|
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. |
8th March 2013, 01:51 PM | #1001 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Its wavefunction changes. Remember wave-particle duality.
For a 360d rotation, a boson's wavefunction gets its original value, while a fermion's one gets minus its original value. For a 720d rotation, all particles get their original wavefunction values again. Let's see what happens in a rotation. Make its axis the z-axis, and its angle a: x' = x*cos(a) - y*sin(a) y' = x*sin(a) + y*cos(a) z' = z Let's make linear combinations of x and y. (x' + i*y') = (x + i*y)*exp(i*a) (x' - i*y') = (x - i*y)*exp(-i*a) z' = z For a spin-0 particle, its wavefunction is F(x). Rotating it with rotation matrix R gives F(R.x). R for the example above is {{cos(a),-sin(a),0},{sin(a),cos(a),0},{0,0,1}} The electromagnetic fields E and B rotate as R.E(R.x) and R.B(R.x), and it's easy to see that z-axis R does: (Ex' + i*Ey') = (Ex + i*Ey)*exp(i*a) (Ex' - i*Ey') = (Ex - i*Ey)*exp(-i*a) Ez' = Ez and likewise for B. Note the mixing of field components. That's why the photon has spin 1. The gravitational field h rotates in a more complicated way: h'(i,j) = R(i,i')R(j,j')h(i',j') for indices i,j,i',j' -- h is a symmetric 2-tensor. (hxx' + hyy') = (hxx + hyy) (hxx' + 2i*hxy' - hyy') = (hxx + 2i*hxy - hyy)*exp(2i*a) (hxx' - 2i*hxy' - hyy') = (hxx - 2i*hxy - hyy)*exp(-2i*a) (hxz' + i*hyz) = (hxz + i*hyz)*exp(i*a) (hxz' - i*hyz') = (hxz - i*hyz)*exp(-i*a) hzz' = hzz More mixing, and twice as much rotation of some components. That's why the graviton has spin 2. Half-odd spin is more difficult. Let's only do spin 1/2. One has to do the quaternion version of the rotation matrices on their wavefunctions: X(x) becomes Q.X(R.X). Quaternions are related to ordinary rotation matrices by R ~ Q.Q, more-or-less a square. So Q and -Q will give the same R. For the rotation here, we get X1' = X1*exp(i*a/2) X2' = X2*exp(-i*a/2) for components {X1,X2} of X. Rotating 360d will turn X1 and X2 into -X1 and -X2, and rotating 720d will get X1 and X2 back. |
8th March 2013, 02:40 PM | #1002 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
Thanks lpetrich! Quite a bit above my level, I fear, but I'm getting the gist of it. What I'm not getting now, I'll read through in wiki.
I appreciate it! |
9th March 2013, 11:01 AM | #1003 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,758
|
How odd, then, that you haven't been able to identify any specific errors in what I've said about electromagnetism, while it's very easy to identify specific errors in what you've said about electromagnetism.
For example: Your highlighted assertions are incorrect. Coulomb's law has essentially the same form as Newton's law of gravitation, so a negatively charged particle can be in circular orbit around a positively charged body just as planets can have circular orbits around stars. That's circular motion caused by a purely electric field. Ampère's force law (for the simple case of two parallel conductors) describes a Lorentz force that, left unopposed, results in linear motion caused by a purely magnetic field. This example of magnetic fields causing linear motion is the basis for our current definition of the ampere. The physicists here would be a lot more likely to say Farsight is right about this if Farsight were right about this. |
Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 9th March 2013 at 11:21 AM. Reason: corrected link, added parenthetical in gray |
|
9th March 2013, 06:37 PM | #1004 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Taking a break from Farsight's science-done-like-theology, I wish to note the numbers that the ATLAS and CMS teams have gotten for the Higgs particle.
Mass: ATLAS 2-photon: 126.8 +0.34-0.30 GeV ATLAS 4-lepton: 124.3 +0.8-0.6 GeV CMS 4-lepton: 125.8 +-0.5 GeV ATLAS's double vision is decreasing, and the combined result is 125.6 +- 0.6 GeV Rates: 2-photon: ATLAS 1.65 +0.56-0.42, CMS 1.56 +-0.43 4-lepton: ATLAS 1.7 +0.5-0.4, CMS 0.91 +0.30-0.24 WW: ATLAS 1.5+-0.6, CMS 0.72+-0.21 2-tau: ATLAS 0.9+--0.4 2-b-quark: -0.4 +-0.7 +-0.8 Source: Latest news on the Higgs boson - Quantum Diaries The 2-photon decay is not a lowest-order or tree-level decay, but a next-order or one-loop decay: the Higgs particle makes a virtual charged particle-antiparticle pair, and these two then annihilate, making two photons. The largest contribution comes from the W particle, with the top quark next at about -1/4 of the W's contribution. Though its rate has been higher than the Standard Model's prediction, that excess is a little over 1 standard deviation, and is likely some statistical artifact. An effect that would make it greater would be some additional charged particles that the Higgs can make, though their effect would be insignificant unless their mass was not much greater than the Higgs-particle mass. The 4-lepton decay is a result of decay into two Z particles. Because of the Higgs particle's mass, one of them is virtual. Likewise, in the WW decay, one of the W's is virtual. One must not forget how the Higgs particles are created. From the Standard Model, the strongest process in the LHC turns out to be "gluon fusion", like the Higgs-particle 2-photon decay, but in reverse, and with gluons instead of photons. The top quark makes the largest contribution here. The gluons make a virtual top-antitop pair, and they then annihilate to make a Higgs particle. The gluons were originally gluons that had bound the protons -- the LHC and other big hadron accelerators can be interpreted as light-quark and gluon accelerators. So what these rate tests are testing is the Higgs-top interaction multiplied by the Higgs-W, the Higgs-Z, the Higgs-tau, and the Higgs-bottom interactions. So far, these combinations agree with the Standard Model, though the error bars are not much smaller than the results themselves for the W, Z, and tau, and the error bar is bigger than the result for the b. Sources: Higgs bosonWP, Higgs physics at the LHC |
9th March 2013, 09:12 PM | #1005 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
"Farsight physics", as it may be called, has further problems, like treating analogies for nontechnical readers as somehow truer than the mathematical statements of theories.
There's also a certain lack of predictive value, like lack of prediction of rates of pair production and annihilation. Mainstream physics can, however, make those predictions, and it does so with theories contrary to "Farsight physics". To see how these predictions work, let's consider a Feynman vertex for an electron, positron, and photon coming out of a point. It describes all these processes:
creation of e- ~ destruction of e+ creation of e+ ~ destruction of e- the photon is its own antiparticle Thus, electron-photon scattering, positron-photon scattering, electron-positron pair production from photons, and electron-positron annihilation into photons are all related effects, and one can successfully predict their rates using their interrelationships. Electrons do not have to be circling photons, and there's no evidence that they are, and plenty of evidence that they aren't, like their electric charge and their having spin 1/2 instead of some integer value. Returning to the Higgs particle, this is how one can calculate part of its rate of production at the LHC, and also part of its rate of 2-photon decay, all from the mass of the top quark. Complete with success to within experimental limits. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
10th March 2013, 12:59 AM | #1006 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Quote:
The above exchange also brings us a classic example of the nature of crackpot physics. The crackpot has touchy-feely notions (usually incomplete and often dead wrong) while the science itself can only be completely described mathematically and understood only by those who have made the necessary effort. |
__________________
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 March 2013, 06:33 AM | #1007 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
I don't know that I would call them, "chats". In a chat, two or more people exchange information and ask and answer questions. You seem to have never, or at best very rarely, answered a question.
You still have not answered very basic questions about your position, such as how waving your hands around constitutes a proof that motion exists. |
10th March 2013, 07:34 AM | #1008 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Yes.
I've told you what physicists have said: that the Higgs mechanism is a "crutch", and "the toilet of the standard model", that it's said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter and so doesn't solve "the mystery of mass". And that the cosmic treacle is nonsense, which Susskind backed up, and the Higgs boson gets its mass from the kinetic energy given to the protons, that the "bump" could be anything, and that . None of this disproves the existence of the Higgs, just as nothing disproves the existence of unicorns, but it ought to be informative and of interest to somebody on skeptics discussion forum. I'm the one giving the references to experiment and Einstein and to physicists telling it as it is. There aren't any learned scientists here dissembling what I've said. If there was, you'd be able to link to it, wouldn't you? Instead of posting what is essentially all ad-hominem and no physics. Let's stick to the physics please. |
10th March 2013, 08:10 AM | #1009 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Yes. I don't think he's got everything right, but I think that in the fullness of time it will be acknowledged that he got some very important things right. Like (quasi) spherical harmonics underlie the electron itself, not just electron atomic orbitals.
Originally Posted by edd:9058301
It's more than just an imperfect analogy, edd. Like Susskind said, it's just wrong, but it's been trotted out by CERN and others a great deal. Search CERN on treacle. Surely this plus everything else you've learned on this thread arouses at least the merest spark of skepticism in you? |
10th March 2013, 08:21 AM | #1010 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
Do you actually believe that this is true?
For one thing, it seems clear that it is false that you are making references to experiments. While some of the discussion here is actually about the relevant experiments and the relevant physics, you have consistently denied reference to the applications of physics and instead stuck with popular statements taken out of context. For another, we can see many times throughout this thread references to actual papers and physical principles that contradict your (at best) popular science understanding of physics. We see from the people that you disagree with that they provide actual scientific claims that produce predictions or the potential for measurements that we can use to evaluate these theories. You, on the other hand, carefully avoid any attempt to test your theories other than compare them to the English language (or translation) claims of scientists and not their specific physical claims made in such a way as we could evaluate them with observations. You cannot even answer basic questions about how someone could begin to compare your claims to physical events. |
10th March 2013, 08:37 AM | #1011 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
TQFT is no daydream, nor is pair production, nor is Boldimir & Hammond's Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems. Nor is the proposal for the kilogram. See the Watt balance section of the wiki kilogram article and note this: "By fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter." The second and the meter are defined using c which relates to ɛ and μ.
My weapons are hard scientific evidence and references to papers and articles and what Einstein and others, including CERN physicists, actually say. Your only weapon is to duck the physics and attempt ridicule instead. Only it isn't a weapon at all. It doesn't work, ben. |
10th March 2013, 08:46 AM | #1012 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Huh? No. You create an electron in pair production, along with a positron. Charge is conserved like angular momentum is conserved. In our subatomic world of fields and waves there's nothing to "brace on". You can't make a spinor like this without making one with the opposite chirality. Have a browse on topological charge.
|
10th March 2013, 09:40 AM | #1013 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
See my post to ben above where I referred to the kilogram proposal. See this: "If the kilogram is redefined in this manner, mass artifacts—physical objects calibrated in a watt balance, including the IPK—would no longer be part of the definition, but would instead become transfer standards". And note that M isn't sort-of fundamental and neither is Q, because we can create mass and charge in pair production where we start with the photon E=hf and (in the rest frame of the electron) end up with m=E/c². You can also stick the photon in a mirror box wherein it will add mass to the system. When you open the box it's a radiating body that loses mass. The box of course alters the path of the photon and adds a little geometry or topology if you prefer.
He's no prophet, he's "a very distinguished figure in the circles of electromagnetic scholarship". What makes you such a prophet of revealed truth that you dismiss what Einstein and Maxwell and Minkowski and others like Percy Hammond actually say? I don't disdain mathematics. I've said repeatedly that mathematics is a vital tool for science. The point I've also made is that you can't use mathematics do define the terms you use in mathematics. Miss that and you end up going round in circles defining terms in terms of each other. Here's The Role of Potentials in Electromagnetism by Percy Hammond. He says things like Linkage demands a closed curve, which is a topological feature and not a local geometrical one. A closed curve cannot be replaced by an open one. He mentions the word analogy when speaking of vector potential, but that's in the Physical Significance section, and when he said We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction, he meant it. Poof! Magic! Virtual particles are virtual. They aren't real particles. And in plain-vanilla electron-positron annihilation you're dealing with circa 2 x 511keV, and the typical result is two 511keV photons. How are they produced then? By magic? Like the same magic that was used in gamma-gamma pair production to make the electron and the positron in the first place? There isn't the energy for an 80GeV vector boson and a 125GeV Higgs. Not unless you're using magic. See above, I don't disdain the maths. Instead it's serious physicists I refer to who you disdain. They'll do the work. They aren't my theories. I'm not some my-theory guy. I refer to Einstein and others remember? The people you dismiss. |
10th March 2013, 09:54 AM | #1014 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
I'll just make a note as a random guy watching from the sidelines: Farsight, I don't have the knowledge you and the others have, but even as an arm-chair science cheerleader, it's painfully obvious to me that you're not holding your own here. Whenever you make a statement, the others take great pains to point out how you are wrong and why you are wrong. When they make a statement, you retort with out of context quotes and links to long-proven-wrong papers either taken in correct-but-wrong context or out of context.
I honestly think you're out of your league here. Sorry. |
10th March 2013, 10:03 AM | #1015 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
We argue here about the nature of intrinsic spin, but a moebius strip has a spin ½ feature. You go round twice to end up back as you started.
No. I don't think anybody says this. I've referred to this little-known paper that depicts the electron like this with a compound spin. It's a "moebius doughnut" if you like, but actually I think it would be better depicted as a fatter torus, more like an apple. Sorry, I have to go, it's something like it always looks the same regardless of rotation but don't quote me. |
10th March 2013, 10:32 AM | #1016 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
(a) TQFT, in the version relevant to particle physics, is a hypothesis. There is no evidence it is true.
(b) TQFT, in the versions relevant to particle physics, is and incomplete hypothesis. TQFT has not actually predicted any masses successfully. It's not obvious that it would do so even if complete. (c) The success of (mainstream, relativistic, quantum, stringy) TQFT has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of Farsightism. Just because it is "topological", and you daydream about your own theory being "topological", does not mean that you're talking about the same thing. TQFT is using topology a set of mathematical truths which can be applied to physics. Farsightism uses "topology" as a synonym for "I drew some geometrical pictures and I fancy myself pretty smart, so stop criticizing".
Quote:
Either the meter or the second are chosen arbitrarily by humans. Once you choose one, you use the speed-of-light to define the other. We said "hey, let's choose the second to be 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium maser". That's an arbitrary human choice; there is no way to derive 9,192,631,770 from the laws of physics. Once we make that choice, though, the laws of physics fix the length of the distance unit "light-second". The traditional "meter" is 1/299792458 of a light-second. You can do it the other way around. Declare, arbitrarily, that *this iridium stick* 1/299792458 of a time-unit. Then use the speed of light to figure out how long it takes to traverse the iridium stick. That determines your time unit. |
10th March 2013, 10:53 AM | #1017 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
Sure, but a moebius strip involves tracing a surface. So far as I know anyway, particles don't have surfaces.
Haven't read it, can't at the moment being at work, but I can take a look later. But I'm quite sure it'll be above my minimal expertise in this area. That's what I hear. That's the part that confuses me, I suppose. What does it matter with spin if it always looks the same anyway? Then I tell myself I'm being far too literal and know too little about the subject. |
10th March 2013, 12:01 PM | #1018 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
On a side note, I had an odd dream last night about all of this. I dreamt that we'd developed some kind of higgs field manipulator. We tried to send a rocket into orbit on a tiny amount of fuel simply by making everything but the fuel less massive. It failed... the engine blew right through the entire rocket like it was made of paper.
|
10th March 2013, 12:38 PM | #1019 |
Data Ghost
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
|
Farsight mentioned that Williamson / van der Mark article in his first few posts in these forums (in a thread to do with FTL travel, started by someone else), and tried to defend that idea in his Relativity+ thread. It was not a successful endeavour.
In simple terms, it boils down to this: a photon - even a photon forced to wrap itself around some tortuous path in space - cannot be a source or sink of electric field lines, because it is electrically neutral. The entire counterargument to that simple point consists of distractions involving Mobius bands and topology, and papers about knotted interference patterns (which, to be fair, are interesting despite being irrelevant to the argument). It's almost exactly like watching someone try to defend an elaborate design for a perpetual motion machine, which works using large magnets and steam-power. This idea seems to form the basis of a few crackpot "theories" (I use scare quotes, as these are often just incoherent collections of vague ideas). In the case of Relativity+, the hope was that the Higgs mechanism would not be needed, as you'd be able to prove that (a) photons could wrap themselves up and look like a massive particle, (b) that particle would appear to be charged, and (c) only photons of a particular wavelength would be capable of folding up in the right way. Whenever asked to show that these things are even possible (with actual calculations, rather than text-parsing and hand-waving), no adequate answers have ever been forthcoming, AFAIAA. |
10th March 2013, 12:39 PM | #1020 |
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 |
|
10th March 2013, 12:42 PM | #1021 |
Data Ghost
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
|
I'll just add, that I've enjoyed reading lpetrich's posts on the thread topic. As far as I can follow them, they have been very interesting indeed. Thanks.
|
10th March 2013, 12:52 PM | #1022 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
Aye. That's why I lurk in threads like these... I usually do not get everything that is going on, but I take an interest in it, and perhaps I'm learning a little by ocular osmosis.
|
10th March 2013, 02:19 PM | #1023 |
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 |
|
10th March 2013, 03:51 PM | #1024 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Wrong, Farsight..
It is an simile, Farsight. It would be extremely stupid to think that space is actually full of cosmic treacle. The Higgs field is actually like a giant vat of molasses spread throughout the universe. It is also like a crowd of friends of the particle. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
10th March 2013, 04:07 PM | #1025 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
You keep on parroting this trivially true stuff Farsight.
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
10th March 2013, 04:24 PM | #1026 |
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 March 2013, 04:52 PM | #1027 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Quoting out of context. The context being a problem with the Standard Model with unbroken electroweak symmetry: everything would be massless in it, something that we clearly don't observe. "Massless" meaning zero rest mass.
What the Higgs particle does is give most of the other SM particles rest masses. The only exceptions are the photon and the gluon.
Quote:
Quote:
(H-top)*(H-W), (H-top)*(H-Z), and (H-top)*(H-tau) all agree with the Standard Model to within experimental limits. The error bars are still rather large, but that's a result of statistics. That's for turning Planck's constant into a units factor rather than something measured. The other quantities you mentioned, c, ɛ and μ are also officially units factors.
Quote:
With a photon or a Z, yes, but a W produces an electron and a neutrino. In fact, pair production is very general. A theologian's sort of argument. It's the theories that count, not the people.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So what? Quantum-mechanical angular-momentum operators are connected to rotation generators by (angular momentum) ~ (hbar) * (rotation generators) So rotation R(w) = exp(i*(w.L)/hbar) Let's do it around the z-axis. Then R(a) = exp(a*d/d(phi)) For a wavefunction X that varies as exp(i*m*phi), we find R(a).X = exp(i*m*a)*X For rotation by 360d, we get R(360d).X = exp(2pi*i*m)*X = exp(2pi*i*j)*exp(-2pi*i*(j-m))*X = exp(2pi*i*j)*X since j - m = nonnegative integer for total angular momentum j. Thus, R(360d).X = (-1)2j*X for rotation around any axis. Thus, a 360d rotation of a boson (integer j) gets the original wavefunction again, while a 360d rotation of a fermion (half-odd j) reverses its wavefunction's sign. A 720d rotation gets the original wavefunction again in both cases. Farsight, this is the sort of thing that one learns in advanced-undergraduate or graduate quantum-mechanics courses. It's all in Angular momentum operatorWP. |
11th March 2013, 05:37 PM | #1028 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Whoops. Missed this nonsense and repeated ignorance from you, Farsight!
You have mentioned a couple of unattributed quotes from a couple of physicists. You have provided no context. This has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the Higgs mechanism. You still cannot understand that the Higgs mechanism actually is (not "said to be'") responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter (the rest is binding energy) and solves "the mystery of mass". As written on 5th February 2013: This is not hardly even physics. It is simple mathentaics, Farsight! Mass of proton = 938 MevAnything in this that you do not understand, Farsight? |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
12th March 2013, 02:09 PM | #1029 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Nothing has. And even the standard model isn't complete. I'm surprised you're attacking TQFT with this line. It's not some notion dreamt up by some amateur.
Michael Atiyah was at ABB50/25 talking to Qiu-Hong Hu about the electron knot. It isn't wrong. Go and read about it instead of launching into outraged denial because you've got nothing. If you had something you'd lay it out. That maser is an optical device. It emits light waves at your detector. You can't refer to frequency which is cycles per second when you're defining the second. So you're effectively counting 9,192,631,770 microwaves and then declaring that a second has elapsed. Then you use the motion of light and the second to define the metre. And wherever you define the second and the metre, you then use them to measure the local speed of light. So you always measure it to be 299,792,458 m/s. Your definition makes the speed of light constant, despite the fact that light clocks at different elevations don't keep time. You still use the motion of light though, and you still end up measuring the local speed to be 299,792,458 m/s. NB: the length of the stick is 1/299792458 of a distance-unit, not a time-unit. I'm surprised nobody picked that up. |
12th March 2013, 02:29 PM | #1030 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
That they don't. But a moebius strip does have a topology, and as per this mathspages article: "In this sense a Mobius strip is reminiscent of spin-1/2 particles in quantum mechanics, since such particles must be rotated through two complete rotations in order to be restored to their original state". And TQFT isn't some discredited amateur thesis like ben would have you think.
Just look at picture. Note though that as you said there is no surface. The "onion-ring" contours showing on the slice through the torus should keep getting bigger. When it comes to spin 0 I'd say it doesn't matter as much. Helium-4 atom has spin 0, but it's composite. To get to the bottom of mass we focus on the "elementary" particle that we've actually seen and is common: the electron. Your "out of your league" comment above noted by the way. But do note that you understand what I say. You don't understand the refutations, or what lpetrich says. Think on that. |
12th March 2013, 02:56 PM | #1031 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I haven't made any specific errors. You have.
Aaargh! There is no such thing as a purely electric field! When you move through an "electric field" you start to see a "magnetic field" too. Not because you create it, but because you start to see another aspect of the electromagnetic field. Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism a hundred and fifty years ago. And how many times do I have to tell you what Minkowski said over a hundred years ago: "Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis the most perspicious way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete"..." How many times do I have to tell you about Jackson's Classical Electromagnetism. Use the read online option and put double quotes around a phrase to search for it. See section 1.2 where he says "Although the thing that eventually gets measured is a force" and "At the moment the electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a given point". Then see section 11.10 where he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately". You still don't understand even the first thing about electromagnetism, Clinger. Aaargh! There's no such thing as a purely magnetic field. Each wire consists of moving electrons and static protons, all with their electromagnetic fields. Throw an electron past a wire and you see helical motion. That isn't linear motion. But two sets of helical motion result in linear motion. That's why Minkowski referred to a wrench and Maxwell referred to a screw. They won't say I'm right even though they know I'm right because they're not being sincere. Now go and look up what I've told you, and verify it for yourself. |
12th March 2013, 03:24 PM | #1032 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It was the same old same old. See below.
That's specious ctamblyn, and you know it. We create an electron and a positron from a photon in pair production. Together they have no net charge. We can diffract the electron. It has a wave nature. Then we can annihilate the electron and positron and we typically get two 511keV photons. With no net charge. Charge is conserved. And don't try and make out that you've never heard of topological charge, or that Topological Quantum Field Theory is some crackpot junk. Pity I referred to mathspages about that. And don't give me perpetual motion machines. How do you think the electron's charge gets created? Magic? I'm here because Einstein said The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, and that a if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². What do you think happens in annihilation, when there's no body left? Magic? To defend Einstein I have to tell you about the electron and electromagnetism, and much else. ETA: If you can follow them, perhaps you'd like to explain the to Mister Earl and others. But you can't. Emperor's New Clothes! |
12th March 2013, 03:26 PM | #1033 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
TQFT is not a notion dreamed up by an amateur. However, an amateur (you) dreamed up the idea that TQFT bears any resemblance whatsoever to Farsightism. This same amateur chose to cite "TQFT" as a rebuttal to a post complaining about Farsightism's amateur mass-spectrum speculations.
I did not attacking TQFT. I'm attacking Farsightism and your imaginary Farsight-style pseudo-citation of TQFT.
Quote:
The maser is not a light clock. It's an atomic clock. The maser looks at an atomic transition frequency---which is really an electron system, not a photon system. The atom is the thing doing the oscillating, and the microwaves are basically a readout technology. If you look at the microwaves and say "well, you're counting light"---well, I may as well say the same thing about a mechanical watch, which I "read out" by reflecting sunlight off the dial and into my eyes. You could---less practically, of course---define the second as "454545 half lives of a muon at rest". You could define the second as "10^8 times the frequency of the neutral kaon oscillation". In fact, you can define the second as "1/86000 of the sidereal rotation of the Earth". |
12th March 2013, 03:30 PM | #1034 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,758
|
Once again, Farsight is arguing against Einstein.
According to Einstein, I'm allowed to use a coordinate system that's at rest with respect to the charged body around which a negatively charged particle is moving in a circular orbit. In that Einstein-sanctioned coordinate system, the magnetic field is zero. Nonzero electric field, zero magnetic field, with circular motion, all according to Einstein, but not according to Farsight. That book's in my personal library. Unlike Farsight, I can actually read some of its equations. Yet I passed the course, and Farsight's been giving proof he hasn't. According to Einstein, I'm allowed to use a coordinate system in which the electric field is zero but the magnetic field is nonzero. In that Einstein-sanctioned coordinate system, I see linear motion resulting from a purely magnetic field. Farsight's accusing the physicists of dishonesty. I've done the math, starting with a derivation of Maxwell's equations, and I've used Maxwell's equations to verify all of the magnetic fields I've mentioned in this thread. Farsight can't do the math (and can't even get his units right), so he just repeats his empty assertions and declares victory, even as he argues against Einstein. |
12th March 2013, 03:45 PM | #1035 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No edd. It's all down to c and h and wave harmonics, which are not wholly different to the spherical harmonics in atomic orbitals where electrons exist as standing waves. There you've got an electron going round and round a proton. You can diffract an electron. It has a wave nature. You made it in pair production along with a positron, from an E=hf photon, which also has a wave nature. Photons travel linearly at c, electrons don't. They have a spin ½ feature and a magnetic moment and E=mc² mass and their topological charge instead. What was a wave, a field variation, is now a standing wave and a standing field. One day you'll hear about something similar from an authoritative source. You'll understand that an electron exists as a standing wave going round and round because it's interacting with itself. And you'll lap it up. You just heard it here first is all. This is where you were disabused of magic.
Right, I'm off to bed. |
12th March 2013, 05:04 PM | #1036 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic
No, Farsight. It is all down to your fantasies about c and h and wave harmonics. We cannot rely on these fantasies because you are so in denial of the Higgs mechanism that you cannot even acknowledge that it is a relativistic QFT (and so does not violate E=mc^2).
But maybe I am wrong and you can finally answer: Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic? First asked 19 November 2012 114 days and counting, Farsight! The above question was as a follow-up to: Farsight: Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory? i.e. is it is based on special relativity and is thus consistent with E=mc^2. First pointed out 1 November 2012 and Farsight: It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates SR First poined out 20 November 2012. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
12th March 2013, 05:17 PM | #1037 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Wrong again, Farsight !
Electrons in atomic orbitals do not exist as standing waves. Electrons in atomic orbitals do not go "round and round a proton". That is "lie to chidren" that is told to young children. Electrons in atomic orbitals exist as probabilities of detecting them. That results in things such as sphericlal (not standing wave), doughnut (not standing wave), dumbbell (not standing wave), etc. shaped atomic orbitals. You can diffract an electon. It has a wave nature. Duh ! You can scatter an electron. It has a particle nature. Duh ! You can make an electron along with a positron in pair production. Duh ! Photons travel linearly at c, electrons don't. Duh ! Electrons have a spin ½ feature and a magnetic moment and mass. Duh ! Still wrong, Farsight ! Electrons do not have topological charge. A couple of more weeks and Farsight would not have been able to understand this after 3 years now!
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
12th March 2013, 06:15 PM | #1038 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
No, it is nonsense. He's dimensionally incorrect - his units are utter poppycock, just like my example of quoting a chemical concentration in units of a financial currency. You don't even have to know what the properties of an electron are to know that it's wrong. And you've never admitted (to my knowledge) that it is the case that he must be wrong. It has nothing to do with c, h, spherical harmonics or atoms at all. His formula would be just as wrong if applied to a proton, a teapot, or my fictitious pet cat Alfred, because it is literally nonsensical.
Why don't you admit that? Could it be because you don't understand why it's nonsensical? You certainly came up with a complete non sequitur of an argument when lpetrich brought up dimensional analysis not that many posts ago, after all. |
__________________
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 |
|
13th March 2013, 12:08 PM | #1039 |
Data Ghost
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
|
Sorry, but nothing you have posted addresses what I said. Photons are neutral, and a finite simply connected region of space containing a bunch of photons therefore cannot - no matter what those photons are doing - have a net flux of E across its surface - i.e. it will always appear to be neutral. Then of course there is the troublesome matter of the photon being a boson, while the electron is a fermion, so there are entirely different statistics for the two particles. It's a hopeless endeavour. You might have had slightly better luck making a twisted photon an integer-spin neutral particle, I guess, but there is still another problem: there is absolutely no known mechanism that will make a photon curl up in that way. Photons simply don't do that. And if they did, there is no length-scale built into Maxwell's equations that would restrict the mass of the resulting particle to a particular value. Of course, this has all been explained before.
If you want to continue to talk about your loopy photon model I suggest continuing in your R+ thread, where I'd be happy to discuss it further. In the meantime perhaps now we can get back to the thread topic, of the experimental testing of a rather more successful model. |
13th March 2013, 05:11 PM | #1040 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Quote:
Except there's nothing there. What is "all down to" c and h? Every time you tried to explain "it", you spewed high-school-grade unit errors, ignorance, and vague analogies. Who do you think is falling for this? I mean, half of the point of the modern scientific method---the peer-review, the demands for reproducibility, the clear mathematical language, the error bars---is to prevent people from pretending to understand things they don't. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|