Strange Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 An electrical field might be termed an electrical entity. Not really. The vagueness of QM cant save the argument, because energy conservation laws apply to that domain also. There is no vagueness in QM; it is a mathematical theory which is able to make extremely precise predictions. All of which have been confirmed by experiment. It is you that is being vague with references to "evolving fields" and photons as "electrical entities" or "lightning". Perhaps you should learn a little more about the theory before attempting to replace it.
swansont Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 An electrical field might be termed an electrical entity. Charge is a property of a particles electric field. Photons have no charge, and yet they have an electric field. So this can't be right. Charge is a property of a particle. Elemental bonds perform hard work for long duration of time, and yet conventional theory doesn't expect they should give something of themselves to perform this work. I stand by my assertion, its an unresolved issue. Following is something I posted earlier Elemental bonds perform no work. There is nothing unresolved about this. Energy conservation and comparing gravity, to the atoms electric field and electron. If it is your preferred interpretation of general relativity, that mass curves space and time to create a gravitational field, and so an orbiting body experiences no force upon it, because there is no force. Its just a body moving along a straight line in curved space? An interesting way to get around energy conservation laws by the way, for the alternative would require that if gravity was a force, its value would also have to factor duration. We can discuss Newtonian gravity, which is a force, and yet no work is done on something moving in a circular orbit. Duration doesn't enter into it. But we’re not talking about General Relativity, so we don’t have any such trick to circumvent energy conservation laws when talking about an atoms electric field and electron interaction. No tricks involved. Just knowing what the definition of work is. Do you? There are a lot of ways this could be argued, however simple is best. An electron has mass? So it experiences inertia, and especially so because it moves very fast? So requires energy to change its direction of motion, and continual energy for continual change in inertial motion? What direction of motion? Electrons are waves. QM has no trajectories for electrons in an atom. Assuming an electric field can persist without an energy source in the first instance, then how does an Atoms electric field overcome an electrons inertial mass, without performing work? And of cause an atoms ability to overcome electron inertial mass is of minor significance, when compared to its full potential expressed in elemental bonds. The vagueness of QM cant save the argument, because energy conservation laws apply to that domain also. Funny that, since the solution for the states in an atom involve the energy of the system, the possible values of which are eigenvalues. Energy conservation is inherent in that.
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 That other guy needs to loosen up. see the lighter side. I'm not going to be drawn in to his sillyness I am sorry that you think that having some rigour in your definitions is silliness. I am sorry that you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not have any idea of modern physics. My suspicion is that this thread will soon be closed as it has no real content and there seems no willingness to try to push the loose ideas presented here close to physics. That is unless you do want to discuss physics?
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 Not really. There is no vagueness in QM; it is a mathematical theory which is able to make extremely precise predictions. All of which have been confirmed by experiment. It is you that is being vague with references to "evolving fields" and photons as "electrical entities" or "lightning". Perhaps you should learn a little more about the theory before attempting to replace it. You mean within the scope of probability theory you can make statistical QM predictions. Its a little vague where the parameters of QM arise from. A little vagueness surrounding QM and how it relates to parameters of mass and gravity. Dont like the idea of an evolving field. Not for everybody it seams
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Its a little vague where the parameters of QM arise from. What parameters? You mean physical observables? A little vagueness surrounding QM and how it relates to parameters of mass and gravity. There is no problem with mass in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Maybe you are referring to mass and mass renormalisation on QFT? Dont like the idea of an evolving field. Not for everybody it seams Evolving to a physicist would mean 'time dependent'. But you are using the term in a biological context without making any proper links to physics.
swansont Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 You mean within the scope of probability theory you can make statistical QM predictions. Its a little vague where the parameters of QM arise from. A little vagueness surrounding QM and how it relates to parameters of mass and gravity. In terms of atomic physics the relation to gravity is not vague at all. It's only at the far reaches of GR where this is an issue. It's a little vague where your "it's a little vague" is coming from.
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 Photons have no charge, and yet they have an electric field. So this can't be right. Charge is a property of a particle. Elemental bonds perform no work. There is nothing unresolved about this. We can discuss Newtonian gravity, which is a force, and yet no work is done on something moving in a circular orbit. Duration doesn't enter into it. No tricks involved. Just knowing what the definition of work is. Do you? What direction of motion? Electrons are waves. QM has no trajectories for electrons in an atom. Funny that, since the solution for the states in an atom involve the energy of the system, the possible values of which are eigenvalues. Energy conservation is inherent in that. Taking things out of context. A great use of our time. If I had said charge is a property of all particles electric fields, then you might have responded "Photons have no charge, and yet they have an electric field". But I didnt. Vagaries vagaries. electrons are particles. Electrons are waves. Electrons have mass, but no need to account for their inertia within atoms. etc etc. And yet you are so sure of everything, while your theories have openly admitted limits. Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity. General Relativity is, and prescribes orbits are just objects moving along non euclidean straight lines, not experiencing force. But in some ways GR is like religion, in respect that there are nearly as many interpretations of it, as there are people making interpretations. What is work. Hang on while I'll check wiki. In terms of atomic physics the relation to gravity is not vague at all. It's only at the far reaches of GR where this is an issue. It's a little vague where your "it's a little vague" is coming from. haha thats a little vague. Would you mind clarifying plz?
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity. Pardon? Can you please explain this comment? General Relativity is, and prescribes orbits are just objects moving along non euclidean straight lines, not experiencing force. Okay, one can interpret the gravitational force on test particles as a pseudo-force due to the curvature of space-time... But in some ways GR is like religion, in respect that there are nearly as many interpretations of it, as there are people making interpretations. Can you point to some interpretation here? Also, an interpretation is an interpretation and should not be directly confused with the theory itself. Anyway, comparing GR with religion is a bit insulting.
Questing Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 comparing GR with religion is a bit insulting. Have some respect for peoples beliefs
ajb Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Have some respect for peoples beliefs Well, you are the one that has stated some comparison without understanding of what science is. Anyway, you are not going to address my request that you explain how Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity? Nor are you going to say something about the many interpretations of GR that you claim exist? Nor are you going to try to address my earlier questions? I now wonder what the point of keeping this thread open are? You had the chance to converse with qualified experts in physics and others that have sound knowledge. Instead you just keep showing ignorance and stubbornness. You are clearly interested in physics, so don't waste your time. Take advantage of the time others have spared for you.
Phi for All Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Have some respect for peoples beliefs ! Moderator Note We have a Religion section where you can discuss belief. This is not a section where you can mix it with science. You came to a science discussion forum with the intent to share your idea. It's a bit irrational that you spend so much of your time disagreeing with the basic science concepts our experts are trying to help you with. It would be much more productive to listen to what they have to say, since we assume that's why you came here. We need you to do more than wave your hands and disagree. These aren't opinions, most of this is available from formal educational processes (of which web-based, simplified, popular science doesn't qualify). Evidence is needed to support any idea. Your ideas are in verbal form rather than using a mathematical model. You feel this gives it power, but what it does is leave your idea open to too many interpretations, especially since you've chosen to redefine words that already have specific meanings in science. I've said this so many times before to so many smart people like yourself. The start of an idea needs to be sound. If someone told you they were building their dream home on a foundation of concrete mixed with Jello, you'd immediately question if that's a good idea. You'd be skeptical, hopefully, and that's what our expert are being. Please spend more time in support of your idea, and less griping about the help that's being offered. Everyone assumes you want to be rigorous about this, otherwise your hard work is wasted. If we can't move away from the current trajectory of this thread, we'll have to close it until you can provide better evidential support. Please don't respond to this note here in the thread. If you object to it, Report it and another staff member will deal with it. Thanks for your understanding.
swansont Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 What is work. Hang on while I'll check wiki. 'nuf said 2
Questing Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Well, you are the one that has stated some comparison without understanding of what science is. Anyway, you are not going to address my request that you explain how Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity? Nor are you going to say something about the many interpretations of GR that you claim exist? Nor are you going to try to address my earlier questions? I now wonder what the point of keeping this thread open are? You had the chance to converse with qualified experts in physics and others that have sound knowledge. Instead you just keep showing ignorance and stubbornness. You are clearly interested in physics, so don't waste your time. Take advantage of the time others have spared for you. Dont try to pass the buck. I pointed out there are many different varieties of religious belief, even to the extent of individual interpretations. I didnt speak with contempt towards peoples religious beliefs as did you. The forums are filled with debates regarding GRs various interpretations. Not dissimilar to religious disagreement it seams to me. But thats speaking from somebody who has become dissatisfied with the apparent limits of theory of general relativity. Like relative distances of space etc. Like nothingness comes in different shapes and sizes, and pushes heavy objects around perpetually without breaking energy conservation laws. But I have to concede, I was not insightful enough to second guess these circumstances of GR until I had reason too. And so I too have to admit myself capable of dismissing new ideas off hand, based on my personal prejudices and prior held beliefs. And so I dont really claim to be different from you, or anybody for that matter. I'll converse with you, however not if you keep up your disingenuousness. Only math is worthy rendition. Disagreement without cause, even when you dont actually disagree. Take this Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity thing. You disagree with me, but I cannot believe it is your true position. A theory "of" something does not merely describe what is occurring, it at least attempts an explanation of why it is occurring, and perhaps a process or mechanism from which it emerges from. Really, you want to argue Newtonian gravity is a theory of gravity? Forgive me if I switch off from you. General Relativity is different however, and Einstein really was trying the develop a theory for processes and mechanisms underlying the cause of gravity. And no doubt about it, he improved of Newtons work measurably, but did he achieve entirely what he set out to achieve? The fact he spent the rest of his life trying to uncover a deeper explanation of things, gives an indication. Seams he wasn't entirely satisfied. He would liked to have known the why of, the nature of energies interaction with space. That's a pretty fundamental question which needs to be answered, before you might choose to lock GR in as the final answer of things. Dark Energy? Dark Matter? there are those tinkering with standard model of particle physics in attempts of an answer. There are those tinkering with variable gravity theory, MOND justified because gravity is a free parameter within SMoPP. Well Mass is a free parameter also, and so I'm tinkering with a variable mass theory. The difference between my attempt, and others, is that I can propose a reason for my tinkering. Thats a little novel dont you think? I do appreciate the chance to converse with qualified experts, however I'm not sure I count you amongst them. Perhaps you are, but I haven't seen evidence beyond your say so. Perhaps you might present me your work? I'm guessing its pure math, written in gods only tongue. Not even lowering yourself to mortal for benefit of presenting english spoken abstract. I got as far as the first few paragraphs of your post and found errors. Which you never addressed or asked for clarification. Not too supportive of your idea. Photons decays follows rules within particle physics. So does temperature measurement. These rules are well tested and established. You can't Willy nilly them away simply because they don't agree with your idea. By the way I'm supplying the tools to advance your idea. By providing you the mathematical formulas you will need to learn. I really really like the idea you can guide me too the mathematical tools plz? I promise I'll be considerate of your time. Just point the direction and I'll pursue as far as I'm able. I'll give some thought to my theory's general needs, which aspects of math might shed light on the subject. It would be a great start if I could practice a mathematical description of a flames dependence on oxygen. how a fuel source energy density distribution relates to a reaction consuming the fuel. Edited January 8, 2016 by Questing
Sensei Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Standard model of particle physics (SMoPP) is highly successful as a mathematical framework for describing particle behaviour. However it falls short in three regards. Individual particles in some cases, when they have high kinetic energy, are starting to be visible by naked eye.. By device that you can build by yourself for $50 and see by yourself. They are leaving traces in particle detectors. Particle with high kinetic energy is decelerating in medium, through it pass by, and ionizing that medium. The higher kinetic energy particle, the longer trace. Alpha particles (+2e charge) are leaving thick, short trace. Beta electron particles (-1e charge) are leaving thin, long trace. And they can be photographed, or filmed: Cloud Chamber particle detector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber Bubble Chamber particle detector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber If there is provided external electric/magnetic field, traces are bending accordingly to charge and mass of particle. Negative electrode will attract positive alpha, positive antimatter positron, and repel negative electron etc. Positive electrode will attract negative electron, negative pion, negative kaon, etc. This is NOT mathematics. Mathematics is just used to predict what will happen in future, what is seen in detectors already. If apple fails from desk, you can calculate f.e. time it flied prior reaching ground, you have math equation, then the next time you will release apple from hand, you will be able to predict when it will reach ground. From observation is made math equation, then math equation can tell you in advance when and how something will be acting. Edited January 8, 2016 by Sensei 1
Questing Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 Individual particles in some cases, when they have high kinetic energy, are starting to be visible by naked eye.. By device that you can build by yourself for $50 and see by yourself. They are leaving traces in particle detectors. Particle with high kinetic energy is decelerating in medium, through it pass by, and ionizing that medium. The higher kinetic energy particle, the longer trace. Alpha particles (+2e charge) are leaving thick, short trace. Beta electron particles (-1e charge) are leaving thin, long trace. And they can be photographed, or filmed: Cloud Chamber particle detector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber Bubble Chamber particle detector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber If there is provided external electric/magnetic field, traces are bending accordingly to charge and mass of particle. Negative electrode will attract positive alpha, positive antimatter positron, and repel negative electron etc. Positive electrode will attract negative electron, negative pion, negative kaon, etc. This is NOT mathematics. Mathematics is just used to predict what will happen in future, what is seen in detectors already. If apple fails from desk, you can calculate f.e. time it flied prior reaching ground, you have math equation, then the next time you will release apple from hand, you will be able to predict when it will reach ground. From observation is made math equation, then math equation can tell you in advance when and how something will be acting. Wow I love that so much. I want one!! Thank you for the vid and explanation. I'm so impressed. I'm going to be following up on this stuff for sure 1
Sensei Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Wow I love that so much. I want one!! Thank you for the vid and explanation. I'm so impressed. I'm going to be following up on this stuff for sure Description how to build such device is f.e. here Cheap in building, is running on dry ice, but is expensive in usage (unless you have unlimited access to dry ice, or air liquefier), Expensive in building one use Peltier coolers, but is cheaper in usage. If you will put radioactive element, radioactive isotope, in Cloud Chamber, you will see traces leaved by newly created particles, escaping your sample. And ionizing medium. Bubble chamber is much more expensive, and much more dangerous, as it has amount of liquid Hydrogen enough to wipe out entire building.. Wow I love that so much. I want one!! Thank you for the vid and explanation. I'm so impressed. I'm going to be following up on this stuff for sure Come with questions in the mainstream physics sections (instead of conjectures, hypothesis, speculations),, and we will be happy to answer them, if we will be able to.. This way you will learn and gain knowledge. +1 for enthusiastic reaction for knowledge (illustrated by video, which no doubt help).. Edited January 8, 2016 by Sensei 1
Questing Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 Come with questions in the mainstream physics sections (instead of conjectures, hypothesis, speculations),, and we will be happy to answer them, if we will be able to.. This way you will learn and gain knowledge. Thank you Sensei. You are a breath of fresh air
ajb Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Dont try to pass the buck. I pointed out there are many different varieties of religious belief, even to the extent of individual interpretations. I didnt speak with contempt towards peoples religious beliefs as did you. It is insulting to lots of people to claim that science is like a religion. It simply is not. We are able to change our minds when new evidence comes to light. This seems very distinct from religion. Anyway, this is moving off topic. The forums are filled with debates regarding GRs various interpretations. Not dissimilar to religious disagreement it seams to me. An interpretation is an interpretation, nothing like as important as actually being able to formulate and calculate things. But thats speaking from somebody who has become dissatisfied with the apparent limits of theory of general relativity. Like relative distances of space etc. Like nothingness comes in different shapes and sizes, and pushes heavy objects around perpetually without breaking energy conservation laws. But I have to concede, I was not insightful enough to second guess these circumstances of GR until I had reason too. And so I too have to admit myself capable of dismissing new ideas off hand, based on my personal prejudices and prior held beliefs. So you have philosophical objections with general relativity? As far as I am aware, any attempts to show that general relativity is not a good theory, taking into accounts the domain of validity, experimental errors and so on, are all based on philosophical arguments and not hard science. This is awkward, as we know that general relativity is not the final say on gravity, but nature nor our mathematics has really pointed out what should replace GR. Well, we have a few mathematical ideas, but so far nothing that really singles these ideas out. String theory so far seems a good candidate but it does have some problems. I'll converse with you, however not if you keep up your disingenuousness. Only math is worthy rendition. Disagreement without cause, even when you dont actually disagree. You should think carefully about what a physical theory is and how it relates to your ideas. Take this Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity thing. You disagree with me, but I cannot believe it is your true position. Well up to this point I am not sure what you are arguing so I will read on... A theory "of" something does not merely describe what is occurring, it at least attempts an explanation of why it is occurring, and perhaps a process or mechanism from which it emerges from. Well this is subtle, but the reason 'why' is usually left out of physics. Physics builds models that describe observations of physical phenomena and makes predictions about things we can observe. Newtonian gravity fits this bill for a range of physical parameters: we can make predictions of the movement of test particles using Newtonian gravity and these generally agree well with nature. Really, you want to argue Newtonian gravity is a theory of gravity? Forgive me if I switch off from you. Why? You might gain some further insight. General Relativity is different however, and Einstein really was trying the develop a theory for processes and mechanisms underlying the cause of gravity. Does general relativity tell us 'why' energy-momentum is a source of gravity? Or does it just allow us to model gravitational phenomena? And no doubt about it, he improved of Newtons work measurably... For sure, general relativity allows us to model gravitational phenomena for a much wider range of parameters, specifically masses and (relative) velocities. General relativity agrees with nature better than Newtonian gravity over more phenomena. ...but did he achieve entirely what he set out to achieve? In relation to general relativity, hard to say. He did work on alternative related theories for a while. But his is all history. That's a pretty fundamental question which needs to be answered, before you might choose to lock GR in as the final answer of things. Nobody thinks that general relativity is the final word on gravity. Well Mass is a free parameter also, and so I'm tinkering with a variable mass theory. Good luck and I hope you are actually trying to build models here, including toy ones. I do appreciate the chance to converse with qualified experts, however I'm not sure I count you amongst them. Well, I don't really have any thing to prove to you. In particular you are the one that came here claiming to have a theory! Perhaps you might present me your work? You can find links via my blog. I suggest you take a look at my preprint on 'Killing sections and sigma models with Lie algebroid targets'. In that work I build a new class of classical field theories. The work is motivated by mathematics and not really physics, but you will see what is involved in presenting a new field theory. You will see how you ideas, although more ambitious, fall very short of what I have done and what everyone would expect you to have done.. I'm guessing its pure math, written in gods only tongue. Mathematical physics and modern geometry. Not even lowering yourself to mortal for benefit of presenting english spoken abstract. You really have no idea do you? I really really like the idea you can guide me too the mathematical tools plz? I'll give some thought to my theory's general needs, which aspects of math might shed light on the subject. Strange as you seem to have some resentment for mathematics. If apple fails from desk, you can calculate f.e. time it flied prior reaching ground, you have math equation, then the next time you will release apple from hand, you will be able to predict when it will reach ground. From observation is made math equation, then math equation can tell you in advance when and how something will be acting. This really gets to the 'meat of mathematics' in the physical sciences. Mathematics takes us from general claims to specifics we can measure. Edited January 8, 2016 by ajb 1
swansont Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 I pointed out there are many different varieties of religious belief So much for this, then I would like 2016 to be the year when people remembered that science is a method of investigation, and NOT a belief system https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/683681888687538177 3
Questing Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) So you have philosophical objections with general relativity? As far as I am aware, any attempts to show that general relativity is not a good theory, taking into accounts the domain of validity, experimental errors and so on, are all based on philosophical arguments and not hard science. This is awkward, as we know that general relativity is not the final say on gravity, but nature nor our mathematics has really pointed out what should replace GR. Well, we have a few mathematical ideas, but so far nothing that really singles these ideas out. String theory so far seems a good candidate but it does have some problems. You should think carefully about what a physical theory is and how it relates to your ideas. Well this is subtle, but the reason 'why' is usually left out of physics. Physics builds models that describe observations of physical phenomena and makes predictions about things we can observe. Newtonian gravity fits this bill for a range of physical parameters: we can make predictions of the movement of test particles using Newtonian gravity and these generally agree well with nature. Does general relativity tell us 'why' energy-momentum is a source of gravity? Or does it just allow us to model gravitational phenomena? For sure, general relativity allows us to model gravitational phenomena for a much wider range of parameters, specifically masses and (relative) velocities. General relativity agrees with nature better than Newtonian gravity over more phenomena. In relation to general relativity, hard to say. He did work on alternative related theories for a while. But his is all history. Nobody thinks that general relativity is the final word on gravity. Good to see a change in your tone. and maybe something of interest said. Not that we'll agree on much, but agreement is less important than general courtesy. I'll reply soon So much for this, then https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/683681888687538177 John Cleese haha lol. An ideal to aspire toward, but actually thats a bit trickier than first seams. I'm going to think on that a little I would like 2016 to be the year when people remembered that science is a method of investigation,and NOT a belief system Edited January 8, 2016 by Questing -1
Questing Posted January 9, 2016 Author Posted January 9, 2016 It seems to me, the system which humans use to build a world view isn’t perfectly suited to this new scientific paradigm we find ourselves in. Our belief system evolved within us primarily as a mechanism for enabling social unity, with individuals absorbing cultural learnings more or less unquestioningly. Our default program is to generally except cultural belief, without rationalizing for ourselves. This is very efficient, and worked well for a time pre-science. And luckily it also allowed for incremental improvements of knowledge to occur over time, and so we did build our knowledge base, early technologies which lead to farming etc. However community cultural beliefs were rather stable and static over duration of a person’s lifetime, or at least they used to be. But no more.Knowledge is changing so fast in this day and age. All this change of perspective is being processed by the same brain system, evolved for much less challenging times. But we are trying to adapt to a more flexible frame of mind, and doing quite well considering this circumstance. But we are generally not perfect at it.Even knowing there are many many unanswered questions of nature, we can be quite resistant to suggestions that contradict our world view. Somebody might suggest, “lets tinker with a variable mass theory”, and people might remark, and even while not knowing where mass arises from, “you cant do that”. Why, because it challenges preconceived beliefs. I suggest this is human nature, and something to be acknowledged and aware of, but not to be ashamed of. Just the way we are.We should take John Cleeses comment to heart It is insulting to lots of people to claim that science is like a religion. It simply is not. We are able to change our minds when new evidence comes to light. This seems very distinct from religion. Anyway, this is moving off topic. Not so fast. Youre much more like a religious zelot than you would care to think. You did admittedly take up argument with me before having even read my thread. At what point in this process did you employ your enlightened scientific discretion? I have had similar experiences with religious people.Your right, back on topic. Relativity! -5
ajb Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) It seems to me, the system which humans use to build a world view isn’t perfectly suited to this new scientific paradigm we find ourselves in. Isn't this just off topic? Also, I find it quite amusing when people who know very little about science care to make such comments. Not so fast. Youre much more like a religious zelot than you would care to think. You did admittedly take up argument with me before having even read my thread. I have read your opening post and found it to be incomprehensible. I have asked for some clarification of some of your earlier statements that all. You have refused to do so, or really I think unable to do so. Maybe you should just admit you have no idea what you are talking about? At what point in this process did you employ your enlightened scientific discretion? Once again, I have asked for some clarification of the statements you have made that seem to me to be just a hash of biology terms with physics terms. You have made no attempt and clearing this up. And indeed, this is before we move on to the more clear misunderstandings of physic you have. Other have done a good job of pointing these out. I have had similar experiences with religious people. This is off topic and some vain attempt to discredit me. I suggest we stay on topic and discuss your ideas in the context of physics. Throwing in 'red herrings' hoping to distract people from dissecting your poorly founded and poorly constructed ideas is not a constructive way to keep the flow of dialogue. In this direction, I would like you to try to explain what you mean by A 'simple primitive form' of a field Replication and generational change of a field Adaptation and evolutionary progression for a field None of these terms seem to make any sense to anyone who has actually studied classical and quantum field theory. How do these terms relate to actual calculations? Without some idea of these terms no-one will take your ideas at all seriously. I hope you appreciate what I am saying. It is not a personal attack on you, but you are clearly ignorant of modern science and what we mean by a physical theory. Edited January 9, 2016 by ajb 2
Mordred Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 I've tried reading what you have posted. In some areas I'm not even sure what direction to point you in. Other than textbooks. Which is probably the best suggestion I can offer. In all honesty I found numerous misconceptions that are a result of a pop media study style. Not too unusual in that regard it's a common event with new forum members. One suggestion I have is to learn the correct terminology associated with your ideas. Understand what a field for example really is. For example what is the difference between a scalar and a vector field? Correctly describing what field would help us show you the mathematical end. For example all scalar fields can be modelled by the equations at the bottom of this page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) That equation can be adapted to any scalar interaction 1
ajb Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 In all honesty I found numerous misconceptions that are a result of a pop media study style. I am glad it is not just me that thinks this! One of the common problems is not understanding that 'theory = mathematical model'. If Questing makes a request, I can point to some textbook on QFT and general relativity that I have personal experience with. Cosmology I have less knowledge of, but still I can recommend a book or two.
Mordred Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 For cosmology applications the easiest starting point is the FLRW metric. Knowing how the Einstein field equations, thermodynamic laws and particle physics fit into the FLRW metric is a huge plus. The books I found most helpful with lower math was Introduction to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden (excellent book to teach the FLRW metric in toy universe modelling) Introductory to Cosmology by Matt Roose. (Good all around) Quarks and Leptons (can't recall author lol) Introductory to particle physics by Peter Griffith.( all of his books are excellent.) Modern Cosmology by Scott Dodelson is more math intensive but has a good inflation coverage. For Cosmology a basic understanding of particle physics is usually sufficient for the undergrad level For free books on physics. Relativity and QM. There is the Feynman lectures. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ Probably the most enjoyable math book in Cosmology applications regardless of model. Was "Roads to Reality" by Sir Roger Penrose. He broke down differential geometry in Cosmology and field theory applications in a humourous and simplified manner. 1
Recommended Posts