QM and Singularities

[Strange]

52 minutes ago, Butch said:

It was not math or education that took Einstein to GR,

It was exactly those things. He studied physics and math, and used that knowledge to develop his theories. 

1 minute ago, Butch said:

Then what are they? I can "see" mass as em, as moving the center of charge in a universe filled(I did not say flooded) with em would meet with resistance.(Just an example of a possibility).

Making up nonsense like this is not productive. 

[Butch]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

You are severely underselling the role of math in that process.

I don't think so, Einstein has always interested me greatly. What brought him to GR was wanting to peek over the edge. The question that he pushed was "If I traveled at the speed of light and turned on a flashlight...? The same question grade schoolers ask everyday.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It was exactly those things. He studied physics and math, and used that knowledge to develop his theories. 

I disagree, it was his education that put the question in his mind, and the solution was an abstract image... Then came the math(Which he did need a little help with, and many thought him a fool to pursue something so much on the edge, when there was much more important work to do, after all Euclid certainly knew better.).

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Butch said:

The question that he pushed was "If I traveled at the speed of light and turned on a flashlight...? The same question grade schoolers ask everyday.

That question is related to SR not GR. 

Anyone can ask a question. The reason he could develop an answer is because he had studied physics and was a great mathematician. 

He had written a number of other ground breaking physics papers before publishing his papers on relativity. (Including the one that would earn him a Nobel Prize.)

 

[Butch]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Making up nonsense like this is not productive. 

Yes, after all there are much more important directions to take.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

the solution was an abstract image

Nonsense

[Butch]

Just now, Strange said:

That question is related to SR not GR. 

Anyone can ask a question. The reason he could develop an answer is because he had studied physics and was a great mathematician. 

He had written a number of other ground breaking physics papers before publishing his papers on relativity. (Including the one that would earn him a Nobel Prize.)

 

I agree.

[koti]

11 minutes ago, Butch said:

Then what are they? I can "see" mass as em, as moving the center of charge in a universe filled(I did not say flooded) with em would meet with resistance.(Just an example of a possibility).

Mass is a property of matter. Electromagnetism is a force. They are two different things.

[Butch]

Just now, Strange said:

Nonsense

It does not surprise me that you feel that way, abstract thought is quite important... Literalists like you, however are quite important to keep us in line(which of course you do an excellent job of.).

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Mass is a property of matter. Electromagnetism is a force. They are two different things.

Ok, what is matter, is an electron matter?

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Butch said:

Then came the math(Which he did need a little help with

Also largely nonsense. He did have to learn about tensors, and worked with other mathematicians to do this. 

[Butch]

Battery dying, I hope you enjoy our discources as much as I.

Thank you all very much

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Also largely nonsense. He did have to learn about tensors, and worked with other mathematicians to do this. 

I agree.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

Ok, what is matter, is an electron matter?

Depends how you define matter. 

One could say it is “stuff” made of atoms, in which case an electron would not be matter. 

Or one could say it’s stuff made of fermions, in which case an electrons would be. 

Not sure that is relevant either way. 

[koti]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not sure that is relevant either way. 

I’m sure its not.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Butch said:

It does not surprise me that you feel that way, abstract thought is quite important...

I agree. But without the in-depth understanding that allows you to refine or reject those ideas, you won't make any progress.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Butch said:

I don't think so, Einstein has always interested me greatly. What brought him to GR was wanting to peek over the edge. The question that he pushed was "If I traveled at the speed of light and turned on a flashlight...? The same question grade schoolers ask everyday.

That was the seed, but a lot of math went in after it. There was a recent article on how he sent two years chasing down some math for GR, trying to make sure it agreed with Newtonian gravity in the limit of weak gravity, because  he made an error. 

There's this idea that's common with people outside of science who think that the idea is 95% of the work, and the math is some detail to be filled in for the last 5%, when in reality those numbers are reversed. You have no real clue what the implications of an idea might have until you start to work through the math (and then you abandon idea most of the time, because it leads to impossibilities/contradictions)

 

14 hours ago, Butch said:

Then what are they? I can "see" mass as em, as moving the center of charge in a universe filled(I did not say flooded) with em would meet with resistance.(Just an example of a possibility).

What if the particle is uncharged?  

How would you explain parity violation with EM, which conserved parity?

How do you explain the attraction between a neutron and a proton, when the neutron is not charged? How do nuclei stay together, when there are all those protons in it?

How would gravity work, if it was EM? (the moon, sun and earth all mutually attract each other. Explain that with + and - charges)

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

There's this idea that's common with people outside of science who think that the idea is 95% of the work, and the math is some detail to be filled in for the last 5%, when in reality those numbers are reversed. You have no real clue what the implications of an idea might have until you start to work through the math (and then you abandon idea most of the time, because it leads to impossibilities/contradictions)

This should be in a sticky or part of the rules or something!

[Butch]

On 3/17/2018 at 7:47 PM, Strange said:

I agree. But without the in-depth understanding that allows you to refine or reject those ideas, you won't make any progress.

I agree.

On 3/18/2018 at 9:14 AM, swansont said:

There's this idea that's common with people outside of science who think that the idea is 95% of the work, and the math is some detail to be filled in for the last 5%, when in reality those numbers are reversed. You have no real clue what the implications of an idea might have until you start to work through the math (and then you abandon idea most of the time, because it leads to impossibilities/contradictions)

I agree, however quite often(if not always) abstract ideas are the starting points.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

I agree.

I agree, however quite often(if not always) abstract ideas are the starting points.

But an abstract idea from a neophyte is not usually useful. It gives me visions of monkeys and typewriters,  

[Butch]

What are fermions made of?

On 3/18/2018 at 9:14 AM, swansont said:

That was the seed, but a lot of math went in after it. There was a recent article on how he sent two years chasing down some math for GR, trying to make sure it agreed with Newtonian gravity in the limit of weak gravity, because  he made an error. 

There's this idea that's common with people outside of science who think that the idea is 95% of the work, and the math is some detail to be filled in for the last 5%, when in reality those numbers are reversed. You have no real clue what the implications of an idea might have until you start to work through the math (and then you abandon idea most of the time, because it leads to impossibilities/contradictions)

 

What if the particle is uncharged?  

How would you explain parity violation with EM, which conserved parity?

How do you explain the attraction between a neutron and a proton, when the neutron is not charged? How do nuclei stay together, when there are all those protons in it?

How would gravity work, if it was EM? (the moon, sun and earth all mutually attract each other. Explain that with + and - charges)

The picture that I have is a particle being the point source of a field... One little part of my mind is working on charge(and other considerations) but I do not have enough information yet.

I don't think of em as just + and -, I think of em as fields that can have perturbations that might be neutral, charged or oscillating... What if a field we're oscillating at a frequency approaching infinity? What about oscillation approaching 0?

On 3/17/2018 at 7:47 PM, Strange said:

I agree. But without the in-depth understanding that allows you to refine or reject those ideas, you won't make any progress.

You are preaching to the choir, hence the time and effort I put in here, and on study. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, Butch said:

What are fermions made of?

It varies.

Electrons are made of electrons.

Protons and neutrons are made of quarks.

And so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Butch said:

What are fermions made of?

Fundamental fermions are not "made of" anything. They are what other things are made of. 

Composite fermions are made of at least one fermion, or at least an odd number of them.

33 minutes ago, Butch said:

The picture that I have is a particle being the point source of a field... One little part of my mind is working on charge(and other considerations) but I do not have enough information yet.

Particles are field resonances, to oversimplify things.

33 minutes ago, Butch said:

I don't think of em as just + and -, I think of em as fields that can have perturbations that might be neutral, charged or oscillating... What if a field we're oscillating at a frequency approaching infinity? What about oscillation approaching 0?

Charges do not oscillate in value. That would have interesting consequences for e.g. atomic spectra if they did. But what we observe is fully consistent with fixed values.

However, this is an example of something that, if you don't have a model for it, is just a WAG. You don't get to just toss it out for discussion, as if there were some support for the idea.

[Butch]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Fundamental fermions are not "made of" anything. They are what other things are made of. 

Composite fermions are made of at least one fermion, or at least an odd number of them.

Particles are field resonances, to oversimplify things.

Charges do not oscillate in value. That would have interesting consequences for e.g. atomic spectra if they did. But what we observe is fully consistent with fixed values.

However, this is an example of something that, if you don't have a model for it, is just a WAG. You don't get to just toss it out for discussion, as if there were some support for the idea.

Not saying that charges are oscillating, just that they are properties of a point source field. Sometimes when I post such thoughts I am directed to links that support and even clarify them.

1 minute ago, Butch said:

Particles are field resonances, to oversimplify things.

If so, then it follows that everything is em, no?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Butch said:

Not saying that charges are oscillating, just that they are properties of a point source field. Sometimes when I post such thoughts I am directed to links that support and even clarify them.

Work through this series of articles. It might make things clearer.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

[Butch]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Work through this series of articles. It might make things clearer.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

Thank you, I knew I would have to be looking at field interaction, I fear the complexity of this might overwhelm me, but I am the one who wishes to peak over the edge... How closely do you believe we can approach a singularity(in terms of it's effect on em)?

Once again, thank you all very much!

Time to go stretch some fish lips!

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, Butch said:

 If so, then it follows that everything is em, no?

No. EM are not the only fields

Quote

Not saying that charges are oscillating, just that they are properties of a point source field. Sometimes when I post such thoughts I am directed to links that support and even clarify them.

Take care that you are not misinterpreting what you read. 

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, Butch said:

If so, then it follows that everything is em, no?

There is a different type of field for every type of particle (because particles are excitations of their fields).