|
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. |
7th February 2013, 12:16 PM | #881 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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. |
7th February 2013, 12:19 PM | #882 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
7th February 2013, 12:48 PM | #883 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Take a closer look at theological "reasoning" some time, and you'll see what I mean.
(Wikipedia as a sacred book...)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(Can't get a fermion from a boson...)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(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. |
7th February 2013, 01:06 PM | #884 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
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.) |
7th February 2013, 01:25 PM | #885 |
Great Dalmuti
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 |
|
7th February 2013, 02:09 PM | #886 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
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:
|
7th February 2013, 02:35 PM | #887 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
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.) |
7th February 2013, 05:00 PM | #888 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
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.
Some actual Farsight theological-like woo ! You're clutching at straws and engaging in wishful thinking, Farsight. 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 ! 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. No connection with dark matter. 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. 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:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
7th February 2013, 05:35 PM | #889 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
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 claim for postdiction is ridulous given the many Higgs-mass predictions
Quote:
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. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
7th February 2013, 05:47 PM | #890 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
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:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
7th February 2013, 06:25 PM | #891 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
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:
Quote:
There is a siimple physical reason why the Dirac equation treats the electron as a point particle
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
8th February 2013, 11:44 AM | #892 |
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" |
10th February 2013, 02:50 AM | #893 |
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. |
10th February 2013, 03:05 AM | #894 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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.
|
10th February 2013, 03:22 AM | #895 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,382
|
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. |
10th February 2013, 03:48 AM | #896 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
That is NOT a literal space-time curvature, but a curvature-like quantity in the electromagnetic fields themselves.
Quote:
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:
|
10th February 2013, 04:04 AM | #897 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
|
10th February 2013, 07:45 AM | #898 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
10th February 2013, 08:01 AM | #899 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
10th February 2013, 08:12 AM | #900 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
10th February 2013, 01:16 PM | #901 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
10th February 2013, 01:25 PM | #902 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
10th February 2013, 01:39 PM | #903 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
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.) |
10th February 2013, 08:49 PM | #904 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
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:
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:
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. |
10th February 2013, 09:14 PM | #905 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
|
|
10th February 2013, 10:54 PM | #906 |
Illuminator
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 |
|
10th February 2013, 10:57 PM | #907 |
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. |
11th February 2013, 05:35 AM | #908 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
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:
Quote:
|
11th February 2013, 08:23 AM | #909 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
|
14th February 2013, 07:51 AM | #910 |
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 |
15th February 2013, 07:47 AM | #911 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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.
|
15th February 2013, 08:01 AM | #912 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It wasn't an insult, it was a put down in response to an insult. And it was in response to ben m.
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 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". 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. No, he hasn't. |
15th February 2013, 08:07 AM | #913 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
15th February 2013, 08:59 AM | #914 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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.
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. 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
Originally Posted by ben m
Originally Posted by ben m
Now can we get back on topic instead of me having to respond to carping naysayers trying to paint me as a theologian. |
15th February 2013, 10:55 AM | #915 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Electromagnetism is neither space-time curvature nor space-without-time curvature.
Quote:
("displacement current")
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th February 2013, 11:17 AM | #916 |
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. |
15th February 2013, 11:29 AM | #917 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
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 |
|
15th February 2013, 11:29 AM | #918 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th February 2013, 12:55 PM | #919 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
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.
|
15th February 2013, 02:49 PM | #920 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
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> |
Thread Tools | |
|
|