All the waves are the same height.
Farsight, you interpret those diagrams as literal-mindedly as a fundie interpreting the Bible.

Those are *schematic* diagrams, and such diagrams are NOT intended to be literal pictures. When you see a line drawing of something, do you then act as if that line drawing is a photographic representation?

Quote:
The electromagnetic wave is not wholly dissimilar to gravitational waves that LIGO is trying to detect via length-change. There's a real distance involved. Or a displacement if you prefer. That wavelength is a 2Π multiple of it.
More literal-mindedness, this time about the "displacement" in "displacement current".
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 04:04 AM   #897
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I haven't posted something like that. I told you what Giudice said about the 1%, and that he called it the "toilet" of the standard model. What I didn't tell you is what he meant by that: that it's full of ****.
Thumping his statements as if they were quotes from a sacred book. Sheesh.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 07:45 AM   #898
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
But you haven't read about it in a physics textbook and you have never done any problems, done any experiments, or developed any applications that use the actual science of this equivalence. Yet you claim, on the basis of your wikipedia knowledge, to criticize almost every scientist working in the field on their knowledge of physics.

Please explain how waggling your hands is evidence of motion. Your reasoning on this point is not clear. Your earlier responses to requests for clarification on this issue were insults and refusals.
Goalpost moving often accompanies hand waving.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 08:01 AM   #899
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Such a strange way of arguing.

a) Contradict a bunch of physicists.
b) Say, "No, my view is obvious"
c) Post an unrelated (but true in context) snippet from a popular or secondary source
d) Say, "See?! See?!" as though your bizarre reading-between-the-lines process results in a truth so obvious you don't have to explain it.

Above: your own words are muddled contrarian gibberish. You leap from one phase suggesting QCD is wrong, to a random quote of experimental facts perfectly consistent with QCD (p pbar -> mesons), a false (or very poorly phrased) non-fact (p pbar -> pure direct photons? Never.), and generic muddleheaded contrarianism ("where are the quark and gluon fields?").

The text you quote from Wikipedia is correct, and indeed this sort of thing is a prediction of the quark/gluon theory of hadrons and more generally of the Standard Model, and it disagrees with you.
Thanks for the analysis, I knew there was somethings wrong with the post but I couldn't put my fingers on them.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 08:12 AM   #900
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Aw, you've got nothing. Tell you what, I'll give the physics and the supporting references, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

I have to go. Catch you later guys. Apologies if I've missed any salient posts. I'll take a look through the recent part of the thread tomorrow.
They also serve who only sit and snipe.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 01:16 PM   #901
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Quote:
THE GIST
- The newly found particle could be a more exotic variety of a Higgs boson.
- This could actually be a more exciting finding than if the particle is actually the expected Higgs boson.
So what has this to do with your rather ignorant assertion that the Higgs mechanism (a relativistic QFT !) violates relativity, Farsight?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 01:25 PM   #902
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
What's absurd is the notion that gluons are real particles. They aren't. They're virtual particles
What's absurd is your inability to learn what a gluon is !
Gluon
Quote:
Gluons (pron.: /ˈɡlɒnz/) are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
...
Experimental observations
Quarks and gluons (colored) manifest themselves by fragmenting into more quarks and gluons, which in turn hadronize into normal (colorless) particles, correlated in jets. As shown in 1978 summer conferences[2] the PLUTO experiments at the electron-positron collider DORIS (DESY) reported the first evidence that the hadronic decays of the very narrow resonance Y(9.46) could be interpreted as three-jet event topologies produced by three gluons. Later published analyses by the same experiment confirmed this interpretation and also the spin 1 nature of the gluon[9][10] (see also the recollection[2] and PLUTO experiments).
Like photons they exist as both real and virtual particles.

So what you wrote is as ridiculous as "What's absurd is the notion that photons are real particles. They aren't. They're virtual particles".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 01:39 PM   #903
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Goalpost moving often accompanies hand waving.
I thought this comment was really funny.

However, I wish to reiterate my request for an explanation of the "hand waggling" proof of the existence of motion. Having read through several historical texts where physicists have spent a great deal of time really giving the foundations of physics a solid footing, I have learned that it takes a great deal of care to actually do the work of establishing these foundations. Explaining just what it takes in order to describe, in a physically meaningful way, just what is going on in "hand waggling" is not easy and it requires a careful use of the concept of time. If Farsight was really interested in this subject as something more than a soapbox, then he might spend the effort thinking about this. (He may already have done so and, realizing that he cannot do away with time in describing motion, have decided to hide the results of his attempts.)
Kwalish Kid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 08:49 PM   #904
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
This is an article written for engineers to help them gain engineering intuition for practical EM field calculations. The curvature Hammond mentions is not part of the real-E&M, it's part of the maybe-this-helps-your-intution. There are many such intuition-helpers in computational E&M. For example, a long solenoid is not really a pair of magnetic monopoles, but engineers are welcome to (and frequently do) pretend that it is.

Quote:
A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c.
Are you utterly unable to tell the difference between Farsight-ism and mainstream physics? This "spatial curvature" is something you made up. That's why you can't find it in Jackson or Purcell or Griffiths, and that's why every physicist on this board has laughed at you for claiming it.

Did you forget making it up? I guess that happens sometimes. Like, I'm cleaning out an old file cabinet, and come across some calculations, and I say "This is interesting, whose are these?", and after reading them I discover they're mine. Is that happening to you? Are you discovering your own ideas in file cabinets, forgetting whose they are, assuming they're well-known physics insights, and citing them?

Quote:
All electromagnetic waves share the same action h, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance. You can see a trace of it in pictures of the electromagentic spectrum. All the waves are the same height.
Literally LOL. That "trace" represents an electromagnetic field magnitude, not a distance. The field can assume any magnitude whatsoever, and its units are volts-per-meter. When someone wants to draw a cartoon of an electromagnetic field, they draw an arbitrary sine wave and change the height until the cartoon is pretty. It has nothing to do with physics.

And: if you're hoping that the field magnitude magically works out to be a constant after you quantize photon energies? Like, "each photon, no matter the wavelength, always has the same (something proportional to field)?" Nope, that's not true either.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 09:14 PM   #905
JDC
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Rake_Joke.png
JDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:54 PM   #906
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Oh well, if not educational, Farsight pretend physics can be somewhat entertaining.
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:57 PM   #907
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Farsight has also talked about returning to the original Maxwell about electromagnetism and his equations, as opposed to Oliver Heaviside's more-common version of them and other such supposed corruptions. We need to get back to the original revelation, a theologian's sort of argument.

However, science does not work that way. We don't use Sir Isaac Newton's original way of working with his laws of motion and law of gravity. Instead, we use later developments like vectors, Lagrangians, and Hamiltonians. Late in his life, astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar wrote a detailed commentary on Newton's Principia, explaining Newton's results in modern language: 1996JHA....27..353S Page 355


I've also found the blog entry by Lubos Motl that I'd earlier referred to: The Reference Frame: Why the Standard Model isn't the whole story Despite some gratuitous insults near the beginning, it's overall good.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 05:35 AM   #908
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Farsight has also talked about returning to the original Maxwell about electromagnetism and his equations, as opposed to Oliver Heaviside's more-common version of them and other such supposed corruptions. We need to get back to the original revelation, a theologian's sort of argument.
I'm in a group reading over Maxwell's original works. It doesn't look like there is any mathematical differences, other than the fact that Maxwell had to write out curls and divergences in full because they were not yet invented to shorten the work of those following his equations. Not finished yet, though.
Quote:
However, science does not work that way. We don't use Sir Isaac Newton's original way of working with his laws of motion and law of gravity. Instead, we use later developments like vectors, Lagrangians, and Hamiltonians. Late in his life, astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar wrote a detailed commentary on Newton's Principia, explaining Newton's results in modern language: 1996JHA....27..353S Page 355
I've got that sitting on my shelf, unread, so I'll have to take a look. The new translation of the Principia has a little primer on translating to modern physics too, IIRC.
Quote:
I've also found the blog entry by Lubos Motl <snip>
You really should find a better link. There has to be a less sexist explanation of the state of the field out there.
Kwalish Kid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 08:23 AM   #909
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
I'm in a group reading over Maxwell's original works. It doesn't look like there is any mathematical differences, other than the fact that Maxwell had to write out curls and divergences in full because they were not yet invented to shorten the work of those following his equations. Not finished yet, though.
Reminds me that an alternative to vectors that was popular back then was quaternions. Seems like a way of restating 3-vector operations, however.

(Lubos Motl on the SM...)
Quote:
You really should find a better link. There has to be a less sexist explanation of the state of the field out there.
Yes, that analogy he makes.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2013, 07:51 AM   #910
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
I've found some alternatives to Lubos Motl's blog entry. Wikipedia, of course: Physics beyond the Standard ModelWP, nontechnical but a bit sketchy, and lots of very technical sorts of documents.

Beyond the Standard Model - no math

why do we need susy? - not much much, and it has some nice graphs of how the gauge coupling "constants" converge at high energies. In the plain Standard Model, they do not converge very well, while in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, they converge very closely around 1016 GeV.

The Standard Model and its Problems, by Chris Quigg - lots of math

PDF page 10 has the masses of the particles. The dark symbol is the particle's mass measured at its mass scale, the light symbol that mass measured at GUT scales. The tau and the bottom are close at GUT scales, as one would expect from GUT mass unification.

SM validity in the graph on page 67 - with the observed putative Higgs mass of 125 GeV, there'll be trouble around 10^7 GeV.

Discussion of Standard-Model problems starts on page 72.

Physics Beyond the Standard Model - even more math
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 07:47 AM   #911
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You should note the insanity of implying that an electron is 2 photons...
Geddoutofit. I've never said that. I referred you to Two Photon Physics which is "a branch of particle physics for the interactions between two photons" wherein electron-positron pair production occurs.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 08:01 AM   #912
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by jj View Post
This kind of insult is really quite rude, and is a professional insult directed at Iptr*.
It wasn't an insult, it was a put down in response to an insult. And it was in response to ben m.

Originally Posted by jj View Post
You haven't provided any supporting references, except in a way that runs according to your own special pleadings.
I've given plenty, including electron diffraction which "refers to the wave nature of electrons. So when RC says There is a siimple physical reason why the Dirac equation treats the electron as a point particle, he's wrong. You can diffract them. They have a wave nature. They aren't point particles.
They

Originally Posted by jj View Post
You didn't say anything about the spin issue, for instance, after your photon-photon interaction was charbroiled into extinction.
For example I've referred to the Einstein-de Haas effect which "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

Originally Posted by jj View Post
You simply engage in ad-hominem attacks. That looks more like malice than physics to me.
I give the references to support what I say. I don't see you giving any. You're the one engaging in ad-hominems, jj.

Originally Posted by jj View Post
ETA: I see Reality Check has also pointed out one of the fatal flaws in your imagination.
No, he hasn't.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 08:07 AM   #913
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I've given plenty, including electron diffraction which "refers to the wave nature of electrons. So when RC says There is a siimple physical reason why the Dirac equation treats the electron as a point particle, he's wrong. You can diffract them. They have a wave nature. They aren't point particles.
Nobody claimed they were point particles. RC said the Dirac equation treats electrons as point particles.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 08:59 AM   #914
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
That is NOT a literal space-time curvature, but a curvature-like quantity in the electromagnetic fields themselves.
It's a space curvature, not space-time curvature. It's easy to understand the difference via an analogy: imagine you're looking out over a flat calm ocean, when an oceanic swell wave comes along. The surface of the sea is curved where that wave is. That equates to space-curvature. As the wave passes you notice that it's following a curved path. That equates to space-time curvature. See the ABB50/25 programme and note the reference to curved space.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Farsight, you interpret those diagrams as literal-mindedly as a fundie interpreting the Bible. Those are *schematic* diagrams, and such diagrams are NOT intended to be literal pictures. When you see a line drawing of something, do you then act as if that line drawing is a photographic representation?
I'm not doing that at all. The people behaving like the fundies here are the guys like jj dismissing the scientific evidence I keep referring to.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
More literal-mindedness, this time about the "displacement" in "displacement current".
It's a real displacement, lpetrich. Imagine space is a lattice, stand in it, and push upwards so that the horizontal lattice lines are curved. You've displaced the lattice. See wiki re the electromagnetic wave equation and in this section note this: "the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spacial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time". The sinusoidal electric wave you see in the pictures is the slope of the curvature, whilst the orthogonal magnetic wave is the rate-of-change of slope. NB: the "fields" referred to are E and B, which aren't actually fields, but instead denote the linear and rotational forces resulting from electromagnetic field interactions.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Farsight has also talked about returning to the original Maxwell about electromagnetism and his equations, as opposed to Oliver Heaviside's more-common version of them and other such supposed corruptions. We need to get back to the original revelation, a theologian's sort of argument.
There's absolutely nothing theological about reading the original Maxwell lpetrich. Or the original Einstein.


Originally Posted by ben m
This is an article written for engineers to help them gain engineering intuition for practical EM field calculations. The curvature Hammond mentions is not part of the real-E&M, it's part of the maybe-this-helps-your-intution.
It isn't part of maybe this helps your intuition.

Originally Posted by ben m
For example, a long solenoid is not really a pair of magnetic monopoles, but engineers are welcome to (and frequently do) pretend that it is.
Not engineers who've read Percy Hammond. They understand that a charged particle like an electron has an electromagnetic field which is associated with a curvature that diminishes with distance like this, and they understand what happens when you cut a solenoid in half. It isn't the engineers who pretend that magnetic monopoles exist, see wiki. Note that the CMP "flux tube" is akin to a solenoid.

Now can we get back on topic instead of me having to respond to carping naysayers trying to paint me as a theologian.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 10:55 AM   #915
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It's a space curvature, not space-time curvature.
Electromagnetism is neither space-time curvature nor space-without-time curvature.

Quote:
I'm not doing that at all. The people behaving like the fundies here are the guys like jj dismissing the scientific evidence I keep referring to.
Evidence 100% consistent with the theories that you reject, like space-time unity, intrinsic spin, charged elementary fermions as Dirac fields, etc.

("displacement current")
Quote:
It's a real displacement, lpetrich.
It is NOT, and no amount of quote-mining can change that. You ought to try to understand the mathematics rather than act as if quote-mining can substitute for doing so.
Quote:
There's absolutely nothing theological about reading the original Maxwell lpetrich. Or the original Einstein.
The theological part is the implication that what they originally proposed was some revealed truth, that we have departed from it, and that we ought to return to it. Science does not work that way, and for VERY good reason.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 11:17 AM   #916
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
I don't reject those theories, I understand them. I understand things like intrinsic spin. It isn't something magic and mysterious. The electron doesn't have its magnetic moment for nothing. Don't dismiss the Einstein de-Haas effect.

When a seismic wave runs through the Earth, the Earth waves. It is displaced. When an ocean wave runs through water, the water waves. It is displaced. When an electromagnetic wave runs through space, space waves. It is displaced.

The theological part is dismissing references to Maxwell / Einstein / Minkowski etc as "quote mining" along with dismissing references to hard factual scientific evidence. Because it doesn't fit with what you think you know. Creationists behave just like that when you show them fossils, strata, carbon dating, etc. That's not evidence they say, then they dish out some kind of ad-hominem insult to essentially say this man cannot be trusted, disregard everything he says, listen to me instead.

Now can we try to talk about the Higgs boson please? If that's too limiting for you, let's talk about mass.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 11:29 AM   #917
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
When a seismic wave runs through the Earth, the Earth waves. It is displaced. When an ocean wave runs through water, the water waves. It is displaced. When an electromagnetic wave runs through space, space waves. It is displaced.
Do you really not see what you've done there?
Let me fix it for you: when an electromagnetic wave runs through the electromagnetic field the electromagnetic field waves.

Even then you're stretching it too far to say the field would be displaced.

Plus if space were doing the waving it'd be a gravitational wave. And be quite different.
__________________
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
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 11:29 AM   #918
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I don't reject those theories, I understand them. I understand things like intrinsic spin. It isn't something magic and mysterious. The electron doesn't have its magnetic moment for nothing. Don't dismiss the Einstein de-Haas effect.
All of which are 100% consistent with quantum-mechanical intrinsic spin. Farsight, why don't you try to work through the calculation of the Dirac value of the magnetic moment? It's calculated using the Dirac-field hypothesis, not the circling-photon hypothesis.
Quote:
When a seismic wave runs through the Earth, the Earth waves. It is displaced. When an ocean wave runs through water, the water waves. It is displaced. When an electromagnetic wave runs through space, space waves. It is displaced.
False analogy, another favorite sort of "reasoning" for theologians.
Quote:
The theological part is dismissing references to Maxwell / Einstein / Minkowski etc as "quote mining"
It's quote mining because those quotes are often out of their context and often misunderstood. Also, why is it some sort of heinous crime against science to treat those gentlemen as something other than prophets of revealed truth?
Quote:
along with dismissing references to hard factual scientific evidence.
Show me where I am supposed to have done that and explain why that is supposed to be the case.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 12:55 PM   #919
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I don't reject those theories, I understand them. I understand things like intrinsic spin. It isn't something magic and mysterious.
Really? You understand intrinsic spin? I'm skeptical. In the past, whenever you've said "I understand X", you've proceeded to spout great heaps of misunderstanding. Want to prove that? If I had told my graduate oral-exam committee "I understand intrinsic spin", they would have made me solve Peskin and Schroder problems on the blackboard. Peskin & Schroeder problem 3.1 is a good one.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2013, 02:49 PM   #920
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Creationists behave just like that when you show them fossils, strata, carbon dating, etc. That's not evidence they say, then they dish out some kind of ad-hominem insult to essentially say this man cannot be trusted, disregard everything he says, listen to me instead.
Evolutionist: Let's talk about <neat recent discovery>

Creationist: How can you claim <discovery> is right when evolution is wrong? Look, here's a picture of a flagellum from my web page. And here's a Nature News article which mentions flagella and E. coli. That's evidence that ID is right.

Evolutionist: That's not evidence.

Creationist. Also, here's a quote from Deuteronomy. Here's a picture of a flagellum again. Here's proof that 2+2=5. Here's a Wikipedia link to the flagellum. That proves 2+2=5.

Evolutionist: This creationist is a moron. He has nothing to say about <discovery> and is simply repeating his worn-out ID nonsense. Please stop letting him disrupt the thread and let's talk about <discovery> again.

Creationist: <complains>
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.