BenTheMan Posted August 17, 2007 Posted August 17, 2007 I started thinking this about when I was trying to describe a basic concept in plain English, writing MASS EXPLAINED. You look at pair production and see a photon being chopped/converted into an electron and a positron. Then you look at annihilation and see the electron and positron combining to give photons. What seems pretty logical, that the electron is a particular configuration of a photon. Ah yes. This is much easier to say than to prove. What about quarks. Quarks can anihilate into photons. You would say that quarks are made of photons. But what about QCD interactions which give quarks to gluons? Are quarks made of gluons? (No.) How can quarks be made of photons AND gluons? Well, could gluons be made of photons? Absolutely not. Gluons carry color charge, and photons are color neutral. If photons were NOT color neutral, QCD would be spontaneously broken and there would be no neuclei, and (sadly, for some I guess) no Farsight. What about electroweak processes where electrons go to W and Z bosons? How can electrons be made of both W and Z bosons AND photons? And how do you give mass to the photons? We know quite well that the photons we observe are massless (the experimental limit is something like 10^-38 times the electron mass). What about processes like [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma[/math] and [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \gamma[/math] and [math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma[/math] where [math]\gamma[/math] is a photon? How can neutral pions be made of two OR three OR four photons? So, yes, Farsight. I am a professional physicist. I have wasted my life learning how to distinguish bullshit (relativity -) from real physics. I have wasted my life learning about gauge invariance, Lorentz symmetries and the standard model. I spend my time trashing the ``competition'' because I am somehow deep down scared that you have stumbled onto the right answer and posted it on the internet. In the words of the late, great, Kurt Vonnegut, ``So it goes''.
Farsight Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 Note to moderator: All of the stuff below is tangential. But I have to respond to it to avoid the accusation that I've been disproven. It then takes me into territory that is off topic. There's a catch-22 here. We're talking about time travel and wormholes, which are totally speculative, with absolutely no experimental evidence of any kind. Then when I'm called to back up why they're pseudoscience, people will then quite deliberately accuse me of speculation. And here we have it. This is wrong, depending on the scale. What about the weak force? What about the strong force? The interactions of atoms are goverened by electromagnetic phenomena, outside the neucleus. Inside the neuclus, things are different. If what you said were true, we'd HAVE no nuclei, except for (possibly) hydrogen. The reason is simple---how do a bunch of positive protons and neutral neutrons stick together via electromagnetic interactions? This is something a slightly above average student in American high school knows. Geddoutofit. I was giving a brief explanation. You're asserting I'm wrong by omission, because my explanation wasn't detailed. If it was, you'd merely find something else I hadn't covered, and we'd go all round the houses forever instead of focussing on the moot point. Again, this cannot be correct. I could point out so many problems with this, it's not even funny. But here's a few for giggles: =>Standard Model decay modes. See my earlier post. Neutral pions decay into two, three, or four photons. If a pion decays into photons, what is it, in essence, made out of? Something fundamental that cannot be reconfigured as one or more photons? No. The opposite. You're agreeing with me bud. =>Spins. How can two spin 1 particles (photons) combine to form a spin 1/2 particle? I don't know. But one can employ pair production to create an electron and a positron from a +1022KeV gamma photon. You want a picture? =>Mass. Photons are massless. Electrons are not. As you doubtless are aware, I can explain mass. It's very simple, and no Higgs Bosons are required. See page 105 of The Trouble with Physics for backup. =>Charge. Photons are not charged under any force (strong, weak, or em), but electrons and quarks are. Ditto. I can explain charge. It's a piece of cake. =>Electroweak physics. The electromagnetic force doesn't even exist in our universe for a finite time. This means photons don't exist. But quarks do. So how can quarks in the early universe be made of something that doesn't exist yet? There is no electromagnetic force. It's a pseudoforce. You create it when you create fermions out of bosons. It's easily explained in terms of geometry. This statement is seriously flawed. You don't "observe Lorentz Invariance''. You test locally the speed of light and find it to be the same always. Nitpicking. That was observe as in maintain not as in see. This tells me that you don't understand special relativity. Time dilation happens when you are comparing things between two frames, not within the same frame. So if you are doing the experiment in the lab, there is no time dilation. It's only if you observe the experiment from outside the lab, with a velocity different from the lab's. Bah, discrediting assertion. I understand it utterly. You don't. Farsight---you will brush off these accusations, no doubt. Or you will address them in a half-assed manner---I will hold out hope though. Physics is very intricate, and if you change one little thing by just a bit, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. No, it won't come tumbling down. The Standard Model needs reinterpretation and repair, improving, not scrapping. The idea that we are made of photons is just not right. Experiments prove it wrong. Mathematical consistency proves it wrong. But most of all, what insight have you added? What do you know that Einstein didn't know, when he was trying (and failing) to do the same thing at Princeton? What great intellect you must have to succeed where he has failed! Einstein failed for a very good reason, he was completely wrong, and for some of the reasons I showed you above. What experiments? The simplest one you can do is pair production and annihilation. And what's the mathematical consistency of proton/antiproton annihilation? Oh you've shown nothing above. As for what I know, you'll have to wait and see. But get this: a photon is not a "particle", and it isn't what you think. Now can we get back to time travel and wormholes?
BenTheMan Posted August 22, 2007 Author Posted August 22, 2007 I'm not so worried about going off topic, because the question of time travel and worm holes has been answered, by me and others, already. If the moderators want to start a ``Why Farsight is Wrong Thread'', then they can do so. If it was, you'd merely find something else I hadn't covered, and we'd go all round the houses forever instead of focussing on the moot point. Of course we would. I know you are new to this, but this is how science works. I tell you that you're wrong. You show me how you're not wrong, I agree and move on, or disagree and demand a better explanation. If a pion decays into photons, what is it, in essence, made out of? Something fundamental that cannot be reconfigured as one or more photons? No. The opposite. You're agreeing with me bud. If only... The pion cannot be made of photons because it decays into other things, too. It decays into muons and neutrinos as well. I was just showing you that, if the pion is made of photons like you say, it is made of an indeterminant number of photons. (Hint) Now you have to explain how it can be made of 2, 3, OR 4 photons. I don't know. But one can employ pair production to create an electron and a positron from a +1022KeV gamma photon. You want a picture? I can draw pictures very well. I can even compute the cross sections to one loop, which I doubt you even understand. The point (I should make my points more clearly, because you miss them so often) is that there is no way for electrons (which are spin 1/2) to be made of photons, which are spin 1. Electron-positron anihilation only works because the electron positron system (called positronium) can combine to form a spin 1 ``particle'', kind of like a hydrogen atom only 2000 times less massive. The bound state can then decay. Alternatively, if the incident energies of the fermions are large, the anihilation procedes along one of two channels (at tree level), I believe. There is no electromagnetic force. It's a pseudoforce. You create it when you create fermions out of bosons. It's easily explained in terms of geometry. You continue to ignore the precision tests of QED, which says, quite definitely, that electromagnetism is a force. I can send you the papers, if you like. And it can't be explained in terms of geometry like Einstein was trying to do. This idea is shit, at it was realized as shit by everybody except Einstein. Ditto. I can explain charge. It's a piece of cake. Yes yes, and monkeys, as we speak, are flying from my ass. If your theory only has photons in it, there is no charge. No, it won't come tumbling down. The Standard Model needs reinterpretation and repair, improving, not scrapping. I've juse shown you how it does. You continue to dismiss my expertise as flawed reasoning, substituting your own ideas where it is convenient to you. What experiments? The simplest one you can do is pair production and annihilation. Anomalous magnetic moment experiments, for one. This is where the precision tests of QED happen. Do you know of these experiments? And the dance continues... 1
swansont Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 I'm not so worried about going off topic, because the question of time travel and worm holes has been answered, by me and others, already. If the moderators want to start a ``Why Farsight is Wrong Thread'', then they can do so. Split, though with a more genteel title. Note that there may be some relevant points in posts not copied over. Original discussion in various places here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27837 Note to all: I left this in relativity, as I'm hoping that the criticisms and counter-arguments will conform to being science-related. That is, the discussions are about predictions made and how they fail (or not) to be supported by experiment.
Farsight Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 Let's select one point to discuss at length without red herrings, then move on to another. For your starter for ten, let's start with the decay of a neutral pion. OK what are the products? PS: They're not Farsight's Theories. It's Farsight's toy model RELATIVITY+.
swansont Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 PS: They're not Farsight's Theories. It's Farsight's toy model RELATIVITY+. No, let's leave the toy model out of it. I don't want to delve into areas where you have not made something that passes as a testable prediction. Those can't be critiqued appropriately.
elas Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 BenTheMan ignores the fact that we do not know why quantum theories work; they are prediction theories only. So how particles convert to other particles can be predicted but not explained. Finding an explanation is my pet subject, but getting others to take an interest in explanations is extremely difficult, QT experts are mathematicians first and scientist only in a limited manner, they are, in general; more interested in building on their mathematical prediction theories (with strings and brans etc) than they in in explaining the origin and structure of mass, charge and energy etc. Of course some neutral particles are composites of two or more, charged particles, but understanding why this is so and why some have mass and some do not; is a question of interpretation not mathematical prediction. A photon has near zero mass because it is created by a collision followed by an expansion phase (producing a low density [near zero mass] particle). A neutron is created by the absorption of another particle, (no collision of equals), resulting in only a slight expansion and a small increase in density: hence a slight increase in mass. An explanation of charge is somewhat lengthier, because it requires a detailed explanation of the root of force. I am hoping Chroot will allow my work to appear on the Theory Development forum where I will be able to present the mathematics as well as the interpretation.
BenTheMan Posted August 22, 2007 Author Posted August 22, 2007 Farsight--- Any model (even a toy model) is based on a set of principles. So we can discuss the principles on which your model is based. I have already listed my critiques of your ideas in another thread: =>Standard Model decay modes. See my earlier post. Neutral pions decay into two, three, or four photons.=>Spins. How can two spin 1 particles (photons) combine to form a spin 1/2 particle? =>Mass. Photons are massless. Electrons are not. =>Charge. Photons are not charged under any force (strong, weak, or em), but electrons and quarks are. =>Electroweak physics. The electromagnetic force doesn't even exist in our universe for a finite time. This means photons don't exist. But quarks do. So how can quarks in the early universe be made of something that doesn't exist yet? I will readdress you point by point here. The first issue---standard model decay modes. Listed here, on pg. 2: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/tables/mxxx.pdf How can you explain that the neutral pion decays into things OTHER than photons---i.e. neutrinos, electrons, and different numbers of photons? If pions are made of photons, how many photons are they made of? To elas. BenTheMan ignores the fact that we do not know why quantum theories work; they are prediction theories only. So how particles convert to other particles can be predicted but not explained. This is certainly true---all we ever measure is an effective field theory. But the effective theory picture is measured very accurately, and Farsight's ideas violate that. He has yet to show where one experiment proves that the standard model is wrong. Finding an explanation is my pet subject, but getting others to take an interest in explanations is extremely difficult, QT experts are mathematicians first and scientist only in a limited manner, they are, in general; more interested in building on their mathematical prediction theories (with strings and brans etc) than they in in explaining the origin and structure of mass, charge and energy etc. This is spoken like someone who truly doesn't know what they're talking about. A photon has near zero mass because it is created by a collision followed by an expansion phase (producing a low density [near zero mass] particle). No. A photon is massless because it is a good representation of the Lorentz group. It is massless because of Lorentz invariance. elas---this is the thread where we roast Farsight. I don't want to have to figure out your crackpot theories too.
Farsight Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 LOL. I've got you nailed down here, and you know it. Remember the crucial point? Ben said my ideas violate Lorentz Invariance. They don't, and to show this I'll have to explain what I said earlier about a deeper truth. In very simple terms Lorentz Invariance can be stated as "The laws of physics are always the same for all observers regardless of their motion". We can take one aspect of this to be "you always measure the speed of light to be the same". This is what got Einstein started on Special Relativity. The deep reason that this postulate is true is that our atoms are governed by electromagnetic phenomena. Boil it right down to the golden nugget, and what you end up with is we're made out of light, along with all our electrons, atoms, brains, spaceships, rulers, and clocks. Imagine you've got a clock that works by sending a beam of light back and forth between two mirrors. Using this clock, you will always measure the speed of light to be the same. Hence you observe Lorentz Invariance. The thing is this: when there's time dilation, it is simply because the speed of light is different, but you couldn't see that it was different, because you measured it using a clock, or a body clock, that was running slower because the speed of light was reduced. Now you're flailing around clutching at every straw you can find, spewing red herrings in all directions. I'm going to stay on the point, and hammer you totally to the floor. OK, a neutral pion, It's a rubbish particle. In less than a nanosecond it has decayed into an electron, a positron, and a photon. You want a link? Here’s a link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/hadron.html#c2 On our gedanken workbench we can put the photon in a box labelled "photons". Now we can give our electron and positron a nudge or two to bring them together, using other photons, via the Compton effect: Then what happens? What happens is annihilation: And we’ve got more photons to put in the photon box. So, what’s left of that pion? Photons. Because all it ever was, was a configuration. It’s the geometric configuration of the fundamental thing that we normally label as "photons" that yielded the properties of that pion, and of the intermediary electron and positron. You want more of the same? How about a neutron? Let’s have a picture of neutron decay. There’s another photon for our “photon” box. And hello, an antineutrino. Just for the time being, let’s put that in a box called “neutrinos”. The electron is familiar to us. We can annihilate it with a spare positron and add more photons to our collection. And the proton? What can we do with the proton? http://authors.library.caltech.edu/3172/ My oh my, photons electrons and positrons again. Into the box we go. How's that Lorentz Invariance looking? Starting to sweat a little yet? Now’s the time you start getting abusive and changing the subject. Or how about another dozen red herrings? What makes me laugh is that all this started again because you believe in time travel. Time travel is crackpot. And you think you can disprove RELATIVITY+, a geometric "pure marble" qualitative model, without actually reading it? And without referring to it? Now that's really rational. And look, you said roast. You're showing your true colours there. You know what all this reminds me of? I'm like the heretic saying the earth goes round the sun. You really don't want anybody to hear it, and you pretend you can "prove" me wrong with crystal spheres. LOL. Bah, you're just a string theorist. That's pseudoscience. Not science. Hi elas. We are barking up the same tree. These guys have never seen CHARGE EXPLAINED. And if they did, they wouldn't read it. They won't read your stuff either. Weird isn't it? The way so-called rational scientists will not approach things with an open mind. They won't actually think about the physics. Instead they believe in crackpot garbage like time travel, wormholes, parallel universes, and boltzman brains. Like I was saying, that's why it was 13 years before General Relativity was accepted into mainstream science. The history of science is littered with similar examples of hostile, stubborn, blinkered, irrational, denial. LOL. And people moan about religion. They don't realise it's all down to people and their psychological inability to examine a belief.
joshuam168 Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 i have to say farsight.....with your views on black hole physics. it is true that science has proven c to be the fastest speed. but then again has not science said that these same laws do not apply once a black hole is added to the equation. for science has said that space time is warped in a black hole. furthermore as far as i understand a black hole is not an actual hole, as you earlier stated it was, but is in actuality a warping of space time.....the name black hole being a misnomer. id like to hear both Ben's and Faraights views on this.....as im not actually a scientist merely an amatuer interested greatly in learning more.
swansont Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 LOL. I've got you nailed down here, and you know it. Remember the crucial point? Now you're flailing around clutching at every straw you can find, spewing red herrings in all directions. I'm going to stay on the point, and hammer you totally to the floor. OK, a neutral pion, It's a rubbish particle. In less than a nanosecond it has decayed into an electron, a positron, and a photon. You want a link? Here’s a link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/hadron.html#c2 On our gedanken workbench we can put the photon in a box labelled "photons". Now we can give our electron and positron a nudge or two to bring them together, using other photons, via the Compton effect: Then what happens? What happens is annihilation: And we’ve got more photons to put in the photon box. So, what’s left of that pion? Photons. Because all it ever was, was a configuration. It’s the geometric configuration of the fundamental thing that we normally label as "photons" that yielded the properties of that pion, and of the intermediary electron and positron. You want more of the same? How about a neutron? Let’s have a picture of neutron decay. There’s another photon for our “photon” box. And hello, an antineutrino. Just for the time being, let’s put that in a box called “neutrinos”. The electron is familiar to us. We can annihilate it with a spare positron and add more photons to our collection. And the proton? What can we do with the proton? http://authors.library.caltech.edu/3172/ My oh my, photons electrons and positrons again. Into the box we go. How's that Lorentz Invariance looking? Starting to sweat a little yet? Now’s the time you start getting abusive and changing the subject. Or how about another dozen red herrings? You haven't addressed any of the main questions! "How can you explain that the neutral pion decays into things OTHER than photons---i.e. neutrinos, electrons, and different numbers of photons? If pions are made of photons, how many photons are they made of?" To which I would add, how do these photons interact with each other to form these states? What is different about the configuration that gives you the different decay modes?
Farsight Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 i have to say farsight.....with your views on black hole physics. it is true that science has proven c to be the fastest speed. but then again has not science said that these same laws do not apply once a black hole is added to the equation. for science has said that space time is warped in a black hole. furthermore as far as i understand a black hole is not an actual hole, as you earlier stated it was, but is in actuality a warping of space time.....the name black hole being a misnomer. id like to hear both Ben's and Faraights views on this.....as im not actually a scientist merely an amatuer interested greatly in learning more. It's a bit off topic here joshua. And whilst I can tell you my thoughts, I'm afraid they will be viewed as speculation, and to utterly justify them I'd have to reveal something that I'd rather not. So please can we save this one for another day? You haven't addressed any of the main questions! I'm not dealing with this continual scattergun of red herrings, Swansont. I made a bona-fide effort to answer Ben's earlier questions, and instead of a sincere dialogue, all I get is more. This isn't proving me wrong. This is burn the heretic censorship. He's clutching at straws, trying to put words into my mouth, dishing out ad hominems, and putting up distractions. Like demanding that I explain every facet of the Standard Model. All this when he won't actually look at the geometrical qualitative model that is RELATIVITY+, and will not engage in sincere debate on the concepts therein. I'll respond faithfully to questions. But one at a time, comprehensively, with relevance to the time travel issue that brought us here. Please examine my post above responding to Ben's question on pion decay, and take another look at this: In very simple terms Lorentz Invariance can be stated as "The laws of physics are always the same for all observers regardless of their motion". We can take one aspect of this to be "you always measure the speed of light to be the same". This is what got Einstein started on Special Relativity. The deep reason that this postulate is true is that our atoms are governed by electromagnetic phenomena. Boil it right down to the golden nugget, and what you end up with is we're made out of light, along with all our electrons, atoms, brains, spaceships, rulers, and clocks. OK. In the light of Lorentz Invariance and my post responding to pion decay, which of the two options below sounds like the least crackpot thing to believe? 1. We're made out of light or 2. Time Travel.
swansont Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 I'm not dealing with this continual scattergun of red herrings, Swansont. I made a bona-fide effort to answer Ben's earlier questions, and instead of a sincere dialogue, all I get is more. This isn't proving me wrong. This is burn the heretic censorship. He's clutching at straws, trying to put words into my mouth, dishing out ad hominems, and putting up distractions. Like demanding that I explain every facet of the Standard Model. All this when he won't actually look at the geometrical qualitative model that is RELATIVITY+, and will not engage in sincere debate on the concepts therein. It's not a red herring, it's the very reason this thread was split off. It can't possibly be censorship, because the thread exists. What you call "burn the heretic" is exactly the kind of "trial by fire" that all science goes through: everybody gets to try and shoot it down. The "elegant theory slain by an ugly fact" phenomenon. Which is why predictions are needed, so that things can be put to the test. We're focusing right now on one facet, pions: how they decay and how they can be made of photons. Stop dodging the issues.
BenTheMan Posted August 23, 2007 Author Posted August 23, 2007 I don't think you actually looked at the link which I posted, so I'll let you review it. The link you posted only lists the dominant decay mode, and mine lists ALL of the observed decay modes. If you have a theory, you have to explain ALL of the data. As a genius scientist, however, you no doubt already know this, so forgive me for reminding you. swansont is right in the fact that you didn't address the question, you just waved your hands and put photons in bins. What I conclude from this is that you didn't understand the question, or you chose to answer another question. So I'll repeat my first point (which has nothing to do with Lorentz Invariance OR time travel, the intelligent undergraduate will find painfully evident). Also, I will add, that we're talking about pions and not neutrons, which is another point. It was you who bitched about answering single points, and this is me trying to keep you from crying about it. So we shall limit this critique to pions. The neutral pion has several different decay modes. These are all predicted by the Standard Model, and observed in experiment. The key point here, is of course, they are observed in experiment. While some of these decay modes DO have photons as a final state, not all of them do. Final states of the decay include 2, 3, and 4 photon states, as well as electron/positron, 2 electron/2 positron, muon/anti-muon, and neutrinos, which you can see from the link that I posted. The aparent contradiction is that there is no way to tell how many photons make up matter. Further, by your reasoning, I should conclude that matter is also made of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. Is this true? Please explain these decay channels, vis a vis your idea that all of matter is made of photons.
Farsight Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 No. I'm not explaining decay channels. The decay modes are irrelevant. The result is photons, or leptons that can be annihilated to result in photons, or neutrinos (still leptons) that can also be annihilated to result in photons. Or something else that can be annihilated to result in photons. All decay channels lead back to photons. There is no set number of photons whirling around in an ephemeral pion to break out via decay or subsequent annihilation. A photon is fundamental, and very different to a hadron. A photon can be divided, as in pair production. But you cannot annihilate photons to produce other particles. I repeat: other particles are but configurations of the fundamental entity we label as photons. For other readers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion It's not a red herring, it's the very reason this thread was split off. It can't possibly be censorship, because the thread exists. This is a scattergun of red herrings. Ben is demanding THE STANDARD MODEL EXPLAINED, and if there's one little thing that I don't cover, he'll claim he's proven that RELATIVITY+ is wrong. Without examining it! This is definitiely censorship. He doesn't want to talk about the thing he's trying to disprove. He wants it smothered. Where is it now? You even said: No, let's leave the toy model out of it. I don't want to delve into areas where you have not made something that passes as a testable prediction. Those can't be critiqued appropriately. Let's roast Farsight's toy model, but let's leave the toy model out of it? How do you work that one out? On a discussion forum? And Ben would rather believe in time travel than sit down and actually read and critique TIME EXPLAINED? It's pathetic Swanson. It's Kafkaesque.
CPL.Luke Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 farsight what about the other 3 bosns which don't have an antiparticle?
BenTheMan Posted August 23, 2007 Author Posted August 23, 2007 No. I'm not explaining decay channels. The decay modes are irrelevant. The result is photons, or leptons that can be annihilated to result in photons, or neutrinos (still leptons) that can also be annihilated to result in photons. Ah but neutrinos don't couple to photons, so it is impossible for them to annihilate into photons. If you doubt me, check the Standard Model Lagrangian yourself: http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml.pdf Try again:) Ben is demanding THE STANDARD MODEL EXPLAINED, and if there's one little thing that I don't cover, he'll claim he's proven that RELATIVITY+ is wrong. I've never hidden the fact that I am demanding this. And if your theory is correct, then you shouldn't be scared of explaining an experiment with it. farsight what about the other 3 bosns which don't have an antiparticle? They annihilate into photons. But what about the eight gluons? Farsight is wrong in so many ways that I lose count.
swansont Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Let's roast Farsight's toy model, but let's leave the toy model out of it? How do you work that one out? On a discussion forum? And Ben would rather believe in time travel than sit down and actually read and critique TIME EXPLAINED? It's pathetic Swanson. It's Kafkaesque. No, it's science. You want to have your ideas accepted as science, you have to follow the rules of science, just like everyone else.
Norman Albers Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Does angular momentum characterize all the states we have mentioned here?
BenTheMan Posted August 23, 2007 Author Posted August 23, 2007 This is ANOTHER problem with Farsight's ideas that we haven't gotten to yet---specifically spin. Of course, if he wants bound states of photons, then he also has to explain orbital angular momentum of these states as well. But spin alone is enough to kill it---there's just no way that any number of photons can make an electron. The Lorentz group tells us as much---the spinor and the vector of SO(4) are DIFFERENT representations, which means that bosons and fermions are DIFFERENT particles. But Farsight doesn't understand Lorentz Invariance at a rudimentary level, so what's the use of using these arguments?
Norman Albers Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 [bIG TEETH]. . . [/bIG TEETH] To be specific, I have criticized the drawing of two halves of a photon wrapping over each other without adding angular momentum density, which I specifically calculate, as a fully accounted field. I took and thoroughly enjoyed Complex Analysis and I can really dig on a continued manifold. However, you are going to have to do some fast dancing to convince me it is here. Half a year ago I told one of our esteemed French bluestars that if you allow me to use negative radius for 2pi radians, I will cook up some really badass physics. BenTheMan, recently I spent a little time in a book on spinors, so I am learning where you are. . . .Could you elaborate on your comments about electromagnetism not being geometric, and Einstein?
Farsight Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 Ah but neutrinos don't couple to photons, so it is impossible for them to annihilate into photons. If you doubt me, check the Standard Model Lagrangian yourself: http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml.pdf Oh LOL. A whole page of mathematics without a word of explanation. Now that's really a Science-based criticism of Farsight's theories. This is getting embarrassing. You're absurd. Do you really think nobody notices that your "criticism" is a facile pretence? No rational person can give criticism of a model without referring to it. Remember I put neutrinos in a separate box. There was a reason for that. But I'm not going to give you NEUTRINOS EXPLAINED. You wouldn't read it, you'd just skip on to the next red herring and try to find something I can't explain, then prance about trumpeting that you've proven me wrong. Pathetic. I've never hidden the fact that I am demanding this. And if your theory is correct, then you shouldn't be scared of explaining an experiment with it. When I've written THE STANDARD MODEL EXPLAINED I'll let you know. Until then your criticism is based on omission, not error, and is spectacularly weak. But of course, you can't actually point out any errors in say MASS EXPLAINED. You haven't even read it. I have to shake my head at what passes for rationality here. A science based criticism would home in on some paragraph or section and demonstrate why it was wrong. And I take a similar view on your comment regarding experiment. What do you think my annihilation and decay examples are? And would you care to show me an experiment for the time travel that you believe in and I don't? Sigh. They annihilate into photons. But what about the eight gluons? Farsight is wrong in so many ways that I lose count. No I'm not wrong. And gluons don't prove me wrong. Show me a gluon. Perhaps you can point out an experiment that displays gluons. I can show you an experiment for proton/antiproton annihilation. This is ANOTHER problem with Farsight's ideas that we haven't gotten to yet---specifically spin. Of course, if he wants bound states of photons, then he also has to explain orbital angular momentum of these states as well. But spin alone is enough to kill it---there's just no way that any number of photons can make an electron. The Lorentz group tells us as much---the spinor and the vector of SO(4) are DIFFERENT representations, which means that bosons and fermions are DIFFERENT particles. But Farsight doesn't understand Lorentz Invariance at a rudimentary level, so what's the use of using these arguments? That's a weak assertion. Where's the spin gone in an electron/positron annihilation? It's gone the same way as charge. The geometrical configurations that we label as fermions are simply de-configured back into the things we label as bosons. And saying I don't understand Lorentz Invariance at a rudimentary level is quite pathetic. I'm explaining the deep reason for it. It's quite simple: the real fundamental "particle" isn't a pion, or a gluon, or anything else that lasts a nanosecond or we can never observe. It isn't even the proton or the electron. It's the photon. Get used to it Ben. And stop making a fool of yourself. All: don't think that I claim that the Standard Model is "wrong". It isn't a black and white world. An error or omission in a theory or model doesn't have to mean that the whole theory or model is wrong. I tend to take the view that interpretations will change and the Standard Model will evolve. Whether revisions will mean it's no longer the Standard Model isn't up to me.
Reaper Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 No I'm not wrong. And gluons don't prove me wrong. Show me a gluon. Perhaps you can point out an experiment that displays gluons. I can show you an experiment for proton/antiproton annihilation. Ok: This is an example of quark-gluon plasma' date=' created by the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider back in 2000. It was an attempt to re-create conditions that existed about a ten millionth of a second after the Big Bang. More details here *Hands covering his ears* LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA ........ I'm not listening or paying any attention to any of the points anybody else is saying because they don't agree with me and aren't satisfy my ego ...... All that people here are asking of you is to make an adequate defense of your points and demonstrate what the implications of your so-called theory shows, especially since its against what is accepted. Your refusal to address any of them has clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject, and the extent of your over-inflated ego for that matter. You keep on making ad hominem attacks. 1
Norman Albers Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 Lockheed, are we seeing quarks and gluons?
swansont Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 That's a weak assertion. Where's the spin gone in an electron/positron annihilation? It's gone the same way as charge. The geometrical configurations that we label as fermions are simply de-configured back into the things we label as bosons. You can combine two spin 1/2 particles to give you a net spin of 0 or 1. (larger integers if you add orbital values) What you can't do is combine spin 1 particles to give you a spin of 1/2. e+e- annihilation is a combination of particles; you have to explain how each one independently is made up of a photon, and has spin 1/2 and charge. No rational person can give criticism of a model without referring to it. Not a problem if it's a model that actually predicts behavior, so it can be tested. But if the model can't be tested, then it's ad-hoc, and no better than saying "this part is magic," which science rejects. You're not allowed to use that to prop up your claims.
Recommended Posts