Norman Albers Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 I don't expect to rattle anything off but I certainly am laboring over the mathematics of relativity in particle near-fields. I have finally written what I think are the relevant inhomogeneous Einstein field equations to my electron study, and am working to figure what orders of m are implied, since the field equations boil down to the O(m) terms. (m is geometric mass and since it is arbitrary the equations must be satisfied in all expressed orders of it.)
Farsight Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Noted, Norm. Swansont, what about my predictions? You asked, you got, now how about a response? Or do you ignore everything I say unless you think you can score a point off it?
someguy Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 swanson, yes, you're right, but to me it doesn't matter much what started the thread what matters more is that we progress. i find the best way to analyze farsight's theories is to look at each premise step by step. I realize you would find things wrong with his theories that are not included in these premises so far, and perhaps many to do with time travel, however, i think that going back and forth and pointing out things like that will end up with personal attacks and arguing around in circles. don't you find? if we analyze his theory premise by premise, i find it would be much more constructive. don't you think so? that's the only reason why. you would probably be right that we should have started a new thread for this, you would be right that this is not how the thread started and that it could be considered hijacking. but still, i find it would be best for everyone if we put those things aside, forget who is right and who is wrong, and just look for rightness. we may get to those specific criticisms you have unless everything unravels way before that which is a quite strong possibility, and we'll probably find other things you would want to criticize first. I for one would appreciate it if you use your knowledge and analytical skills to scrutinize purely the first and now second premise farsight has put forward. everything he says about time travel or anything else at all, rests on the validity of these premises, so we would still be solving the same problem in a sense, just more indirectly i guess. It could happen for example that he accepts a premise that would allow for a contradiction of something you deem to be correct. however you would find it difficult to persuade him otherwise since your premises you are working from differ from his. you know what i mean? i think you guys could argue over something forever because of that, and you might just end up needing to look at his most basic premises anyways. i for one don't have arguing as my goal and honestly, i would very much like to hear more about those pions because i have no idea of what the hell those are. but still, for me, even though what you said is right, i would prefer that for another time, just for the sake of progress. -------------- Farsight, what of energy? i have submitted a response to your second premise.
swansont Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Noted, Norm. Swansont, what about my predictions? You asked, you got, now how about a response? Or do you ignore everything I say unless you think you can score a point off it? You waited all of, what, six hours to ask me that? I really don't hang on your every word, you know. As far as your predictions go, they're Jeane Dixon quality. You're prognosticating the future; I can't see how most of them tie into your theses at all. They're all open-ended (something will happen or it will never happen). A couple of them are either already observed, or are not distinguishable from accepted physics, so can they really count for anything? "I predict the sun will rise tomorrow" does not bolster anybody's hypothesis about anything. No, what scientists want are testable predictions, along the lines of, "If I drop this rock from a height of 1 m, it will hit the ground 1 second later" rather than "If I drop this rock it will never be found on the moon" i.e. we want a test that makes specific claims that would, in principle, falsify your claims if it didn't work, but isn't already part of accepted physics. And that's a hurdle that all of accepted science has to overcome, so you aren't being singled out here, or persecuted, and Kafka is not involved. (note that the first prediction in my example would not hold, and the claim would be falsified) But Ill make a prediction, along the lines of yours: when the Higgs is announced (that seems likely to happen first of those on the list, as far as I can tell), if you're still around, you'll come up with some lame reason to question the discovery. Something conspiratorial.
Norman Albers Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Somewhere in a far distant forum somebody dissed me as laying out "fake matter". The more I think of it, the more I think this person is slowly becoming enlightened...
BenTheMan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Posted August 30, 2007 Actually, I am willing to bet that even if there IS evidence of a higgs found, Farsight will label it a red herring and refuse to acknowledge it. Or restructure his theory so that it fits in (the same thing he accused me of trying to do with string theory). It should be noted that the higgs decays most prominantly to top quarks, which can annihilate to give photons.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Sigh. I showed where Ben ran to the moderators on another forum. You gave me infraction points for abuse, but do nothing about the abuse directed at me. Captain says "no more abuse", so then when I report it, you still do nothing. Now you even let Ben start a thread dedicated to abusing me and do nothing about it, and you're chipping in with your own abuse. LOL, you are totally absurd! I think you ow me an apology, bud. In case you're wondering, infractions aren't publicly visible. You cannot claim that we didn't do anything to Ben -- you have no evidence either way. Kind of ironic.
Severian Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Ok, since you refuse to answer my question on g-2, let me ask a simpler one. What happens to WW scattering in your theory at asymptotically high energies?
Norman Albers Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Farsight, I do see that you have described a spiralling "Moebius doughnut" and that there are coherent orbits described which track twice around in a different path before meeting their start. This is topologically fun, but where's the angular momentum accounting?
Reaper Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 In case you're wondering, infractions aren't publicly visible. You cannot claim that we didn't do anything to Ben -- you have no evidence either way. Kind of ironic. Irony seems to be the main theme of this thread. Ok, since you refuse to answer my question on g-2, let me ask a simpler one. What happens to WW scattering in your theory at asymptotically high energies? Good luck! He refuses to address any of my points either. If I were you, you should probably just ask the simplest questions possible, the absurdities and his lack of understanding clearly stick out like a sore thumb, especially if he doesn't address any of them. I particularly like this quote in response to the photoelectric effect (Post 85): Red light doesn't shake hard enough. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Noted' date=' Norm. Swansont, what about my predictions? You asked, you got, now how about a response? Or do you ignore everything I say unless you think you can score a point off it?[/quote'] He doesn't do it for the score, but you seem to. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. Index= 443
BenTheMan Posted August 31, 2007 Author Posted August 31, 2007 What happens to WW scattering in your theory at asymptotically high energies? Ooh. That's a good one.
Norman Albers Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 I think it is not nice to expel discussion because it does not answer everything at once. I have not claimed anything beyond a linear theory of response from the vacuum polarizability.
BenTheMan Posted August 31, 2007 Author Posted August 31, 2007 Norman--- I don't want to spoil the punchline, so I'll let Severian explain why he asked the question he did. I will say that, if Farsight can't explain what happens to WW around 1 TeV, his theory is effectively killed, he has bigger problems. It's not that Farsight doesn't explain everything, he doesn't explain ANYthing. He CAN'T answer simple questions, he WON'T answer detailed questions, and it seems that the only REASONable prediction he's made is the absence of a higgs boson. This may already disprove his theories, because one of the higgses MAY have been seen at FermiLab. (Note: Most people don't agree with this.)
Reaper Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Norman--- I don't want to spoil the punchline, so I'll let Severian explain why he asked the question he did. I will say that, if Farsight can't explain what happens to WW around 1 TeV, his theory is effectively killed, he has bigger problems. Well, given Farsight's record, even if this does happen he will probably still continue. We (especially you and Swansont) have already destroyed him and his theories, he's just delusional. Farsight seems to have developed a new tactic too; ignore posts that are too inconvenient for him to answer. It's not that Farsight doesn't explain everything, he doesn't explain ANYthing. He CAN'T answer simple questions, he WON'T answer detailed questions, and it seems that the only REASONable prediction he's made is the absence of a higgs boson. This may already disprove his theories, because one of the higgses MAY have been seen at FermiLab. (Note: Most people don't agree with this.) The irony of this is that everytime this is pointed out, he claims to have already explained it. And then he complains about the use of "red herrings" and "abusing members" and insults anybody who doesn't agree with him. If he continues to persist in this way, he will have a new identity: Mr.Quack
elas Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Farsight Energy, in its barest essence, is stress, quantified by volume. Once again complete agreement! The mathematics are on my web page; did you do the mathematics, if so, lets have a reference for comparison. Extract from my paper: The energy of the elementary particle state increases or decreases in inverse proportion to the increase or decrease of the (Hall) compaction fraction. That is to say Energy changes in proportion to changes in volume.
gcol Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Energy, in its barest essence, is stress, quantified by volume. That resonates with me. If, for want of a better word we called that stress "charge", then to resolve that stress we could infer a charge carrier mechanism? If we know of only two types of stress. pos. or neg., then instead of disipating aimlessly, would it seem natural for an area of pos. stress to resolve linearly towards its opposite? Naive and simplistic, I know. But stupid? Tell me. It seems so basic, yet much could follow from it.
Farsight Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 You waited all of, what, six hours to ask me that? I really don't hang on your every word, you know. As far as your predictions go, they're Jeane Dixon quality. You're prognosticating the future; I can't see how most of them tie into your theses at all. They're all open-ended (something will happen or it will never happen). A couple of them are either already observed, or are not distinguishable from accepted physics, so can they really count for anything? "I predict the sun will rise tomorrow" does not bolster anybody's hypothesis about anything. OK I get it. You ask for predictions, I give them, you ignore them, when I push, you dismiss them. Par for the course. No, what scientists want are testable predictions, along the lines of, "If I drop this rock from a height of 1 m, it will hit the ground 1 second later" rather than "If I drop this rock it will never be found on the moon" i.e. we want a test that makes specific claims that would, in principle, falsify your claims if it didn't work, but isn't already part of accepted physics. And that's a hurdle that all of accepted science has to overcome, so you aren't being singled out here, or persecuted, and Kafka is not involved. (note that the first prediction in my example would not hold, and the claim would be falsified) They don't seem to mind the lack of testable predictions when it comes to String Theory. Why don't you ask Ben about that? He's a paid String Theorist, and this is just a discussion forum. But I'll make a prediction, along the lines of yours: when the Higgs is announced (that seems likely to happen first of those on the list, as far as I can tell), if you're still around, you'll come up with some lame reason to question the discovery. Something conspiratorial. Whatever. I'll make another prediction: the Higgs Boson will never be found. There is no "coupling" to the Higgs Scalar Field. There is no such field, it is an abstraction, and The Higgs Mechanism is wrong. I make this prediction because I can explain mass. ******************************************************** Farsight, what of energy? i have submitted a response to your second premise. Sorry someguy, I was thinking I'd get get a fatal infraction if I had the temerity to actually mention one of "Farsight's Heresies" on this thread. ******************************************************** Ok, since you refuse to answer my question on g-2, let me ask a simpler one. What happens to WW scattering in your theory at asymptotically high energies? I didn't refuse to answer your question, Severian. I did give a response, but I just don't have the training to give a anomalous magnetic moment prediction without spending hours on it. Ditto with the above. I've never given WW scattering any consideration at all. But I can explain mass. http://acfahep.kek.jp/acfareport/node184.html ******************************************************* Farsight, I do see that you have described a spiralling "Moebius doughnut" and that there are coherent orbits described which track twice around in a different path before meeting their start. This is topologically fun, but where's the angular momentum accounting? Not present. Sorry. But have I got to do everything? It's a question of priorities. I felt it more important to outline time, energy, mass, charge, gravity, and space than detail any one item. I rather thought somebody else might like to do a little "accounting". ******************************************************* Farsight Energy, in its barest essence, is stress, quantified by volume. Once again complete agreement! The mathematics are on my web page; did you do the mathematics, if so, lets have a reference for comparison. Extract from my paper: The energy of the elementary particle state increases or decreases in inverse proportion to the increase or decrease of the (Hall) compaction fraction. That is to say Energy changes in proportion to changes in volume. Thanks Elas. I'll get back to you on that other thread. Sorry I haven't done it yet. Busy busy busy. There you go Norm. See? Energy, in its barest essence, is stress, quantified by volume. That resonates with me. If, for want of a better word we called that stress "charge", then to resolve that stress we could infer a charge carrier mechanism? If we know of only two types of stress. pos. or neg., then instead of disipating aimlessly, would it seem natural for an area of pos. stress to resolve linearly towards its opposite? Naive and simplistic, I know. But stupid? Tell me. It seems so basic, yet much could follow from it. Thanks gcol. I have to say though, that charge is something different to that. But it's still very simple... CHARGE EXPLAINED Charge is another one of those things you learn about in physics. Well' date=' you think you do, but you don’t. Not really. The textbooks don’t explain it, and they shrug off this omission by telling you it’s fundamental. It isn’t. It’s as fundamental as mass, which is not very fundamental at all. The thing is this: if you understand mass you already understand charge. But you probably don’t realise it yet. So I’ll explain it. [img']http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/uesc_04_img0215.jpg[/img] etc etc But you have to get a handle on energy then mass before you try to get a handle on charge.
Severian Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 I didn't refuse to answer your question, Severian. I did give a response, but I just don't have the training to give a anomalous magnetic moment prediction without spending hours on it. Ditto with the above. I've never given WW scattering any consideration at all. But I can explain mass. The reason that I mention WW scattering is because it is another reason for needing the Higgs boson. We talk a lot about the Higgs boson as being the origin of mass and all that, but from a theoretical perspective WW scattering is just as important. I presume you agree that the W boson exists, right? If so, then our current theory predicts that if the Higgs boson is absent then the WW scattering cross section rises too quickly with energy. So quickly in fact that by about a TeV it violates unitarity (probabilities no longer add up to 1). This is of course disasterous for the theory, but the Higgs boson saves us. It couples to the W's giving a negative contribution to WW scattering which tames the unitarity violation. So the Standard Model without the Higgs boson would have to be thrown in the bin. My question for you is, does your alternative explanation of mass which has no Higgs boson, also have an alternative solution to the WW scattering problem?
insane_alien Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Not present. Sorry. But have I got to do everything? It's a question of priorities. I felt it more important to outline time, energy, mass, charge, gravity, and space than detail any one item. I rather thought somebody else might like to do a little "accounting". well, yes, you do. if your ideas have implications in some part of science whether you thought of it or not, it still needs to be consistent with reality.
BenTheMan Posted August 31, 2007 Author Posted August 31, 2007 I didn't refuse to answer your question, Severian. I did give a response, but I just don't have the training to give a anomalous magnetic moment prediction without spending hours on it. Ditto with the above. I've never given WW scattering any consideration at all. But I can explain mass. Lots of people tried to explain mass, Farsight. But those people quickly realized that there were problems which couldn't be solved, especially at the quantum level. You should say---I can explain mass inasmuch as I understand it. If anyone is interested, I wrote a long and semi-technical post at another forum about why the higgs mechanism (or something extremely similar) is necessary, here. The punchline is that there is a necessary property of fundamental physics called gauge invariance, which tells us (basically) that the equations we use can't depend on the form in which we write them. Anyway, it is not clear to me how Farsight would plan on writing a mass term in a Lagrangian, which is how mass enters the quantum theory. If you read the linked post above, hopefully you will understand why this is true---if not, then feel free to start another thread about higgses, and I can (probably, hopefully) answer most of your questions.
Farsight Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 LOL, BenTheMan. Now you're claiming I can't possible explain mass because I don't understand it. Whatever next? It's totally absurd. Why don't you repeat some of that Higgs explanation here, so everybody can see how great you are at explaining things. Or would it more properly belong in Pseudoscience and Speculations? Chuckle.
Severian Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 OK. I went away and read Farsight's 'Mass explained' post and it is quite interesting how it is explained. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how detailed our current theories (like the Standard Model) are and how carefully they do explain things. To some extent this is the fault of the physicists. We are aware that to understand the Standard Model in any depth you would need to have a degree in physics and then attend graduate courses. So when explaining it to the general public we use analogies and plenty of hand waving. While this might suit some people, it is deeply unsatisfactory to people who want to think about these things some more, and therefore they get the impression that we are not really explaining anything at all. Of course, we are, but we never present that explanation to them because we expect them to take our word for it. This leads to some people like Farsight coming up with explanations of their own which they believe are more compelling than the wishy washy rubbish that their physicist friend has explained down the pub. But when actual physicists look at the explanation their reaction is that nothing is explained because there is no mathematical formalism behind it. For example, Farsight claims an electron is really a photon going round and round in a sort of mobius strip. But he make no attempt to explain why the photon should follow this path, other than the rather unsatisfactory statement that it has "grabbed its own magnetic tail". Similarly, in 'charge explained', although he has charge as a consequence of spinning (like a spinning plate), he makes no attempt to tell us why all electrons then couple to photons with the same strength and why this coupling changes with energy (in a very well predicted way). In order to make physicists take his ideas seriously he will have to write them down in a much more precise way.
Reaper Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 This leads to some people like Farsight coming up with explanations of their own which they believe are more compelling than the wishy washy rubbish that their physicist friend has explained down the pub. But when actual physicists look at the explanation their reaction is that nothing is explained because there is no mathematical formalism behind it. I also thought this too, but if you read BELIEF EXPLAINED then you begin to see that Mr. Quack really does believe that the scientific community is wrong. He even implies that he does believe that we are somehow delusional for not accepting his theories.
Farsight Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 The reason that I mention WW scattering is because it is another reason for needing the Higgs boson. We talk a lot about the Higgs boson as being the origin of mass and all that, but from a theoretical perspective WW scattering is just as important. I presume you agree that the W boson exists, right? This is moot. I don't claim that the W boson "does not exist". But its lifetime is so very very short. It isn't on a par with the photon. And for mass, the photon is boson enough. If so, then our current theory predicts that if the Higgs boson is absent then the WW scattering cross section rises too quickly with energy. So quickly in fact that by about a TeV it violates unitarity (probabilities no longer add up to 1). This is of course disastrous for the theory, but the Higgs boson saves us. It couples to the W's giving a negative contribution to WW scattering which tames the unitarity violation. So the Standard Model without the Higgs boson would have to be thrown in the bin. I would say it doesn't have to be thrown in the bin. It needs fixing and improving. General Relativity isn't entirely correct either. But just because there's something wrong, that doesn't mean it's all wrong. Hence my working title of RELATIVITY+. My question for you is, does your alternative explanation of mass which has no Higgs boson, also have an alternative solution to the WW scattering problem? No. I haven't thought about it. For example, Farsight claims an electron is really a photon going round and round in a sort of mobius strip. But he make no attempt to explain why the photon should follow this path, other than the rather unsatisfactory statement that it has "grabbed its own magnetic tail". See the latter portion of CHARGE EXPLAINED. Similarly, in 'charge explained', although he has charge as a consequence of spinning (like a spinning plate), he makes no attempt to tell us why all electrons then couple to photons with the same strength and why this coupling changes with energy (in a very well predicted way). You've perhaps only skimmed this. Charge is curl. Charge is twist. I've explained a lot in there. Yes, I could explain more. But I do have further work in progress, for example: PARTICLES EXPLAINED I think the word “particle” is responsible for a whole bundle of problems in physics. It comes with mental baggage that makes people think in terms of hard little billiard balls bounding around inside an atom. Even professional physicists do this at times' date=' and whilst they will assure you that they don’t actually think in terms of billiard balls, sometimes they do. Then some of them express amazement that a particle can be in two places at once, and start dreaming up crazy ideas like parallel universes to explain it. It just isn’t like that. What’s it’s like, is this: [i']the wave function is the particle[/i]. Once you understand this, it’s quite simple. But getting your head round thinking in terms of geometry is like riding a bike. It’s easy when you know how, but when you don’t, it isn’t...
Recommended Posts