Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

Farsight · Mar 9, 2010

I'm John Duffield, and a few weeks back I was talking to a guy who's a member of the ISST. I was looking something up and bumped into a discussion here about causality, FTL, and time travel, so I explained why time travel is science fiction. I then got sucked into backup details that rather hijacked the thread and took us into particle physics and the standard model. apologies. Now I've been challenged to present the geometry of the electromagnetic field. I expect this to lead on to the photon and the quantum of quantum mechanics, an explanation of how pair production works, and maybe the standard model with gravity.

I don't know if you all know, but Einstein won his Nobel prize primarily for his 1905 photoelectric paper "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This established the quantum nature of light. Another paper in this his "mirabalis" year was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". This is electrodynamics and refers to Maxwell, but is considered to be Einstein's special relativity paper. Another important paper was "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" concerning mass and energy. This is where E=mc² comes from. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers for more, but note it's all rather a mixed bag, and Einstein covered rather more than some appreciate. He’s mainly remember for gravity and The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity (3.6Mbytes). IMHO people tend to forget that he was in on the ground floor of quantum mechanics in 1905, and still centre stage at the 1927 Solvay Conference:

This meeting discussed the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and Einstein essentially lost the argument. After this he was still lauded by the media and public, but became somewhat detached from the scientific mainstream. Quantum mechanics morphed into quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, and so on, but Einstein didn’t play much of a part. Instead he became something of a trophy for Princeton, working largely alone trying to unify electromagnetism and gravity to come up with a unified field theory. He died trying.

The point of all this is that electromagnetism was very important to Einstein. He had pictures of Maxwell and Faraday on the wall of his study, along with Newton. When you read the original material you get a better idea of where Einstein was coming from. For example in Relativity: the Special and General Theory he said:

Einstein said:
..according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."

Most people don't appreciate the significance of this, and don’t go back to the original German which reads die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. Put it through google translate to find out what he really said. It isn't what the textbooks say he said, and if you understand impedance you know how important this is. It's the same for Maxwell. Read his original work and it's very different to the textbook version. "Maxwell's Equations" aren't Maxwell's equations, because Heaviside rewrote them in vector form. When you read Newton’s Opticks there’s more. That's when you start feeling skeptical about what you've been taught, and start doing your own research. You find out about Einstein and Cartan and torsion, about Einstein and Gödel and time, about Maxwell and Kelvin and vortices, and about physicists and papers you’ve never heard of before.

It takes you places, and along the way, it tells you about the electromagnetic field. See what you make of this:

Farsight · Mar 9, 2010

Most people have heard of Minkowski’s Space and Time paper from 1908. They’re aware that it constituted an important development for special relativity. However very few people notice a little paragraph two pages from the back:

Minkowski said:
"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 perspicuous way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

You scratch your chin and wonder about this, then you read some more Maxwell. In particular you read On Physical Lines of Force. It’s on wikipedia, see page 53:

Maxwell said:
A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw

Now look at the right-hand rule on English wikipedia. For a current in a wire, your thumb points in the direction of the current flow, and your fingers “are curled to match the curvature and direction of the motion or the magnetic field”.

But note it’s one field, it’s the electromagnetic field, not separate electric fields and magnetic fields. Jefimenko's equations are a useful reminder in this respect. The electromagnetic field is a dual entity, there’s only one field there. Moving through an electric field doesn’t cause a magnetic field to be generated, because as Minkowski said, it’s the electromagnetic field, and it exerts force in two ways. What does it look like? It doesn’t actually look like anything, but iron filings on a piece of paper tells you that you can visualize a field. Note though that iron filings only show you a slice through a “magnetic” field, and you need to see the real-deal electromagnetic field in three dimensions. Ever done any metalwork? I have. I’ve got a variety of reamers in my toolbox, bought as a job lot from a stall in Saffron Walden years back. This kind of thing:

I pick one up and look at it from the top and it reminds me of an electric vector field, like this one from Andrew Duffy’s PY106 physics course material at http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/ :

If you’ve got a reamer, grab it in your right fist, put your left thumb on the bottom of it, and push upwards. It turns. You’re emulating the right-hand rule for the current in the wire. The reamer is giving you a picture of the electromagnetic field around a vertical column of electrons. Pushing upwards is emulating the current flow, and the rotation you can feel is the magnetic curl or rot, which is short for rotor.

Minkowski referred to a wrench and Maxwell referred to a screw because the electromagnetic field really is like this. It’s essentially a “twist” field. Motion through it results in “turn”. Or vice-versa. Turn a screw with a screwdriver and you get forward motion, so you can induce a current up the wire. Start with the forward motion like with a pump-action screwdriver and you get rotation. This is why we have dynamos and generators, because this is how the electromagnetic field is.

What does it look like for a single electron? That reamer depicts the electromagnetic field for a column of electrons at an imaginary cylindrical surface some distance round the wire. You have to use a fatter reamer to visualize the electromagnetic field for a larger cylindrical surface. Then to match the way the field diminishes with distance, the degree of twist has to reduce. So imagine a continuous series of fatter and fatter reamers, all occupying the same space, and take a horizontal slice through it. You’re also taking a horizontal slice through an electron’s electromagnetic field, and it looks like this:

That’s what the electron’s electromagnetic field would look like if you sliced through it from any direction. It’s isotropic. Let your eyes linger on it. Does it remind you of a whirlpool? A vortex? Ever heard of a vorton? Now maybe you understand what Maxwell was groping for with his vortexes. He thought an electromagnetic field was a sea of vortices, and particles moved through it. But he got it back to front.

Let's see how we get on with this before I start talking about photons.

ben m · Mar 9, 2010

Farsight said:
That’s what the electron’s electromagnetic field would look like if you sliced through it from any direction. I

No it's not. The electromagnetic field of an electron looks like a diverging electric field and a dipole magnetic field.

Kwalish Kid · Mar 9, 2010

The problem with this thread, as one who has seen this general theory before could predict, is that it is almost entirely divorced from science. How does this "present the geometry of the electromagnetic field"? How does this relate to a single experiment that one could actually do with electromagnetism?

Farsight said:
Most people have heard of Minkowski’s Space and Time paper from 1908. They’re aware that it constituted an important development for special relativity. However very few people notice a little paragraph two pages from the back:

The reason that people are unfamiliar with the passage is that few people outside of those who actually study the history of the science actually read the paper. There are far better means of studying relativity theory, means that actually teach how to relate the theory to experiments, than to read the original papers.

And why would we think that Minkowski is referring to some theory of twisting, when he is probably referring to considering a wrench to be a resultant wrench, the sum of a number of wrenches. Two systems of forces are equipollent if they have the same resultant wrench and thus they produce the same effect on rigid body motion.

Note that the above explanation actually invokes the use of wrench in classical mechanics whereas the Farsight explanation does not.

Moving through an electric field doesn’t cause a magnetic field to be generated, because as Minkowski said, it’s the electromagnetic field, and it exerts force in two ways.

What Minkowski says, if one bothers to follow the mathematics he uses, is that the electric and magnetic components of the field are determined by the system of coordinates that one uses.

In addition, if one bothers to read further into Minkowski's text rather than pick out one passage out of context that looks like it might possibly support a particular point, then one sees that Minkowski makes this point in the written word later when he points out that in 4-D spacetime, the laws of electromagnetism show their "full simplicity" and that they only become complicated when "a three dimensional space is forced upon us."

Now before Farsight begins his usual spiel about how physics isn't mathematics, I think it is instructive to turn to the end of the Minkowski paper he has cited:

Hermann Minkoswki said:
In the development of its mathematical consequences there will be ample suggestions for experimental verifications of the postulate [underlying Special Relativity], which will suffice to conciliate even those to whom the abandonment of old-established views is unsympathetic or painful, but the idea of a pre-established harmony between pure mathematics and physics.

If Farsight could demonstrate how his theory could produce predictions that would match experiments, then his theory would be believable. So far he has been unwilling or unable to present such predictions.

edd · Mar 9, 2010

I don't think you're right, Farsight, pretty much as ben m says. It's hard to tell though as I don't really know what you think that last spiral is supposed to be. If I dropped another electron next to the first, how would the two move? How does that fit with the spiral pattern you've put up there? And how does it fit with the non-spiral electric field directly above it? What would I have to do to measure that spiral?

ctamblyn · Mar 9, 2010

For the posters here with access to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler: in Figure 4.5 (page 109) there is a rather beautiful illustration of the dual of the e/m field tensor due to a point charge at rest (well, a constant-time slice through it). I tried looking for a similar diagram for the electron's field - i.e. point charge plus magnetic dipole - but have not had much luck. Has anyone here come across such a thing? Since we're being asked to visualise the electron's field I thought something like this might be helpful, but if not then on worries.

Reality Check · Mar 9, 2010

Farsight said:
I'm John Duffield, and a few weeks back I was talking to a guy who's a member of the ISST. The point of all this is that electromagnetism was very important to Einstein. He had pictures of Maxwell and Faraday on the wall of his study, along with Newton. When you read the original material you get a better idea of where Einstein was coming from. For example in Relativity: the Special and General Theory he said:

Originally Posted by Einstein
..according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position

Click to expand...

Most people don't appreciate the significance of this, and don’t go back to the original German which reads die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. Put it through google translate to find out what he really said.

A couple of general points, Farsight.
Citing a quote from Einstein (or any other authority) as the basis for a scientific theory is the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Secondly the full paragraph from the book (intended for a general audience) is:

Originally Posted by Einstein
In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlinlited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

There is nothing in this paragraph that needs a replacement for SR and GR.

I notice that Einstein is comparing SR and GR. I suspect that he is talking about the velocity of propagation of light varying with position in SR when compared to GR. This is confirmed by the start of the section where he states "Let us suppose, for instance, that we know the space-time " course " for any natural process whatsoever, as regards the manner in which it takes place in the Galileian domain relative to a Galileian body of reference K.".

INRM · Mar 9, 2010

If you had the effects of gravity factored in with quantum mechanics and the standard model you'd have a theory of everything

Myriad · Mar 9, 2010

Farsight said:
What does it look like for a single electron? That reamer depicts the electromagnetic field for a column of electrons at an imaginary cylindrical surface some distance round the wire. You have to use a fatter reamer to visualize the electromagnetic field for a larger cylindrical surface. Then to match the way the field diminishes with distance, the degree of twist has to reduce. So imagine a continuous series of fatter and fatter reamers, all occupying the same space, and take a horizontal slice through it. You’re also taking a horizontal slice through an electron’s electromagnetic field, and it looks like this:

[qimg]http://www.jbum.com/pixmagic/pinwheel.jpg[/qimg]

That’s what the electron’s electromagnetic field would look like if you sliced through it from any direction. It’s isotropic.

That doesn't seem geometrically possible. What if I looked at the electron from exactly the opposite side, but made the same slice (that is, the slice is in the same plane)? Wouldn't the spirals then be going the other way?

Then, suppose I move continuously around from one side to the other, examining perpendicular slices as I go. Wouldn't the image have to transform continuously from the clockwise pattern on one side to the counterclockwise pattern on the other?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Kwalish Kid · Mar 10, 2010

Reality Check said:
There is nothing in this paragraph that needs a replacement for SR and GR.

See, you've just fallen into his trap. He will now claim that he doesn't actually have a theory and that he's simply explaining SR & GR how Einstein understood them.

ctamblyn · Mar 10, 2010

The hypnotic spiral pattern hurts my eyes. Seriously.
What does it represent? The electric field of an electron doesn't look anything like that - the lines of E should be straight and radial. Nor does the diagram look like the lines of B in a magnetic dipole field. I'm more than a little puzzled.

Reality Check · Mar 10, 2010

Kwalish Kid said:
See, you've just fallen into his trap. He's will now claim that he doesn't actually have a theory and that he's simply explaining SR & GR how Einstein understood them.

So Farsight is a medium channeling the ghost of Einstein

!

Seriously I hope (probably in vain) that he realizes that science is not the opinions or beliefs of a few authorities. How Einstein understood SR and GR does not matter. What interpretations Farsight makes of the opinions of Einstein do not matter.

The match of SR and GR to the real universe is what makes them science. Mathematics is the language that allows these matches to be made. So far all we have seen from Farsight is pretty pictures and vague descriptions.

Farsight · Mar 10, 2010

edd said:
I don't think you're right, Farsight, pretty much as ben m says. It's hard to tell though as I don't really know what you think that last spiral is supposed to be. If I dropped another electron next to the first, how would the two move?

The two electrons would move apart. Remember they're dynamical entities, like two vortexes. In fact you can emulate this with Falaco solitons in a pond.

Dip a plate halfway into the water and stroke gently forward while lifting it clear, and you make a “U-tube” double whirlpool. Create another one angled towards the first, and repeat with various aims. When the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool is near the left-hand-side of the other, the two similar whirlpools keep clear of one another. When the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool is near the right-hand-side of the other, the two opposite whirlpools move together. That's essentially attraction and repulsion. If you aim two double whirlpools straight at one another, face on, they meet and merge and disappear. (This is best in a shallow pond with muddy bottom, when you see a surprisingly energetic kick-up). That's essentially annihilation. It's just a fluid analogy and it's by no means perfect, but it gets across the dynamical entity concept - there's this round thing there in the water that's made out of movement.

edd said:
How does that fit with the spiral pattern you've put up there? And how does it fit with the non-spiral electric field directly above it? What would I have to do to measure that spiral?

The spiral pattern is what you'd get if you tried to use a floor-polisher on a rubber sheet. The non-spiral electric field depiction shows vectors, and they tell you how your dropped-in electron moves. I'm not sure about measuring the spiral. What you measure is motion, and that depends on the initial relative motion of your electrons. If you start with a vertical stack of electrons moving upwards, your test electron doesn't move away, and instead spirals around the "magnetic field lines".

Farsight · Mar 10, 2010

Reality Check said:
A couple of general points, Farsight.
Citing a quote from Einstein (or any other authority) as the basis for a scientific theory is the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

The points I'm making are based on observable scientific evidence, which some dismiss on the authority of their textbook. The references to Einstein etc are to show that I'm not making this up. No, there's nothing in that paragraph that demands a replacement for GR. Note though that GR "subsumed" SR.

Reality Check said:
Seriously I hope (probably in vain) that he realizes that science is not the opinions or beliefs of a few authorities. How Einstein understood SR and GR does not matter. What interpretations Farsight makes of the opinions of Einstein do not matter. The match of SR and GR to the real universe is what makes them science. Mathematics is the language that allows these matches to be made. So far all we have seen from Farsight is pretty pictures and vague descriptions.

Opinions and beliefs don't matter. Scientific evidence matters, and mathematics.

Kwalish Kid · Mar 10, 2010

Farsight said:
Opinions and beliefs don't matter. Scientific evidence matters, and mathematics.

So show a little evidence! People in this thread do not believe anything about your spiral pictures because when people measure electromagnetic fields, they get something far, far different from your spiral pictures. Show us how we can measure these fields in a way that produces something like what you have shown.

So far, all you have offered is arguments from authority and claims that you have evidence without ever demonstrating these claims.

ben m · Mar 10, 2010

Farsight said:
The two electrons would move apart. Remember they're dynamical entities, like two vortexes. In fact you can emulate this with Falaco solitons in a pond.

Sorry, Farsight, but after 100 years of relativistic, quantum, and high-energy experiments there is no evidence whatsoever that electrons are "dynamical entities" of this sort, and plenty of evidence that they're not. To start with, dynamical waves like these do not obey Lorentz invariance, while all observed particles do.

The spiral pattern is what you'd get if you tried to use a floor-polisher on a rubber sheet.

But you said it represented the field of an electron. Why did you say that?

If you start with a vertical stack of electrons moving upwards, your test electron doesn't move away, and instead spirals around the "magnetic field lines".

Don't get confused by this---remember that that "magnetic field line" is a shorthand for the presence of large numbers of moving charges somewhere nearby. The spiral is the normal, expected behavior of a normal electron (or any particle which generates those outward-pointing electric fields) feeling the force due to those nearby moving charges.

Farsight · Mar 10, 2010

INRM said:
If you had the effects of gravity factored in with quantum mechanics and the standard model you'd have a theory of everything

That's what they call it. I don't like the phrase myself, I prefer unified model, but even so all I've really got is a few pointers that I've picked up from various sources to sketch a possible route forward.

Myriad said:
That doesn't seem geometrically possible. What if I looked at the electron from exactly the opposite side, but made the same slice (that is, the slice is in the same plane)? Wouldn't the spirals then be going the other way?

Yes, but it isn't an ideal depiction. It's "flat", and the electromagnetic field isn't.

Myriad said:
Then, suppose I move continuously around from one side to the other, examining perpendicular slices as I go. Wouldn't the image have to transform continuously from the clockwise pattern on one side to the counterclockwise pattern on the other?

This gets tricky, because there's two rotations here. If you look at a clock you'd normally say the hands are moving clockwise. However if it was transparent and you looked at it from the back you'd say the hands were moving anticlockwise. But if I spin the clock like a coin, you can't say the hands are going clockwise or anticlockwise. Re the spiral picture, for a better concept, assume you've got a ball of wax along with many pieces of wire. Bend each piece of wire into a Fibonacci spiral, then lie it flat on your desk and bend it up into a Fibonnaci spiral in an orthogonal direction. So it's chiral and "curly". Now stick the wires into the ball working your way around each meridian.

ctamblyn said:
The hypnotic spiral pattern hurts my eyes. Seriously.
What does it represent? The electric field of an electron doesn't look anything like that - the lines of E should be straight and radial. Nor does the diagram look like the lines of B in a magnetic dipole field. I'm more than a little puzzled.

The electromagnetic field of an electron. I showed the radial electric vectors in my second post. Can we come back to the electron magnetic dipole moment later? For now consider that it's of no concern, and consider this gedankenexperiment: you are very small, with a vertical stack of electrons motionless in front of you. You have an electron-tipped wand with which you can feel the electromagnetic field. Take it slowly and you can feel out a cylinder of repulsion. Now swipe the wand down past the stack of electrons, and the end of your wand moves in circles. You're still feeling the electromagnetic field. There aren't two fields there, only one, and it exerts force in two different ways.

ben m · Mar 10, 2010

Farsight said:
Now swipe the wand down past the stack of electrons, and the end of your wand moves in circles.

No it doesn't. The magnetic *field* is pointing in circles, but that makes you feel a repulsive force---the force due to a magnetic field does not point along the magnetic field, but orthogonal to it. (In vector terms F = qv x B; that's a cross product.)

ctamblyn · Mar 10, 2010

Farsight said:
If you start with a vertical stack of electrons moving upwards, your test electron doesn't move away, and instead spirals around the "magnetic field lines".

[qimg]http://www.mdahlem.net/img/astro/elgyro.jpg[/qimg]

Further to ben m's post, the vertical B-field you show in this picture does indeed lead to the depicted electron moving in a spiral, but this B-field is not what you get from a vertical stack of electrons moving upwards, which would instead give B-field lines going in circles around the current, and the force on the electron would point away from the line. It's fairly simple to understand if you transform to the rest frame of the line charge, in which the e/m field is purely electric and points away from the line.

Reality Check · Mar 10, 2010

Farsight said:
Opinions and beliefs don't matter. Scientific evidence matters, and mathematics.

That is correct.
I am eagerly waiting for the mathematics behind your theory (so far I have only seen pretty pictures). Some scientific evidence would be nice too.

RussDill · Mar 10, 2010

A) Stop mentioning scientists, what they did, when, why, what they said, etc. All useless fluff. The are not oracles or prophets like some sort of religion. Instead mention theories, experiments, equations, etc.

B) Please to show an experiment that has a behavior that is not properly predicted by current models, but is properly predicted by your model. The proper math is necessary here. Its ok to just start with some thought experiments.

C) If your model predicts the same thing as current models, show how your model has less assumptions than current models, eg, use your model to predict the mass of an electron for us.

Otherwise, continue to babble incoherently and without any relevance whatsoever.

Farsight · Mar 11, 2010

ctamblyn said:
Further to ben m's post, the vertical B-field you show in this picture does indeed lead to the depicted electron moving in a spiral, but this B-field is not what you get from a vertical stack of electrons moving upwards, which would instead give B-field lines going in circles around the current, and the force on the electron would point away from the line.

Yes, as per the right-hand-rule diagram I showed earlier:

The typical result is braided galactic jets, where two streams of charged particles moving at different velocities spiral around one another.

RealityCheck: this isn't my theory, what I'm trying to get across here is the dualism of the electromagnetic field, as per Minkowski's wrench and Maxwell's screw. It isn't two distinct vector fields, it's one field. The motion of the electron that is described by vectors is the result of the field disposition and the dynamical nature of the electron itself. See the wiki page re dualism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field#Dynamics_of_the_electromagnetic_field

"In the past, electrically charged objects were thought to produce two types of field associated with their charge property. An electric field is produced when the charge is stationary with respect to an observer measuring the properties of the charge, and a magnetic field (as well as an electric field) is produced when the charge moves (creating an electric current) with respect to this observer. Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole — the electromagnetic field."

The scientific evidence is in electron properties and how the electron moves in an electromagnetic field.

RussDill: referring to Einstein, Minkowski and Maxwell is not "useless fluff". I've mentioned theories such as relativity and quantum electrodynamics and Jefimenko's equations. I'll show an experiment that has a behaviour that is not properly predicted by current models - pair production, and I'll show you some proper math for the electron. No, I can't predict the mass of the electron, but I can tell you why the fine structure constant takes the value it does, and why it's a running constant. But you'll doubtless dismiss it all.

Tubbythin · Mar 11, 2010

Farsight said:
I'll show an experiment that has a behaviour that is not properly predicted by current models - pair production,

Huh?!?

and I'll show you some proper math for the electron. No, I can't predict the mass of the electron, but I can tell you why the fine structure constant takes the value it does, and why it's a running constant. But you'll doubtless dismiss it all.

I wasn't aware we needed another explanation why it is a running constant.

Reality Check · Mar 11, 2010

Farsight said:
RealityCheck: this isn't my theory, what I'm trying to get across here is the dualism of the electromagnetic field, as per Minkowski's wrench and Maxwell's screw. It isn't two distinct vector fields, it's one field. The motion of the electron that is described by vectors is the result of the field disposition and the dynamical nature of the electron itself. See the wiki page re dualism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field#Dynamics_of_the_electromagnetic_field

That is standard physics . The electromagnetic field is a single field made up of 2 components (the electric field and the magnetic field).

This does not excuse the fact that your image is not of the electron’s electromagnetic field. But then you admitted that the image is notthing to do with electrons:

Originally Posted by Farsight
The spiral pattern is what you'd get if you tried to use a floor-polisher on a rubber sheet.

Farsight said:
The scientific evidence is in electron properties and how the electron moves in an electromagnetic field.

And again - standard physics. Well known and treateed by the existing scientific theories.

Why are you telling everyone what any one with a basic science education already knows?

I suggest that if you want to have a thread about standard electromagnetic theory then you start a new one.

Reality Check · Mar 11, 2010

Farsight said:
I'll show an experiment that has a behaviour that is not properly predicted by current models - pair production, and I'll show you some proper math for the electron.

Farsight:
Do you mean that current models do not predict pair production at all?
Or is there some aspect of pair production that is not seen in current models?

In either case a full description of this assertion with the supporting evidence (e.g. citations to the experiments that show the discrepancies with theory) would be appreciated.

ctamblyn · Mar 11, 2010

OK, so I take it that you're retracting this statement:

Farsight said:
If you start with a vertical stack of electrons moving upwards, your test electron doesn't move away, and instead spirals around the "magnetic field lines".

[qimg]http://www.mdahlem.net/img/astro/elgyro.jpg[/qimg]

ctamblyn · Mar 11, 2010

Farsight said:
No, I can't predict the mass of the electron, but I can tell you why the fine structure constant takes the value it does, and why it's a running constant. But you'll doubtless dismiss it all.

You can show why the fine structure constant is approximately 1/137? I'd be very interested in seeing that.

Kwalish Kid · Mar 11, 2010

Farsight said:
RealityCheck: this isn't my theory, what I'm trying to get across here is the dualism of the electromagnetic field, as per Minkowski's wrench and Maxwell's screw.

Did I call this or not?

Like always, Farsight will dodge answering a serious question that might actually provide some physical insight. No chance of getting any mathematics or experimental evidence in this thread.

ben m · Mar 11, 2010

Farsight said:
Yes, as per the right-hand-rule diagram I showed earlier:

The diagram shows what the magnetic field lines look like near a column of moving charge. However, your discussion of the charged "wand" claimed that the force on the wand points in a circle, i.e. in the direction of the field lines. This second claim is incorrect. Do you understand the difference?

ben m · Mar 11, 2010

Farsight said:
I'll show an experiment that has a behaviour that is not properly predicted by current models - pair production,

Let me guess---either:

a) This discrepancy arises when you yourself attempt to make the "prediction", and is never described as a discrepancy in the mainstream literature? If this is the case, Farsight, then I suspect the "discrepancy" is between your misevaluation of the model and what the model actually says.

b) You found some 1960s paper reporting a 1% discrepancy on something. You did not bother looking for a multi-experiment average (which is how you tell the difference between "current theory is fundamentally unable to explain electron-boron scattering" and "the cyclotron is malfunctioning at the University of Ottery St. Catchpole"

RussDill · Mar 12, 2010

ben m said:
Let me guess---either:

a) This discrepancy arises when you yourself attempt to make the "prediction", and is never described as a discrepancy in the mainstream literature? If this is the case, Farsight, then I suspect the "discrepancy" is between your misevaluation of the model and what the model actually says.

b) You found some 1960s paper reporting a 1% discrepancy on something. You did not bother looking for a multi-experiment average (which is how you tell the difference between "current theory is fundamentally unable to explain electron-boron scattering" and "the cyclotron is malfunctioning at the University of Ottery St. Catchpole"

You'd be wrong, because it'd be c) The claim of the standard model that the electron is a fundamental particle, when in fact, it is a photon. Isn't it clear that pair production totally and completely disproves that?

RussDill · Mar 12, 2010

Farsight said:
RussDill: referring to Einstein, Minkowski and Maxwell is not "useless fluff". I've mentioned theories such as relativity and quantum electrodynamics and Jefimenko's equations.

Again, you are confusing the theory with the scientist. Theories stand and must stand alone. If a theory somehow does not stand alone, but depends on the greatness of the creator of the theory, its a crappy theory. Every theorist has come up with plenty of false starts, dead ends, etc, some that take decades to run down.

It's pretty dumb to claim that because SR and GR are well tested, and Einstein came up with them, that everything Einstein writes or speaks about the topic is correct. There is no logic than that, but it seems to be what you are claiming.

I'll show an experiment that has a behaviour that is not properly predicted by current models - pair production, and I'll show you some proper math for the electron.

That'll be a pretty amazing thing. Just remember, your own interpretations have no meaning or importance. The only thing that matters is what we can measure. I'll get the nobel committee on the line.

No, I can't predict the mass of the electron, but I can tell you why the fine structure constant takes the value it does, and why it's a running constant. But you'll doubtless dismiss it all.

That'll be another amazing trick. For 94 years, no one has found anything that produces it, much less explains how they produced it. You'll need to match 1/137.035999679(94).

If you can produce neither in the next few days, is it safe to say that we can laugh you off the forum.

Farsight · Mar 13, 2010

Reality Check said:
That is standard physics . The electromagnetic field is a single field made up of 2 components (the electric field and the magnetic field).

Yes, it's standard, but many people who think they understand physics don't understand that it's one field, and don't know about quaternions and how Heaviside replaced them with vectors. I don't mean to sound too picky, but there are two aspects rather than components. If you're motionless with respect to the source of the field, you see it as an electric field. If you're not, you see it as a magnetic field.

Reality Check said:
This does not excuse the fact that your image is not of the electron’s electromagnetic field. But then you admitted that the image is nothing to do with electrons:

That's the best image I could find to get it across for a flat slice. Think about the right hand rule. The current in the wire is the same situation as you moving downwards past a vertical stack of electrons. Maxwell's screw analogy wasn't for nothing.

Reality Check said:
Do you mean that current models do not predict pair production at all? Or is there some aspect of pair production that is not seen in current models?

The latter. They don't explain how it works.

Reality Check said:
In either case a full description of this assertion with the supporting evidence (e.g. citations to the experiments that show the discrepancies with theory) would be appreciated.

I don't know of any discrepancies, and I'll describe it in full later. First I need to get the electromagnetic field across, and give you that grasp of the wrench/screw/reamer twist & turn concept with respect to the right-hand rule. People seem to have trouble with three-dimensional geometry like this, and for some reason it needs hands-on personal experience. Find a reamer or something like a drill bit and push it up into your right fist. Also try out the Falaco soliton via plate-dipping.

Farsight · Mar 13, 2010

ctamblyn said:
OK, so I take it that you're retracting this statement: If you start with a vertical stack of electrons moving upwards, your test electron doesn't move away, and instead spirals around the "magnetic field lines".

No. I might have expressed it better, but think about a solenoid. The electrons in the wire are spiralling around the magnetic field lines. Now chuck an electron into the solenoid, and its path is helical.

ctamblyn said:
You can show why the fine structure constant is approximately 1/137? I'd be very interested in seeing that.

It's to do with kissing numbers. If electromagnetic fields were one-dimensional, an electron's field would extend in only two directions, so one electron would exert half its field on half the field of another, like this: ←○→ ←○→ . Hence if you pushed them together they'd "couple" with a quarter of their total field strength, and the fine structure constant would take a value of 1/4. If however electromagnetic fields were two-dimensional, you could push electrons together like pennies to form a hexagon.

Each electron would repel another with a sixth of its field in any given direction, and the fine structure constant would take a value of 1/36. Scale it up another dimension and you can push twelve spheres around a central sphere. Each electron repels another with about a twelfth of its field in any given direction. However the fine structure constant isn't 1/144 because the spheres don't quite fit. They don't fit snugly like the pennies. There gaps between them.

To appreciate this, it's best to think of an icosahedron, with a sphere centered on each of the twelve vertices. If each edge is 1 unit long, the radius of one large sphere just enclosing the icosahedron would be √(10+2√5)/4 or 0.9510565163. This means for our twelve spheres to touch, the central sphere has to be smaller. But it isn't, and that's why they don't fit snugly. There's a gap between the surrounding spheres of circa 5%. If you were the last sphere to join the icosahedron you'd be able to see more than a twelfth of the central sphere on account of this gap. In similar vein an electron "sees" more than a twelfth of another electron when it repels it with its field. Each electron repels another with circa 1/11.7th of its field, which is more than 1/12th. One 11.7th of one field is working against one 11.7th of another, so the combined coupling factor is circa 1/137th. The "running" aspect is crucial when it comes to gravity, but's that's one for another day.

Farsight · Mar 13, 2010

ben m said:
The diagram shows what the magnetic field lines look like near a column of moving charge. However, your discussion of the charged "wand" claimed that the force on the wand points in a circle, i.e. in the direction of the field lines. This second claim is incorrect. Do you understand the difference?

I didn't claim that, that's your misinterpretation. Read what I said.

ben m said:
Let me guess---either:

a) This discrepancy arises...

b) You found some 1960s paper reporting a 1% discrepancy...

No, don't guess. I didn't say anything about a discrepancy. Mainstream models do not adequately describe the electron, or the photon, or how pair production actually works.

Kwalish Kid · Mar 13, 2010

Farsight said:
People seem to have trouble with three-dimensional geometry like this, and for some reason it needs hands-on personal experience. Find a reamer or something like a drill bit and push it up into your right fist.

The problem is not with other people, the problem is that your example doesn't fit the facts, as many people have pointed out. If you want to support your case, show the numbers. Show the equations.

Farsight said:
No, don't guess. I didn't say anything about a discrepancy. Mainstream models do not adequately describe the electron, or the photon, or how pair production actually works.

But you are the one claimng to have some secret underlying pair production. Can you show us how your secret produces the same mathematical results as maintstream theory?

Farsight · Mar 13, 2010

RussDill said:
You'd be wrong, because it'd be c) The claim of the standard model that the electron is a fundamental particle, when in fact, it is a photon.

Close, but the photon isn't fundamental either. Stress-energy is fundamental, and it doesn't always take the form of a photon.

RussDill said:
Isn't it clear that pair production totally and completely disproves that.

If you can create and destroy electrons and positrons, they aren't fundamental. Ditto for quarks. Perform low-energy proton/antiproton annihilation and you don't see quarks. What you usually see is neutral pions, for a nanosecond. Then gamma photons. So try explaining to the board where those quarks went.

RussDill said:
..It's pretty dumb to claim that because SR and GR are well tested, and Einstein came up with them, that everything Einstein writes or speaks about the topic is correct. There is no logic than that, but it seems to be what you are claiming.

I'm not claiming that. You're creating a straw man to dismiss what those guys said out of hand. There's no logic in that.

RussDill said:
That'll be a pretty amazing thing. Just remember, your own interpretations have no meaning or importance. The only thing that matters is what we can measure. I'll get the nobel committee on the line.

It is pretty amazing actually. And here's somehting else you'll dismiss: Witten's working on it.

RussDill said:
That'll be another amazing trick. For 94 years, no one has found anything that produces it, much less explains how they produced it. You'll need to match 1/137.035999679(94).

It's no trick. But there is no exact value to match because it's a running constant.

RussDill said:
If you can produce neither in the next few days, is it safe to say that we can laugh you off the forum.

I'm getting the impression you'll do it anyway. People are very good at clinging to what they've been taught. They aren't nearly so good at thinking for themselves, and are often irrationally hostile to anything new. Even when it isn't new, and when Einstein said it. Or Feynman or Dirac or Minkowski or Maxwell or Newton.

Farsight · Mar 13, 2010

Kwalish Kid said:
The problem is not with other people the problem is that your example doesn't fit the facts, as many people have pointed out. If you want to support your case, show the numbers. Show the equations.

My examples fit the facts. How can you delude yourself to pretend they don't? Or that I dodge questions? And we've already got the numbers and the equations. What I'm describing explains those equations. This is the thing that people like you just don't get. You cannot explain what the mathematics means with mathematics. Now stop being such a spoiler troll. Contribute some sincerity to the discussion or butt out.

Tubbythin said:
I wasn't aware we needed another explanation why it is a running constant.

We need it because virtual photons are virtual, and because Feynman said nobody understands what it all means. Look at α = e²/2ε0hc and remind yourself of this: the electron has unit charge. The effect of that charge varies, but not the charge itself. Imagine you're in a black box in space, and I cannot enter to alter the contents. But I can move the box around without your knowledge. Maybe I do it while you sleep, whatever. You've got an electron in there with you. Between you and the electron is space. If the effect of that electron's charge varies, the properties of something else must have changed. What do you think it might be?

ctamblyn · Mar 13, 2010

Farsight said:
No. I might have expressed it better, but think about a solenoid. The electrons in the wire are spiralling around the magnetic field lines. Now chuck an electron into the solenoid, and its path is helical.

Yes, I get that inside a solenoid you have a nearly-uniform field, and a test charge would move as you describe. But a solenoid isn't a "vertical stack of moving electrons", which is what you were originally referring to - it's a helical current. Hence my confusion.

It's to do with kissing numbers. If electromagnetic fields were one-dimensional, an electron's field would extend in only two directions, so one electron would exert half its field on half the field of another, like this: ←○→ ←○→ . Hence if you pushed them together they'd "couple" with a quarter of their total field strength, and the fine structure constant would take a value of 1/4. If however electromagnetic fields were two-dimensional, you could push electrons together like pennies to form a hexagon.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Kissing-2d.svg/190px-Kissing-2d.svg.png[/qimg]

Each electron would repel another with a sixth of its field in any given direction, and the fine structure constant would take a value of 1/36. Scale it up another dimension and you can push twelve spheres around a central sphere. Each electron repels another with about a twelfth of its field in any given direction. However the fine structure constant isn't 1/144 because the spheres don't quite fit. They don't fit snugly like the pennies. There gaps between them.

[qimg]http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/geometry/kissing/3d.jpg[/qimg]

To appreciate this, it's best to think of an icosahedron, with a sphere centered on each of the twelve vertices. If each edge is 1 unit long, the radius of one large sphere just enclosing the icosahedron would be √(10+2√5)/4 or 0.9510565163. This means for our twelve spheres to touch, the central sphere has to be smaller. But it isn't, and that's why they don't fit snugly. There's a gap between the surrounding spheres of circa 5%. If you were the last sphere to join the icosahedron you'd be able to see more than a twelfth of the central sphere on account of this gap. In similar vein an electron "sees" more than a twelfth of another electron when it repels it with its field. Each electron repels another with circa 1/11.7th of its field, which is more than 1/12th. One 11.7th of one field is working against one 11.7th of another, so the combined coupling factor is circa 1/137th. The "running" aspect is crucial when it comes to gravity, but's that's one for another day.

I'll have to get back to you on this.

The Man · Mar 13, 2010

Farsight said:
No. I might have expressed it better, but think about a solenoid. The electrons in the wire are spiralling around the magnetic field lines. Now chuck an electron into the solenoid, and its path is helical.

It's to do with kissing numbers. If electromagnetic fields were one-dimensional, an electron's field would extend in only two directions, so one electron would exert half its field on half the field of another, like this: ←○→ ←○→ . Hence if you pushed them together they'd "couple" with a quarter of their total field strength, and the fine structure constant would take a value of 1/4. If however electromagnetic fields were two-dimensional, you could push electrons together like pennies to form a hexagon.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Kissing-2d.svg/190px-Kissing-2d.svg.png[/qimg]

Each electron would repel another with a sixth of its field in any given direction, and the fine structure constant would take a value of 1/36. Scale it up another dimension and you can push twelve spheres around a central sphere. Each electron repels another with about a twelfth of its field in any given direction. However the fine structure constant isn't 1/144 because the spheres don't quite fit. They don't fit snugly like the pennies. There gaps between them.

[qimg]http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/geometry/kissing/3d.jpg[/qimg]

To appreciate this, it's best to think of an icosahedron, with a sphere centered on each of the twelve vertices. If each edge is 1 unit long, the radius of one large sphere just enclosing the icosahedron would be √(10+2√5)/4 or 0.9510565163. This means for our twelve spheres to touch, the central sphere has to be smaller. But it isn't, and that's why they don't fit snugly. There's a gap between the surrounding spheres of circa 5%. If you were the last sphere to join the icosahedron you'd be able to see more than a twelfth of the central sphere on account of this gap. In similar vein an electron "sees" more than a twelfth of another electron when it repels it with its field. Each electron repels another with circa 1/11.7th of its field, which is more than 1/12th. One 11.7th of one field is working against one 11.7th of another, so the combined coupling factor is circa 1/137th. The "running" aspect is crucial when it comes to gravity, but's that's one for another day.

What? The fine structure constant is in fact very easy to understand without all your contrived nonsense.

It is in fact just the ratio between two constants.

The Force between two charges is inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating those charges. For two electrons it is F_e=e²/4pe₀R_e² making the constant e²/4pe₀=F_eR_e². So the force between two electrons times the separation radius between those charges squared (F_eR_e²) is a constant equal to e²/4pe₀.

The energy of a photon at some wavenumber also a constant. It is E_p=hck_p/2p Thus E_p/k_p = hc/2p the energy of a photon divided its wavenumber (E_p/k_p) is a constant equal to hc/2p.

You will note that both of these constants have the same units of Newton Meter².

The ratio of these constants F_eR_e²k_p/ E_p is 2pe²/4pe₀hc or just e²/2e₀hc the fine structure constant.

The relation becomes easier to understand when we set all the distances equal to R_e, the separation distance between the charges. It then just becomes a ratio of forces. The force between the charges F_e over the Force a photon of a wavenumber equal to the separation distance bdetween those charges can apply through that separation distance F_pe.

ETA: Sorry wavelength l should have been wave number k I have corrected that.

ETA again, sorry I put the wavenumber in the wrong place (forgot to invert)

Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

Banned

Banned

Unregistered

Muse

Master Poster

Data Ghost

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

The Clarity Is Devastating

Muse

Data Ghost

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Muse

Unregistered

Banned

Unregistered

Data Ghost

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Data Ghost

Data Ghost

Muse

Unregistered

Unregistered

Philosopher

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Banned

Muse

Banned

Banned

Data Ghost

Unbanned zombie poster