gcol Posted September 2, 2007 Posted September 2, 2007 Third of all, this is Farsight's thread. Farsight is being hammered by rocks and shotgun pellets from all directions, many of the missiles well wide of the target. A few nuggets of support, however tangential, must surely be allowed to redress the balance? The antagonists seem to be pursuing each other all across the internet. One represents the forces of law and order, the other a bit of a maverick outsider. I rather like mavericks, they are more fun. From their attacking position outside the citadel, they see many cracks, chinks and weakpoints in the walls. In some places the walls appear non-existent. From inside, these vulnerabilities have been papered over so the defenders can not see the weaknesses. The outsiders can see in, the insiders cannot see out.
swansont Posted September 2, 2007 Posted September 2, 2007 If so a question---why do we not observe MORE particles? The Standard Model has something like 15 particles in one generation, with no discernable pattern in their masses. Why only 15? Why not infinity? Presumably any value of [math]nu[/math] can be used in the above equation. Why do electrons have a mass of 511 keV? We should see a HUGE spectrum of electron-like particles, all with masses in units of [math]\hbar[/math]. And add to this: How do we test the proposal that particles are photons tied in a knot? How does the photon get tied up? How does it get untied? Is the particle's size related to the wavelength of the photon that comprises it? These are the kind of questions that need to be addressed to have your thesis make the step from metaphysics into physics.
BenTheMan Posted September 2, 2007 Author Posted September 2, 2007 I have never dismissed QT I accept that it is (according to all the experts that I have quoted on numerous occasions) an accurate mathematical prediction theory. I am endeavoring to construct a classical scientific explanation theory Why is it that you people never accept the fact that this is not what science IS??? Explanations are useless if they don't make new and testable predictions (this is the situaition that string theory is in currently). All we can ever know is what we measure, and if what we measure agrees with our model, then it is ``correct''. There is no ``more correct''---either your theory agrees with the data or it doesn't. If there are two theories, we judge the merits of the theory by how many experiments they explain. If two theories work equally well, then the simplest one is considered correct. All we can ever measure is an effective field theory. Period. Elas you don't even know the properties of the strong force, but you want to get rid of it? I'm sorry---you want to explain it classically? Farsight, you can't explain half a dozen things that the Standard Model naturally incorporates, but you want to modify it? You don't even understand that electromagnetism doesn't even exist before electroweak symmetry breaking, but it is somehow fundamental? The internet is filled with people who pretend to be like Einstein, who want to reason their way into the correct answer, and who just end up shitting from their mouths. This simply doens't work with fundamental physics. Quantum mechanics is VERY different from classical mechanics. All you have to do is look at how GR was developed vs. how QM was developed---GR was discovered by one person. It is a classical theory and is easy to understand even for people who don't know very much physics or math. This is because the classical intuition serves very well... Quantum Mechanics took hundereds of people to unravel. This is because it is a much more difficult concept than GR---do you people think that Einstein was that much smarter than Bohr, Heisenberg, Schwinger or Schroedinger?
Norman Albers Posted September 2, 2007 Posted September 2, 2007 Is quantum mechanics based on DeBroglie waves being associated with mass?
BenTheMan Posted September 2, 2007 Author Posted September 2, 2007 Is quantum mechanics based on DeBroglie waves being associated with mass? Ummmm kind of. This is how you get the compton wavelength. Set the deBroigle wavelength equal to the rest mass of the particle. The compton wavelength gives you a distance scale where you have to consider quantum effects. For example, the only dimensionful parameter in QED is the electron's mass (the coupling doesn't have any units). This sets a scale for QED effects---that is, one doesn't have to consider QED effects unless you're working at scales near the compton wavelength of the electron. This is why the Bohr model works for the hydrogen atom---the compton wavelength of the electron is much smaller than the Bohr radius. This is (I think) what Farsight has in mind when he says frequency of light and mass are tied together. This was a new idea in 1920. I made this point about ten posts back.
Farsight Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 I've been busy writing a formal-paper version of my essays. I'm sorry, but I prefer not to answer questions such as Ben's ten posts back until this is complete. It will be several days at least, perhaps a week.
insane_alien Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 oh goody, something that will not be bogged down with analogies and seemingly unrelated pictures(those make reading your essays quite hard.) also, it should consolidate all the amendments you made further on in threads that are dispersed amongst the mudslinging. makes them very hard to track down. this is the sort of thing i was meaning by bullet points of your claims and predictions. probably didn't word it so well. hopefully this will give us a cleare understanding of your ideas because frankly, the essays are hazy at best, there are numerous ways to interpret them. they're too loose. you said earlier that you wanted to go as wide as possible and not bother about going deep. this isn't going to work. it's like stereotypes. if you make a broad generalisation for a group of people, there will be many cases where it is flat out wrong. and perhaps only a few where it is fully accurate if any. the same goes with physics. hopefully we'll be able to get some meaningful discussion from it.
BenTheMan Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 Farsight---another thought. Why does time have to move forward in your picture? You say that time is justa measure of relative motion. Why is it that that measure always has time going FORWARD?
Farsight Posted September 4, 2007 Posted September 4, 2007 Time doesn't move forward in my picture. It does in the commonly-held picture, but not mine. Here's an excerpt: You don’t need regular atomic motion to mark out time. Any regular motion will do. Yes' date=' we counted nine billion oscillations and called it second. One, two, three… nine billion. But you don’t have to count hyperfine transitions in a caesium atom. You could count beans into a bucket. [i']Ping, ping, ping[/i], chuck them in. You’re sitting there counting beans into the bucket, ping, ping, ping, one two three, regular as clockwork. Now, what is the direction of time? The only direction that is actually there, is the direction of the beans you’re throwing. A fuller bucket is not the direction of time. More beans is not the direction of time, because I could have asked you to count the beans out of the bucket. The direction of time is merely the "direction" of your counting, and this is no real direction. It’s as imaginary as the direction you take when you count along the set of integers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 → It’s imaginary, so you cannot actually point in this direction. Nor can an arrow. There is no Arrow of Beans, so there is no Arrow of Time. And since there’s no direction, there’s no direction you can possibly travel in. And since you can’t travel, you can’t travel a length, and a length can’t pass you by. It’s all abstraction, a false concept rooted in the language we use to think.
elas Posted September 4, 2007 Posted September 4, 2007 Farsight It’s imaginary, so you cannot actually point in this direction. Nor can an arrow. 1)The events that took place between say 1900 and 2000 were not imaginary. 2)We cannot point in the direction of time because the only real time is now there is no other time currently in existence, to point at. Yesterday is vanquished, tomorrow is not yet born. The time is 'now' the fleeting moment that never dies; the everlasting moment of eternity; the moment from which there is no escape. elas
someguy Posted September 4, 2007 Posted September 4, 2007 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. Do i sound stupid to you? why do you insult my intelligence with such stupid excuses? first of all. you have already mentioned many farsight heresies in this thread. second, how would you propose to prove your theory without speaking about it? that would be even more ridiculous than people saying you're wrong without reading your theories. wouldn't it? thirdly you had already agreed that the best way to proceed is to debate your fundamental premises, and yet now you back away... that seems an awful lot like you are really afraid that your theory will not hold. why would you even promote it if you know you're wrong? if you know you're right, then let's go, show me. energy, your second premise, defend it. can't you? no.. you're right.. l probably not. I figured as much. but you know, your whole theory caved much sooner than i thought it would. you only made it to the second post. you really frustrate me guy. stop caring so much about being right. how will you ever be right if you are always trying to be right with what you already know? stop dilly dallying. let's go show your fundamental premises and their implications, defend them. stop using excuses, i'm already getting reruns of your lame excuses, it's really bad. Farsight---another thought. Why does time have to move forward in your picture? You say that time is justa measure of relative motion. Why is it that that measure always has time going FORWARD? because you can't unmove. you can only move. moving is time. so it must be forward. you could call it backwards if you want to. but then the opposite would be forwards and you would ask why must time move backwards. motion causes time and it must be in one direction only. entropy must increase. things can move or move more, or even be stationary. but that's it. disorder must increase or at best remain still. a decrease requires unmoving or anti-moving which is, as far as i know, non-existent, or possibly, but i find unlikely and without supportive evidence, a function of a higher dimension. So, basically, unless you figure out how to move slower than stopped, one object relative to another, you can't go back in time. the past is not a place you can visit, it is a spent moment in time. it is a state of the universe of motion that came and went. a level of entropy in the universe that was lesser than it is today. a position where everything in the universe once was along their trips of relative motion one to another. to be there again everything in the universe would need to have the same momentum and position as they did that day. you could theoretically achieve that by either 'A' unmoving, or 'B' we live in a multi-verse that is constantly duplicating itself for every infinitely small increase in entropy. therefore the universe would need to be random because if everything functioned in a predictable way there could only be one possible outcome, and not a multi-verse. and we can travel somehow, by some means yet discovered, to these places of which we have no reason to believe exist and many reasons to believe they don't. do you people think that Einstein was that much smarter than Bohr, Heisenberg, Schwinger or Schroedinger? yes
Norman Albers Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 No! Also, I used to have a bad 'tude for Eddington because he dissed Chandrasekar, but now I am using the Eddington transform of the Schwarzschild metric and I think he was monster good. FARSIGHT, take each hand and form a hitch-hikers' thumb. Consider the thumb to represent yang and the pinky end to be yin. Now join the thumbs and consider what shows to the outside. Only yin. Now join the pinky ends; what shows???THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CHARGE.
elas Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 someguy because you can't unmove. you can only move. moving is time. so it must be forward. Time is not directional it changes on th spot. It is convenient to measure time numerical as history. In reality only one point of time actually exist. You can refer back historically but not in reality (i.e directionally) because the historical point referred to no longer exists (it's history).
Farsight Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Albers: Yep. Elas: You got it. someguy: You haven't. I thought I owed you guys a little progress report on what I've been doing these last few days. I've got a paper in progress called A qualitative 3+1 dimensional geometrical model: RELATIVITY+. I've been a little stuck on section 8, suffering from being pulled in two different directions towards cosmology and particle physics. But what I now realise is that Severian was right. I didn't intend to destroy The Standard Model, but I do. Utterly. Do you recall what I said about mass? How it's a merely a measure of energy that is not moving in relation to you? Well check this out: The Mystery of Quark Mass MASS EXPLAINED alone kicks the legs out from underneath quarks. All that color and charm is reduced to trash. There's more, lot's more, and if you don't mind I'm keeping it under my hat. But let me tell you this: The Standard Model is holed beneath the waterline, is burning from stem to stern, and is going down fast with all hands. Abandon ship! This is history in the making, guys. Remember you were here.
Phi for All Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 MASS EXPLAINED alone kicks the legs out from underneath quarks. All that color and charm is reduced to trash. There's more, lot's more, and if you don't mind I'm keeping it under my hat.Keeping it under your hat means there is no reason to keep this thread open any longer. A few more hours for any last comments and then we'll shut down since this is in Relativity and I don't want it bumped by new joiners ad infinitum.
Klaynos Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Albers: Yep.Elas: You got it. someguy: You haven't. I thought I owed you guys a little progress report on what I've been doing these last few days. I've got a paper in progress called A qualitative 3+1 dimensional geometrical model: RELATIVITY+. I've been a little stuck on section 8, suffering from being pulled in two different directions towards cosmology and particle physics. But what I now realise is that Severian was right. I didn't intend to destroy The Standard Model, but I do. Utterly. Do you recall what I said about mass? How it's a merely a measure of energy that is not moving in relation to you? Well check this out: The Mystery of Quark Mass MASS EXPLAINED alone kicks the legs out from underneath quarks. All that color and charm is reduced to trash. There's more, lot's more, and if you don't mind I'm keeping it under my hat. But let me tell you this: The Standard Model is holed beneath the waterline, is burning from stem to stern, and is going down fast with all hands. Abandon ship! This is history in the making, guys. Remember you were here. A mathless model this could be the funniest thing I've ever seen!
w=f[z] Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Farsight, Perhaps people would respond better if you were more humble. Cheers
losfomot Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 I'm sad to hear this thread is being closed... it's obviously very popular... why not just move it to speculations and leave it open?
Norman Albers Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 ;357088']Farsight' date='Perhaps people would respond better if you were more humble. Cheers[/quote'] Humble yet wily like Socrates.
swansont Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 I've moved the entropy discussion to http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28323
BenTheMan Posted September 6, 2007 Author Posted September 6, 2007 Ok, I guess I should give a eulogy for this thread, too, seeing as it was me who started it. Farsight has consistently failed to answer questions pertianing to the consequences of his ideas. Either he doesn't understand them, or hasn't thought about them. In any case, it is quite clear to the people who have sudied fundamental physics that there are major problems with his proposals. I pointed to the fact that pions decay into different numbers of photons, and that neutrinos don't couple to photons. I probably made some more good points that he ignored, and I don't feel like digging through 13 pages of posts to cut and paste them. Severian made the observation that if Farsight gets rid of the higgs, then the standard model violates unitarity at 1 TeV. Unless Farsight can introduce some new mechanism to stabilize WW scattering, his idea is dead. Farsight has spent his time in this thread talking about electron positron anihilation, and stuffing his fingers in his ears. He labels everything that kills his theory a ``red herring'', and uses the word ``kafkaesque'' more than a person should be allowed to. On a side note, I emailed John Baez a few days ago about applying his crackpot index to Farsight in this thread. I stopped counting when Farsight got up to 443, and John says ``Well, if you're computing the index correctly, I think that means he's really a crackpot.'' So at least John Baez agrees with me.
Recommended Posts