Why all the nutcases?

[markci]

Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs? Are chemistry forums full of people who think they can prove that the formula for water is H30?

I mean, I know evolutionary biology forums are full of creationist bull****, but at least those morons have religion as an excuse for their delusions.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs? Are chemistry forums full of people who think they can prove that the formula for water is H30? You'd be surprised. Cold fusion? Hydrogen "fuel?"

Physics may have more, but thats only because its far less complete than chemistry. Heck, physics could be considered a continuation of chemistry.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?


I don't know how physics message boards compare to those of other sciences, but I think that nutjobs are attracted to message boards in general because they can't get their stuff publised in peer-reviewed journals. Take any crackpot in this or any other forum and inquire as to his list of publications in such journals. They typically have none, and when they do the publications are usually in journals that are less than reputable ("Physics Essays" comes to mind).

But I'd be surprised if you even got an answer to the question. More typically you get a diatribe about how "The Establishment" is conspiring to protect itself by surpressing the crackpot's revolutionary theory, and that's why he isn't published.

It would be funny if it weren't so very sad.

[bandonrun]

To bad we can't suppress the nutjobs before they show. Heck - we could have stopped the Wright brothers dead in thier tracks. Those goofballs actually thought they could fly. Whats this world coming too anyway?

We must absolutely stop these nutcases before they actually do something.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?

I think it is Einstein's fault.

Most people (including prospective physics students) has heard a description of how a patent-office clerk, out of the academic world, "followed his nose" (as he himself put it once) and revolutionized physics in many ways.

This, together with popularizations that try to motivate people into learning science (disregarding complexity and rigor in the way), allow some to think that it is only a matter of having the right idea, even if they have no clue about the subject.

[quartodeciman]

It is the inventive spirit. People have invented things no one thought possible beforehand. Theory can be considered a form of invention in the thought domain. Just come up with something you think hasn't been thought before (or taken seriously before), and you are inventing something.

If the theorist can't build a device that clearly demonstrates the fruitfulness of those ideas, distinguished from already established ideas, then the theorist feels compelled to argue the matter. Nut cases argue those ideas endlessly.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by ahrkron
I think it is Einstein's fault. It is the inventive spirit. I tend to think Einstein is more of a product of it than the source. But I guess a superstar can be a real motivator for others.

It is true though that great inventions/discoveries often come from relative nobodys. Look what those two guys at the bicycle shop did for example.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by bandonrun
To bad we can't suppress the nutjobs before they show. Heck - we could have stopped the Wright brothers dead in thier tracks.
Those goofballs actually thought they could fly. Whats this world coming too anyway?


Are you serious?

It's not as though the Wright brothers just slapped an airplane together and started flying around in it. They practically invented the "systems approach" to engineering, testing components in simulations before ever leaving the ground. When it came time to make the first flight, enough testing had been done to leave little doubt that the plane would take off.

Furthermore, the physics of flight was well understood before the Wright brothers. It was the ignoramoses who did not understand physics who thought the Wright brothers were nutjobs.


We must absolutely stop these nutcases before they actually do something.


You don't know what you are talking about. The "nutcases" referred to here are those theorists who ignore falsifying experimental evidence, or that their theories are not well-defined, or that they are not falsifiable.

[bandonrun]

You don't know what you are talking about. The "nutcases" referred to here are those theorists who ignore falsifying experimental evidence, or that their theories are not well-defined, or that they are not falsifiable.

FACT - There are nutcases.
FACT - It's thier problem.
FACT - Only a nutcase would have a problem with this, unless of course you think you have the nuts for the nutjob.
FACT - This thread is a nutjob of nuts for nutcases. [:D]

Yer solution
SOLUTION - Lets beat these nutcases into submission...spread them over a slab of bread with jelly on top, and then have them for lunch.

My response
Yer a case for the nuts. [o)]

My solution
Sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't![g)]

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by bandonrun
FACT - There are nutcases.
FACT - It's thier problem.
FACT - Only a nutcase would have a problem with this, unless of course you think you have the nuts for the nutjob.


You haven't moderated too many message boards, I take it.

The nutcase becomes the problem of the staff of a message board when his unchecked contributions lessen the scientific integrity of the site. That's why we have a seperate Forum for Theory Development (safely away from the real science boards), that's why we (the staff) intervene and try to guide errant threads back on track, and that's why we eventually ban nutcases who are so incorrigible as to be an unneccessary drain on the staff's time.


FACT - This thread is a nutjob of nuts for nutcases. [:D]


You're posting in it too, skippy.


Yer solution
SOLUTION - Lets beat these nutcases into submission...spread them over a slab of bread with jelly on top, and then have them for lunch.


Once agian: You don't know what you're talking about.

I have over 1000 posts here. Read some of them. You'll see that I first try to guide people in the right direction, and only after that beat them into submission. [:))]


My solution
Sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't![g)]


How many nuts would a nutcracker crack if a nutcracker could crack nuts? [g)]

edit: fixed quote bracket

[Loren Booda]

What is the dividing line between a scientist and a crank? (For instance, how many of us would label ourselves as a crank but most others on PhysicsForums as objective thinkers?)

Notice in this thread how much of the labeling (e. g., "krank" meaning "sick" in German) for inept posters refers to mental illness. We don't call these people "n*gg*rs," "b*tch*s" or "f*gg*ts," but feel impunity when degrading a brain disease. How about calling the pseudointellectuals "cancered"?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
What is the dividing line between a scientist and a crank?


That's a hard call to make, which is why we give so much lattitude here in the TD Forum. It is easy to identify someone's work as crackpottery, but it takes a bit longer to identify the man himself as a crackpot. That can only be assessed by the extent to which he defies reason and exeperimental evidence to hold to his views.


Notice in this thread how much of the labeling (e. g., "krank" meaning "sick" in German) for inept posters refers to mental illness.


I think that most people did not know that.


We don't call these people "n*gg*rs," "b*tch*s" or "f*gg*ts," but feel impunity when degrading a brain disease. How about calling the pseudointellectuals "cancered"?


We don't call them "n*gg*rs," "b*tch*s," "f*gg*ts," or "cancered" because we know that crackpottery is not a function of skin pigment, sex, sexual preference, or uncontrolled cell growth.

It is a function of wrong thinking.

[elas]

I don't know how physics message boards compare to those of other sciences, but I think that nutjobs are attracted to message boards in general because they can't get their stuff publised in peer-reviewed journals.

As a fully paid up nutcase, may I put a different view.
I publish my ideas on a webpage and come to Theory Developement Forum in the hope that I will get some constructive criticism that will enable me to bring my ideas up to a state where they just might be considered for publication.
This has had some measure of success and I have considerably improved my work and the improvements are ongoing. Some have suggested I should go for publication now, but I know I am not yet ready and need to make more progress if I am going to be taken seriously.

Why is Einstein held up as an example of a good scientist, he tells you that the transmission of light is an act of unexplainable magic, where is the science in that.
Fermi told us that electromagnetism cannot be explained only predicted, and in his opinion the cause of electromagnetism is beyond explanation and will always remain so. Is that acceptable science?
Braithewaite proved by demonstration (at Cambridge University in the 1960's) that Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong and he was swepted aside, but today many people are quietly, almost secretly taking up where Braithewaite left off. They do not like to admit it but that is what their work amounts to.
There is much left to be discovered and I hope my views on vacuum might one day come to count for something, if not I have had the joy of trying. Yes, I am a nutcase; and proud of it.

It is better to try and fail, than not to try at all

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by elas
As a fully paid up nutcase, may I put a different view.
I publish my ideas on a webpage and come to Theory Developement Forum in the hope that I will get some constructive criticism that will enable me to bring my ideas up to a state where they just might be considered for publication.
This has had some measure of success and I have considerably improved my work and the improvements are ongoing. Some have suggested I should go for publication now, but I know I am not yet ready and need to make more progress if I am going to be taken seriously.


OK


Why is Einstein held up as an example of a good scientist, he tells you that the transmission of light is an act of unexplainable magic, where is the science in that.


This is a compound question, so I'll answer the three parts seperately.

"Why is Einstein held up as an example of a good scientist?"

Because Einstein came up with good scientific theories. I take the criteria for "good" to be that they are:

1. Logically valid.
2. Confirmable.
3. Confirmed.
4. Falsifiable.

"Why does Einstein tell us that the transmission of light is an act of unexplainable magic?"

He did not tell us that. His theory is fully consistent with the Maxwell theory, which says that the transmission of light is due to mutually induced oscillating EM fields. This leads us to your Fermi comment, but first the last part of your question.

"Where is the science in telling us that the transmission of light is an act of unexplainable magic?"

It is not science.


Fermi told us that electromagnetism cannot be explained only predicted, and in his opinion the cause of electromagnetism is beyond explanation and will always remain so. Is that acceptable science?


Of course it is acceptable science. The universe is not known a priori, and this precludes full explanations of anything.

I don't know exactly what Fermi said, but I do know that EM is reducible to electric charges in motion. An explanation of EM phenomena would have to include an explanation of the origin of electric charge, and this we do not have. Even if we did have it, it would only introduce a new concept to be explained.


Braithewaite proved by demonstration (at Cambridge University in the 1960's) that Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong and he was swepted aside, but today many people are quietly, almost secretly taking up where Braithewaite left off. They do not like to admit it but that is what their work amounts to.


References please?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Tom
The nutcase becomes the problem of the staff of a message board when his unchecked contributions lessen the scientific integrity of the site. That's why we have a seperate Forum for Theory Development (safely away from the real science boards), that's why we (the staff) intervene and try to guide errant threads back on track, and that's why we eventually ban nutcases who are so incorrigible as to be an unneccessary drain on the staff's time. Ya know, when I first got here (before I became a mod) I was expecting/hoping TD would be a place for VIABLE new theories. String theory, fate of the universe, probability of life type stuff. When I realized it was a dumpster for crackpots, I was vaguely disappointed. It is entertaining though.

What is the dividing line between a scientist and a crank? Its quite simple really. By definition, a crackpot is someone who is far off the mainstream. So apply this test to your ideas: would a large majority (75% or so) of scientists consider my ideas to be scientifically viable? If the answer is consistantly no, then you may be a crackpot.

Now this isn't to say that crackpots aren't sometimes right and the "establishment" wrong. Quite frankly, I can't think of such a case, but I'm sure it happens. If you hope to be in that category though, you'd better make damn sure your ideas are on flawless scientific ground, as ideas counter to the mainstream are ruthlessly (and rightly so) scrutinized for errors.

[elas]

Tom

Einstein states that light travels at a constant speed regardless of the relative velocities of the emitter and receiver. This he claims is a real action; to describe this claim as ‘logically valid’ requires a different dictionary to mine. I would suggest that it is an ‘apparent action’. Moreover to claim that it is confirmable is only valid if the parameters under discussion are restricted to the electromagnetic spectrum.

This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters. On my web page there is a graph showing the relationship between fundamental particles including the graviton. At present a number of universities are engaged in the search for gravity waves, neither particle nor wave has yet been discovered so I ask you to assume that both exist. Given that assumption I make the point that the graviton is the only non-magnetic particle and therefore it is logical to assume that gravity waves are not part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that there is a separate gravity spectrum.
Given that the speed of light varies according to field density then the speed of light in the less dense gravity field or spectrum should be greater than the speed of light in an electromagnetic field. This is partially supported by the (inconclusive experimental finding) that the maximum speed of bosons in a strong force field is in the region of 94 miles per second, compared with ‘C’ in an electromagnetic field and I am suggesting (purely for the point of this debate) that it is ‘C squared’ in a gravity field. Keep in mind that these are maximum not constant speeds.
Note that my proposal does not require any alteration to the mathematics of Maxwell and Einstein, but it improves matters by giving us an explanation for the observed behavior of light in that we are restricted to observations on the electromagnetic spectrum where the maximum speed is 'C' and anything faster than 'C' is still recorded as 'C' by our electromagnetic machinery.
Note also that I am not alone in this sort of thinking, Bohm stated that his ‘unknown force’ was probably capable of speeds in excess of ‘C’. I am in good company even if well below the abilities of likeminded thinkers such as Bohm.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by elas
Einstein states that light travels at a constant speed regardless of the relative velocities of the emitter and receiver.

It is not just that "he said so" and everybody followed. What actually happens is that

1. Classical electromagnetic theory conflicts with newtonian mechanics
2. There is no reason to believe a priori that simultaneity is an absolute concept
3. Experiment has shown that the speed of light is always the same, regardless of the speed of the source

When embracing 3 and working out its consequences, the conflict in 1 disappears and we get a much better understanding of 2.

To further back this, its many consequences are daily confirmed in a lot of different settings, also, more indirect confirmations come from the accuracy of GR and QFT, both "built over" SR.

[elas]

3. Experiment has shown that the speed of light is always the same, regardless of the speed of the source

Not so, the fact that experiments always result in the same speed regardless of the speed of the source cannot not be used as proof that the speed is constant as long as there is an alternative possibility, that is that the reading represents the fastest measurable speed. The question as to which of these two alternatives is correct has never been put to the test.
My arguement is that the second possibility is more logical and offers a better understanding of the transmission of light than does the first. It has the distinct advantage of being the non-magical solution.
This possibility blends in with my proposed particle strucure which is the only proposal to date to link the data found by experiment, together in one structure (i.e. mass, density and radii).
If Bohm's 'unknown force' is replaced with the vacuum force then there are some common aspects to the descriptions.
If Braithewaite's experiments are explained using my proposed particle structure then we have the first explanation of Braithewaite's experiments in that the observed effects can be explained as the interaction of centripetal forces and gravitons resulting in the creation of artificial gravity fields.
In short without altering the mathematics of Maxwell and Einstein but simply insisting on the proper examination of all possible interpretations, it is possible to come up with an explanation of observed particle behavior that is more comprehensive than the current interpretation.

[elas]

Tom

Braithewaite proved by demonstration
refernces please

For Braithwaite read Laithwaite (my memory let me down). There are a number of sites which I shall now investigate. Just search on Physics Laithwaite
See also the experiments by Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University togwether with Matsu****a a Japanese multinational company. The unexplained gravity effects they discovered are explainable as the interaction of centrifugal forces and gravitons.

Hilariously control has rejected a four letter word from the company name please reinsert short word for excretia!

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by elas
... the reading represents the fastest measurable speed.

All speed measurements are a quotient between a distance and a time interval. These, in turn, are obtained from two events, triggered by some physical effect.

Whatever this physical effect is, it still has the property of having the same speed in all reference frames, and it can be used as the basis for a definition of simultaneity, giving you relativity all over again.

The only way out would be for you to propose that our experimental devices somehow trigger faster or slower to trick us into thinking that the speed was the same, even when the second event was still not there, or had already happened... I don't see how this would be a better alternative.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by elas
Einstein states that light travels at a constant speed regardless of the relative velocities of the emitter and receiver.


Yes, it is a postulate. It has been confirmed, and so have its consequences.


This he claims is a real action; to describe this claim as ‘logically valid’ requires a different dictionary to mine.


Then you need to get a new dictionary. Logical validity means that no unwarranted inferences are made from one's starting premises, and special relativity satisfies that.


I would suggest that it is an ‘apparent action’.


What's the difference? If it is "apparent" to everyone, then in what sense can anyone say that it is not "real"?


Moreover to claim that it is confirmable is only valid if the parameters under discussion are restricted to the electromagnetic spectrum.


Patently false. The results apply to weak, strong, and gravitational interactions as well.


This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters. On my web page there is a graph showing the relationship between fundamental particles including the graviton. At present a number of universities are engaged in the search for gravity waves, neither particle nor wave has yet been discovered so I ask you to assume that both exist. Given that assumption I make the point that the graviton is the only non-magnetic particle and therefore it is logical to assume that gravity waves are not part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that there is a separate gravity spectrum.


I have no problem assuming that both gravity waves and gravitons exist. I also have no problem with the "seperate gravity spectrum". But given that your assertion that SR only applies to the "electromagnetic spectrum" is false, I don't see what your point is.


Given that the speed of light varies according to field density then the speed of light in the less dense gravity field or spectrum should be greater than the speed of light in an electromagnetic field.


Given that the speed of light varies???

That is hardly "given". You refer to experimental results and to your website, but if you could give me links to both that would help.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
[This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters. The thing that boggles my mind is that if you KNOW that the methodology behind your ideas (and thus the ideas themselves) is considered by scientists to be scientifically flawed, why do you not attempt to FIX your methodology?

Learn the scientific method. Learn how to explore and present your ideas scientifically. Learn physics. Learn the existing theories relevant to your work. Then you will be able to both explore and evaluate your own ideas. You'll achieve much more that way.

Its almost as if you believe that classifying yourself as a nutcase somehow liberates you from following the same rules as other scientists. It does not - if you want to ever get any real work done in science.

[elas]

russ_watters

The thing that boggles my mind is that if you KNOW that the methodology behind your ideas (and thus the ideas themselves) is considered by scientists to be scientifically flawed, why do you not attempt to FIX your methodology?

Is this not precisely what I am attempting to do on my web page?



ahrkron

All speed measurements are a quotient between a distance and a time interval. These, in turn, are obtained from two events, triggered by some physical effect.

Gravitational time delay (as used by Hawking) and the speed of light are related. Using the Gravitational Time Delay Graph to read the acceleration and deceleration of light should explain the experiments referred to by yourself. Extending the graph to the other side of 'C' (mirror image) takes you into the realm of Bohm. I am not in conflict with your statement but, adding to it.

Tom

Yes, it is a postulate. It has been confirmed, and so have its consequences

Postulate suggest or assume the existence, fact or truth.

All experimenters assume that 'C' is a constant and not a maximum speed. The same sort of error was made by scientist measuring Ozone Depletion but they had the good sense to accept the proposal that there readings were wrong. QP physicists have a closed mind when it comes to alternative possibilities and Relativity physicist flatly reject all experiments (using spinnig objects) and cosmic observations that run contrary to there theories. This is not good science.


What's the difference? If it is "apparent" to everyone, then in what sense can anyone say that it is not "real"?

The 'apparent motion' of the planets is orbital, the 'real motion' is a complicated wave pattern. At no priod of time does any planet actually complete an orbit in space; but the 'apparent' motion relative to the Sun is an orbit. Orbits are apparent motion, waves are real motion.

Patantly false. The results apply to weak, strong, and gravitational interactions as well.

I should have written that the graviton is the only particle not subject to the electromagnetic force.
'C' does not apply within a strong force field. According to a report in SciAm attempts to measure the speed of bosons within a strong force field were 'inconclusive' but the report continued with the statement that "there are some reasons to believe that it is about 94 miles per second".


Given that the speed of light varies???
That is hardly "given". You refer to experimental results and to your website, but if you could give me links to both that would help.

You promised to review my website and get back to me about three years ago (on two seperate occasions!). All members websites can be accessed through the 'Members List". Click on 'Members' > E > elas > www. I have been official rebuked for repeating my site address on Physics Forum, I was accused of advertising by one forum mentor.
Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space.

regards
elas

[UltraPi1]

If PF theory development manages to foster one significant development in 50 years. I would consider it to be a smashing success. That means that all the rest is nutjobs end to end.

I say this is to be expected, and to have a problem with this is simply ignoring the reality of it. If you are not at least entertained by theory development - You surely are .... getting up on the wrong side of the bed.

[elas]

UltraPi1

My sentiments exactly and if I happen to be that one in 50years I'll buy you a beer.

Cheers
elas

PS Did you visit my website?, would appreciate your judgement as to whether or not the proposition is intelligible and if you are a physicist, does it make sense scientifically? Honest opinions by people with sound common sense are surprisingly hard to come by.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by elas
Tom

Yes, it is a postulate. It has been confirmed, and so have its consequences

Postulate suggest or assume the existence, fact or truth.


What?


All experimenters assume that 'C' is a constant and not a maximum speed. The same sort of error was made by scientist measuring Ozone Depletion but they had the good sense to accept the proposal that there readings were wrong. QP physicists have a closed mind when it comes to alternative possibilities and Relativity physicist flatly reject all experiments (using spinnig objects) and cosmic observations that run contrary to there theories. This is not good science.


You keep referring to these experiments that falsify relativity.

Where are they published?


What's the difference? If it is "apparent" to everyone, then in what sense can anyone say that it is not "real"?

The 'apparent motion' of the planets is orbital, the 'real motion' is a complicated wave pattern. At no priod of time does any planet actually complete an orbit in space; but the 'apparent' motion relative to the Sun is an orbit. Orbits are apparent motion, waves are real motion.


Then this "real motion" you speak of is no less illusory than the "apparent motion". There is no reason I should prefer the frame in which planetary motion is wavelike over the frame in which it is elliptical, and vice versa.


Patantly false. The results apply to weak, strong, and gravitational interactions as well.

I should have written that the graviton is the only particle not subject to the electromagnetic force.


That is not what I was objecting to. What I meant is that all field theories of fundamental interactions are relativistic.


'C' does not apply within a strong force field. According to a report in SciAm attempts to measure the speed of bosons within a strong force field were 'inconclusive' but the report continued with the statement that "there are some reasons to believe that it is about 94 miles per second".


I would need to see the article. I have never heard of anyone directly measuring the "speed" of subatomic particles. Also, what exactly do you mean by "strong force field"? Do you mean the field of the "strong force" or a "strong" EM field? (Either way, I think you're wrong, but it would help to be on the same page).


Given that the speed of light varies???
That is hardly "given". You refer to experimental results and to your website, but if you could give me links to both that would help.

You promised to review my website and get back to me about three years ago (on two seperate occasions!). All members websites can be accessed through the 'Members List". Click on 'Members' > E > elas > www. I have been official rebuked for repeating my site address on Physics Forum, I was accused of advertising by one forum mentor.


Sorry, I get so many emails and private messages from independent theorists such as yourself that I can't keep track of them all. I won't make any more promises that I cannot keep.


Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space.


You answered your own question immediately after asking it.

No, the speed of light does not vary in harmony with time. Time and space vary in such a way as to be in harmony with an invariant speed of light.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
russ_watters

The thing that boggles my mind is that if you KNOW that the methodology behind your ideas (and thus the ideas themselves) is considered by scientists to be scientifically flawed, why do you not attempt to FIX your methodology?

Is this not precisely what I am attempting to do on my web page? No. Quite the opposite. It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically flawed to as a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science. Its more than just a circular arguement - its a death spiral.


But one little specific thing about your ideas: Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space. You quite simly don't understand relativity on the most basic level. The death spiral will continue intil you choose to break it by LEARNING REAL SCIENCE.

[elas]

It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically to act a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science.

You keep making this sort of comment without making any attempt to justify them. In the first part of my work I do no more than draw up tables and charts from a standard table of elements to show how the unsolved problems of particle physics can be solved. The key change being the conversion of mass/energy into vacuum force and vacuum force carrier.
These problems are listed in the most elementary of particle physics books, so I assume a person of your obvious knowledge is well aware of them. So let me have constructive criticism in place of your bombastic statements.

You quite simply don't understand relativity on the most basic level.

The second part of my work is an attempt to show how this new particle and atomic structure relates to quantum physics, and here I am open to criticism because QP is the interpretation of predictions, while my suggestions are interpretations based on structure.
If I am not giving the correct QP interpretation of gravitational time delay please outline the correct interpretation, for a person of your brilliance that should be a piece of cake; and if you would deign to use a grammar and spell checker at the same time, you would save your readers the trouble of editing your replies.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically flawedto act a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science.

You keep making this sort of comment without making any attempt to justify them. Somehow I left out the word "flawed" in that statement. But I guess it was understood. In any case, you yourself said it earlier and I quoted you:This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters. Essentially that is both an admission that your ideas are considered to be flawed and a statment that by accepting that they are flawed, you are released from the requirement that they be sound. Sorry, no. You DO have to follow the same rules everyone else does.for a person of your brilliance that should be a piece of cake I've said it before, elias: I'm not an expert on this stuff. I'm an engineer, not a physicist. The vast majority of what I know on this particular subject comes from several readings of "A Brief History of Time." But a single pass through the basics of relativity is all that is required to see your most basic errors, such as the one pointed out by Tom. The way you asked and (sorta) answered your own question indicates that maybe you already know the answers and either just refuse to accept them or choose to ignore them. Thats a big pet peve of mine - people who know the truth and ignore or refuse to accept it.

[UltraPi1]

Thats a big pet peve of mine - people who know the truth and ignore or refuse to accept it.
In the scientific world - The truth is a moving target. On Physics Forums (Theory development) - People take thier best shots. Why should anyone have a problem with this? A blindfolded shot in the dark could very well be a trophy above the mantle of accepted truth.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
In the scientific world - The truth is a moving target. On Physics Forums (Theory development) - People take thier best shots. Why should anyone have a problem with this? A blindfolded shot in the dark could very well be a trophy above the mantle of accepted truth. Because blind shots in the dark is NOT how real science is done. Real science is done through years of thorough and laborious work in a LAB or on a blackboard, searching methodically for that one little answer.

The saddest thing about this is that people don't get that fact. And the result is that if one of these guys DOES get lucky, no one will ever know it because no one will ever spend the time to sift through millions of pages of crap to find that one little gem. Elas - if you say 10 things that are wrong in a row and then say one thing correct, no one will hear it because no one will be listening to you by the time you get to it. And thats no one's fault but your own.

[ahrkron]

I completely agree with russ_watters.

Also, saying one correct thing with the wrong reasons gives us no better understanding. To an extent, it is this understanding what science looks for, not just isolated "conclusions", and even less so if they come from unsustainable assumptions.

[UltraPi1]

Because blind shots in the dark is NOT how real science is done. Real science is done through years of thorough and laborious work in a LAB or on a blackboard, searching methodically for that one little answer.
I beg to differ. The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit, and carry the name nutjob. An appearance at a scientist wastebasket shall proffer a mountain of proof. In many cases - Truth is the falsehood of accepted truth. I.E. The accepted truth that an atom is fundamental is proven false by the truth.

The truth be known to those that put a gun to it's head, and questions it's authority. Never question the man with the gun that waits for the truth.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit

Have you seen the Particle Data Group summary of particle data? It is basically a 1000-page volume with all the info we have obtained about particles and fields. Each one of the numbers there is basically a graduate thesis (developed in a lab somewhere), and each thesis involves new ideas on how to obtain, analyse and interpret the corresponding data.

All that work has allowed us to develop a model that describes pretty much every one of those numbers. Not only that; while trying to get these properties together, "lab-people" have developed many technologies in use today in medicine, communications and what not.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The saddest thing about this is that people don't get that fact. And the result is that if one of these guys DOES get lucky, no one will ever know it because no one will ever spend the time to sift through millions of pages of crap to find that one little gem. Elas - if you say 10 things that are wrong in a row and then say one thing correct, no one will hear it because no one will be listening to you by the time you get to it. And thats no one's fault but your own.


And how.

Elas, I finally did look at your website. Not only does not not contain references to any experiments that falsify relativity, it does not even contain evidence that you ever bothered to learn any actual physics.

From the Introduction (http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s1.htm) to your website:


Attempts to describe the underlying structure such as Relativity, String theory and various descriptions of atomic structure do not match the observed universe. Gravity does not operate in the manner predicted by relativity with the result that a new "anti-gravity" force is being proposed to account for the difference; this is being done without any idea as to the nature or cause of either gravity or "anti-gravity".


Where's the justification for that, especially the first sentence?


The electron, long thought to be a point object, is now known to have a nucleus surrounded by a field of quantum pairs; although most textbooks continue to refer to the electron as a point object.


Yes, most textbooks refer to electrons as point objects in the first approximation in quantum theory. This is understood.

What is your point here?


Quarks and leptons are regarded as "fundamental particles" without any explanation as to why there is more than one fundamental particle or indeed what makes a fundamental particle.


The textbooks do not explain why there is more than one fundamental particle because no one knows why there is more than one fundamental particle.

As to the second point, you are simply wrong. Both the Electroweak and QCD theories clearly delineate fundamental particles from bound states composed thereof. That is, in the standard model there is no ambiguity between quarks/leptons, and mesons or positronium.


Electromagnetism and light are regarded as being beyond explanation, that is to say it is possible to predict their behavior but it is not possible to explain the cause of that behavior.


I already answered the above point in this very thread. There is no such thing as a full explanation of anything in science. We can reduce electromagnetic phenomena to moving electric charges, some of which have permanent magnetic moments. To explain further, we have to say what generated the charges in the first place. But then someone can look at the generator of charge and ask, "And where did that come from?", ad infinitum.


It is my belief that the inability to properly explain the underlying structure that gives rise to the observed universe is due to the failure to apply Occam's law of economy to the development the Standard Model; this has occurred for historical reasons and a correction is long overdue.


No one failed to apply Occam's Razor to the Standard Model. If that were true, then it would be possible to derive--from the Standard Model--one or more of the constants that are put into the Standard Model, but it isn't possible.

In any case, how pray tell would you correct it? You don't even know what it really tells us.


I propose that we should start with one force and one force carrier and not add any other entity until we run out of explanations using just the one force and its carrier; and then only if we can account for the creation of the new entity. The result of this method is, as Newton suggested; that the universe is a thing of great simplicity.


You are stuck in the 19th century. What you propose here has already been done. Starting from the 19th century picture, we have gravity and the EM force.

Then we discover the nucleus and determine that it is positively charged. We know from decay experiments that the nucleus is composed of positively charged constituents, and we know from EM theory that positive charges repel. So why does the nucleus hold together? There must be a strong force that overpowers the EM force, and it must act only over short distances. Enter the Strong Interaction.

Then, we observe beta decay of a nucleus. After years of analysis, we determine that this interaction does not conserve parity. This is a problem because we know that the EM and Strong forces do conserve parity. Also, this force is a lot weaker than its EM and Strong cousins. The inescapable conclusion is that we are dealing with a different force altogether. Enter the Weak Interaction.

And the fun doesn't end there.

From the section Fundamental Particles (http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s38.htm):


To demonstrate conversion I have used Standard Model data for elements 1 to 92 to construct a graph showing mass and electron binding force 1s.


First of all, what is "Standard Model Data"? The Standard Model is a theory, and data comes from experiments.

Second, Standard Model calculations for atoms (especially complex atoms such as Z=92!) simply do not exist. Theoretical chemists have developed methods based on nonrelativistic quantum mechanics to do such calculations, but that is not the Standard Model.

Third, you stated that you posted the graph to "demonstrate conversion" from the Standard Model to the Vacuum Model, but at no point do you ever mathematically demonstrate it!


One advantage that the Vacuum Model has over the Standard Model is that the vacuum force can be directly related to the volume found using the atomic radii.


How???

Where is the math?

In fact, the only attempt you made at presenting any mathematics was in the section on the Casimir Force (http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s26.htm), and you got it wrong:


Note that the total force acting between the plates is F2 plus F2 and therefore the Casimir effect law operates to the fourth power.


No, F2+F2=2F2.

You're confusing addition with multiplication.

In any case, when considering the force on a plate, you cannot add forces do not act directly on the plate you are analyzing. And if you are determining the total force on the capacitor, then that is zero, because the forces are equal and opposite.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through the rest. I see nothing more than a series of essays that contain:

1. Your misinformed personal opinion regarding currently accepted physical theories.
2. Your vague notions of how to correct the perceived discrepancies.
3. Unreferenced, unanalyzed data presented on graphes.

Furthermore, some essential ingredients that are missing:

1. A mathematical definition of your "Vacuum Field" and its time evolution, interactions, etc.
2. A mathematical demonstration of your ideas, including derivations of its main predictions.
3. Experimental results warranting the changes you espouse.
4. Analysis of the data presented.

Without those, you have not one iota of substance at your site, and you should not be surprised to find that serious scientists ignore you, because what you have right now is just the sort of bullsh*t that Russ was talking about.

edit: fixed color bracket

[jcsd]

Most of the nutjobs on these boards have a poor understanding of physics and ALL of them have a deficent understanding of the physics in the area in which they are trying to develop their 'theories'.

What you are basically saying UltraPi, is "leave enough monkeys and enough typewriters in a room for long enough and you'll eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare", to extend the metaphor: in general Publishing companies do not get their books from 'monkey rooms'.

[spacetravel101]

Sorry to hear that you are an expert on nutcases.

[UltraPi1]

Most of the nutjobs on these boards have a poor understanding of physics and ALL of them have a deficent understanding of the physics in the area in which they are trying to develop their 'theories'.

Most of the nutjobs here have a poor understanding of math.

What you are basically saying UltraPi, is "leave enough monkeys and enough typewriters in a room for long enough and you'll eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare", to extend the metaphor:
I would prefer to call them grease monkeys. If you exchange information with them on a mechanical basis - They will understand. You simply can't confer with numbers jargon. It's not thier schtick. They need to tool with the universe while others prefer to cipher.

If the universe is not mechanical - A mathematician will do nicely.
If it is - A grease monkey will get the complete works of the universe while the mathematician applies numbers to the parts.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
I beg to differ. The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit, and carry the name nutjob. No. Science is largely a negative process. And every "failure" in the lab - IF INVESTIGATED SCIENTIFICALLY - adds more information to the body of knowledge of the human race. A stab in the dark and a random correct guess does not.

Maybe an example would help: Say you were looking for an element or two to mix with steel to make a new alloy. You could just pin the periodic table to a dart board, close your eyes, and throw a couple of darts. Is that a stab in the dark? Not necessarily. If you then do REAL SCIENTIFIC experiments on that new alloy, you WILL gain REAL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE and push the boundaries of what we know about materials, regardless of whether or not that new alloy proves to be useful. The "stab in the dark" is not the subject you choose to research nor is it the exact direction you choose to take it, its the METHOD by which you research it.
Also, saying one correct thing with the wrong reasons gives us no better understanding. Yes - the other side of the coin that I forgot about before. Even a lucky guess generally still won't help us any if they are unsupported. Sorry to hear that you are an expert on nutcases. We get quite a bit of experience with them here. If you are interested in learning more, you may want to read "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Robert Park. Its an excellent insight into the subject of bad science.

[spacetravel101]

We get quite a bit of experience with them here. If you are interested in learning more, you may want to read "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Robert Park. Its an excellent insight into the subject of bad science.

Sorry to hear this. Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering?

Have you looked up what the Russians are doing with regard to what the West considers "crackpot science"? Or the patents the US Patent Office has issued?

[jcsd]

spacetravel, it gets a bit tiresome hearing crank upon crank's new theory which is 'guarenteed to revolutionize physics', esp. when in many cases they contain incredibly simplistic errors.

[spacetravel101]

Originally posted by jcsd
spacetravel, it gets a bit tiresome hearing crank upon crank's new theory which is 'guarenteed to revolutionize physics', esp. when in many cases they contain incredibly simplistic errors.

That agreed, but sometimes you have to bear with the noise.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering?


In a sense, yes. When someone does serious work on science and engineering (using a rigorous method and honestly trying to learn what has been done before on the field), he is called a physicist, engineer or scientist.

i.e., robust science is done by scientists by definition.

[elas]

To all anti-nutters

What a wonderful response! For over three years I have been submitting polite messages in the hope of receiving constructive criticism of my proposals, without success. Now a few insults and a touch of anger and you emerge like snakes from the grass, with a barrage of much sought after replies, I am delighted.
Replies to your critisisms will require some research and much careful thought. As I can spend only about one hour per day on this work it will probably be next Wednesday before I can make a detailed response, please stay on forum.
Many and genuine sincere thanks,
elas

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Sorry to hear this. Sounds like only physicst have a monopoly on robust science and engineering? By definition of course. Not sure why you are sorry to hear that though. It works quite well that way - and likely could not work any other way (it certainly didn't work well at all before the scientific method was invented). Have you looked up what the Russians are doing with regard to what the West considers "crackpot science"? Or the patents the US Patent Office has issued? You'll have to be more specific.What a wonderful response! For over three years I have been submitting polite messages in the hope of receiving constructive criticism of my proposals, without success. Now a few insults and a touch of anger and you emerge like snakes from the grass, with a barrage of much sought after replies, I am delighted. elas, there is no anger here, nor are we insulting you. This IS the constructive criticism you need. If you followed our advice, your scientific endeavors WOULD be more successful. I honestly wish you luck.

[elas]

russ_watters

elas, there is no anger here, nor are we insulting you. This IS the constructive criticism you need. If you followed our advice, your scientific endeavors WOULD be more successful. I honestly wish you luck

I have not made myself clear . It was I who insulted the others in the tone of my reply and their response was the constructive critisism that I have asked for time and time again over the last three years. I am just a little dissapointed that I had to change my atitude in order to get the desired response.
Having said that, I hasten to add that I have the greatest respect for people like Tom and yourself. and hope when my reply is posted you will continue with the criticism.
regards
elas

[elas]

Here begins my counter arguement.
I start by quoting several opinions on the question of what is QP. The conclusion drawn by those who study the .Sociology of Scientific Knowledge is that it is "mathematical logic" which, in their view is not quite the same as "Scientific reasoning". That is to say they put on the same level as Archimedes magic triangles and not on the same level as say, medical science.

Extract from Wikipedia
Mathematics is widely believed to be a science, but it is not. It is more closely related to Logic; it is not a science because it makes no attempt to gain empirical knowledge. However, mathematics is the universal language of all sciences.
Some believe that scientific principles have been "solidly" established, beyond question, and are true. Some scientists themselves may indeed feel that way, having come to rely upon many of the results of science without having done all the experiments themselves; after all, one cannot expect every individual scientist to repeat hundreds of years' worth of experiments. Many scientists even encourage an attitude of skepticism toward claims that contradict the current state of scientific knowledge or some easy extrapolation from it; but that only means such claims must meet a higher burden before being accepted, not that they can never be accepted. In the extreme, some, including some scientists, may believe in this or that scientific principle, or even "science" itself, as a matter of faith in a manner similar to that of religious believers.


String Theories and Penrose/Hawking (Blackhole) Theories.

BBC television is currently programming three one hour programs on String Theory based on a book titled “The Elegant Universe”. In the opening program leading academics twice point out that

Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).

In a similar vein, recently one science correspondent contacted leading academics to ask why Stephen Hawking has not received a Noble Prize for Science. The reply he received was that the award was only given to those whose work can be related to known facts. This puts the work of Hawking on the same footing as the work of string theorist and both are correctly defined as philosophy, not science. This I realize will come as a shock to most PF members (it certainly came as a shock to me) so I emphasize that this is not my opinion, but the opinion of leading string theory academics.

Relativity

There are several experiments and observations that are in conflict with the Theory of Relativity.

The experiments of Eric Laithwaite are again raising interest with 384 websites commenting on his experiments (use "Particle physics,Laithwaite" on yahoo). Laithwaite demonstrated that spinning gyroscopes do not obey the laws of gravity as defined by the Standard Model. The force involved is referred to as “anti-gravity”

Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan with the backing of the Japanese multinational company Matsu****a placed a gyroscope in a vacuum cylinder and measured the rate of fall when spinning and not spinning. They found the results to differ from those predicted using the Standard Model. In their report published in “Speculations in Science and Technology” they write-
“We conclude our previous result (published in 1989) concerning weight-change measurements are substantiated”

Laithwaite had previously made the point that the “anti-gravity” effect only occurs in spinning objects and Robert Matthews, science correspondent to the London Telegraph, wrote that spinning tubs in washing machines are known to display the same force.

Stars are observed to orbit in the outer regions of galaxies, at 5 to 6 times their escape velocity predicted by Relativity. This can be accounted for only if there are vast quantities of dark matter. The latest articles indicate that there is insufficient dark matter to account for the observed stellar speeds.

I will settle for the three examples of failure of Relativity given above and continue with an extract that sums up the professional view of gravity. It is taken from-

Physical Review A, Vol 39 No 5, p39 dated March 1, 1989
Gravitational theory, whether in its scalar Newtonian form or its tensor general-relativistic form, is recognized to be essentially phenomenological in nature. As such it invites attempts at derivation from a more fundamental set of underlying assumptions, and six such attempts are outlined in the standard reference book Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW).
Of the six approaches presented in MTW, perhaps the most far reaching in its implications for an underlying model is one due to Sakharov; that gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all, but rather an induced effect bought about by changes in the quantum fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present. In this view the attractive gravitational force is more akin to the induced van der Waals and Casimir forces, than to the fundamental Coulumb force.

Now let me compare that professional assessment with my amateur explanation of my proposal.
that gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all
This is the point at which I begin by claiming that vacuum force is the fundamental force.

but rather an induced effect bought about by changes in the quantum fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present
I show how the interaction between field elasticity and the distribution of force carrier within the field creates a wave system and how changes in the wave system combined with changes in the quantity of force carrier are responsible not only for the gravitational effect but also the electromagnetic and strong force effects in particle form.

This is done by the simple process of using data from a Table of Elements to create tables of carrier force quantities (mass) and tables of vacuum force (anti-mass), and plotting them on a graph to show how they relate to the wave structure. The wave structure is them justified by showing that the same vacuum wave can be found in TFQHE. Note that this is a mathematical theory based on Particle Physics data and not a theory using the predictive Quantum Physics. That is to say my proposal is by definition a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

Puthoff seems to imply that one can have vacuum without the presence of matter; I disagree and take the view that one cannot have vacuum force without the presence of vacuum force carrier.

Puthoff goes on to suggest that
Because of its electromagnetic-ZPF underpinning gravitational theory in this form, constitutes an “already unified” theory.
I use the tables described above to show how by half-wave reduction a graviton can be reduced in volume and increased in density to produce all known stable fundamental particles containing the properties as listed in
The Particle Explosion
Frank Close, Micheal Marten and Christine Sutton
Oxford University Press

This is not the usual Quantum Physics way of describing a unified field theory but, I would argue that it is a perfectly valid way of unifying particle structure in a Particle Physics theory. Furthermore if the force carriers (i.e. particles) are shown to have a particular (Particle Physics) unifying structure then the task of finding a Quantum Physics Unified Field Theory has been made that much easier.

[selfAdjoint]

This is the nub of your rebuttal:
This is not the usual Quantum Physics way of describing a unified field theory but, I would argue that it is a perfectly valid way of unifying particle structure in a Particle Physics theory. Furthermore if the force carriers (i.e. particles) are shown to have a particular (Particle Physics) unifying structure then the task of finding a Quantum Physics Unified

All you have to do is calculate measurable effects from your theory. These should include
1) All the effects that GR has demostrated successfully
and
2) Some new effects to show your theory is better than GR (and Newton)

As you say there are a lot of wild and crazy ideas coming from inside the physics community, and they are all subjected to this criterion. String theory is also being attacked from within the physics community as you quote -it has been called much harsher things than philosophy - just because of its inability to close with experiment.

So if you want to escape the name crank, if you want to beat out the string theorists, go calculate some measurable efects.

[UltraPi1]

If you want to escape the name crank, if you want to beat out the string theorists, go calculate some measurable efects.
I suppose there is some validity to that statement. It would be nice to cut some slack for these individuals though. It's not like they have particle accelerators in thier back yard. Few people ever close the deal with a measurable effect.

One must remember - This is a forum for theory development - With emphasis on development. Most people making threads here... show up with the intention of having thier theory attacked, and the wolves will not disappoint. Essentially battle lines are drawn from the onset. It is not a cooperative engagement and generally leads to nowhere, for the theory in command is lost in minutiae where the wolves take there first bite.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
It would be nice to cut some slack for these individuals though. It's not like they have particle accelerators in thier back yard. Few people ever close the deal with a measurable effect.


No, he didn't say, "Go and measure some effects," he said "go and calculate some measurable effects."

Elas might not have a particle accelerator, but he certainly has a sharp pencil and a pad of paper, no?

edit: fixed quote

[elas]

selfAdjoint selfAdjoint has missed the point of my theory. I do not challenge those effects that GR has demonstrated successfully but, seek to explain those things that GR cannot explain or cannot explain without the introduction of yet another questionable entity, namely ‘dark mater.
Neither do I challenge the well proven predictions of QP but rather seek to explain the science that underpins the philosophy.
GR does not explain the origin of mass, Vacuum Theory (VT) does.
GR claims that mass moves and drags gravity along with it. VT claims that the vacuum field moves and drags or adjusts the force carrier.
GR states that gravity is a distortion of ‘spacetime’, but the term ‘gravity’ was thought up by Newton to describe a force that he could not define. VT states that there is no need to create an undefined new entity (gravity) because the fore involved is the force of vacuum that creates particle/fields we know as gravitons. The evidence for this lies in the experiments of Laithwaite and Yakahaka which cannot be explained by GR but can be explained by VT.
Neither GR or QP attempt to explain the creation of fundamental particles in detail but state that fundamental particles ‘condense out’ of plasma at certain temperatures. VT has no argument with these temperatures but adds a detailed mathematical explanation of how the particles form and how there particular properties are determined by the internal wave structure. VT goes even further it explains mathematically, how field elasticity and the distribution of force carrier within the field, are responsible for the creation of the wave structure. But as it is not possible to observe activity within the plasma this must remain an unproven part of VT theory. Having produced fundamental particles that are the same as those used to measure QP movement it is only logical to conclude that VT movement will produce the same result. However look deeper at this and it will be realized that VT explains the act of movement in a way that explains the observed different forms of movement. QP does not do this.
QP accepts that particles move according to the mathematics of wave movement but cannot explain why or even whether the wave actually exists. VT defines the cause of waves and there relationship with the vacuum field and proves this relationship using TFQHE.
So what can VT predict that is different from GR and QP. Firstly that the graviton is its own antiparticle and therefore there is no anti-gravity but only the artificial gravity found by Laithwaite and Yakahata. Secondly that ‘C” is the maximum observable speed and not a constant. The first is I suggest already proven and the second will have to await the discovery of a method of measuring the speed of light in a graviton field without the presence of an electromagnetic wave. At present we have no idea as to how that can be done.
I would like to expand this reply but I have to get my wife’s breakfast ready!
Regards
elas

[markci]

>>> If PF theory development manages to foster one significant development in 50 years. I would consider it to be a smashing success.

If it manages to foster one insignificant development in 1000 years it would have to be a ****ing miracle.

[Nereid]

elas wrote: Stars are observed to orbit in the outer regions of galaxies, at 5 to 6 times their escape velocity predicted by Relativity. This can be accounted for only if there are vast quantities of dark matter. The latest articles indicate that there is insufficient dark matter to account for the observed stellar speeds. As far as I know, the discrepancy has nothing to do with Relativity, except in the sense that Relativity encompasses Newton.

The stars (and other matter, e.g. gas clouds) in the outer regions of some galaxies (e.g. spirals) appear to be moving about the galactic centres. If you plug in the mass - closer to the galactic centres than those stars - required for them to move at their observed speeds (using Newtonian physics), you get numbers that are greater than what the observed light emissions would suggest that mass should be (a great deal of observational work has gone into this simple summary). None of the objects is moving at anywhere near relativistic speed, no need for SR or GR.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but it seems to me that if your ideas are consistent with GR (and Newton), then the galactic rotation curves are just as much a problem for your VT ideas as they are for GR (and classical physics)!

Of course, if you've done some calculations which show that VT can account for the observed galactic rotation curves, please say so! There is already one interesting alternative theory getting serious airtime - MOND, and it does a very creditable job of matching the observed data (it fails in other respects, and its author is clear about its limitations).

A suggestion: now is the time to really make a mark in physics - predict the mass of the Higgs, the rest mass of all neutrino flavours, the lighest superparticle, ... the list is long ... and likely within five years you could be truly famous.

[elas]

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but it seems to me that if your ideas are consistent with GR (and Newton), then the galactic rotation curves are just as much a problem for your VT ideas as they are for GR (and classical physics)!

The article I read showed in diagram form that according to both Newton and Einstein the gravitational force between two galaxies (in a group of galaxies) should decrease with distance from the centre of each galaxy. But by calculating the gravitional force from observed rotations of the galaxies it is found that there is no decrease.
My proposal suggest that the solution lies in looking at the effect that vacuum has on fields where the number of particle/fields in infinity is constant and the quantity of vacuum in each field is constant; but the quantity of force carrier within each field is variable although the total quantity of force carrier in infinity is, of course, also constant.
This creates a universe that has one force (vacuum) and one force carrier. My proposal is that we do not need to invent any other entities in order to explain the universe.
The diagrams on my web page show the relationship between particles produced using vacuum field theory and the QP predictions for the mass of quarks and the standard electron. You will see that the graviton is included in the vacuum theory particle diagram and not in the QP diagram. This is what QP cannot predict and explains why QP and relativity cannot be combined. In vacuum theory they are combined.
Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are all names invented to cover the cause of observations where the cause itself cannot be defined.
My proposal is that they can all be defined as variations of the relationship between vacuum force and vacuum force carrier. That is to say that we can at last define what the forces are instead of just being able to predict what they do.

[Nereid]

elas wrote: The article I read showed in diagram form that according to both Newton and Einstein the gravitational force between two galaxies (in a group of galaxies) should decrease with distance from the centre of each galaxy. But by calculating the gravitional force from observed rotations of the galaxies it is found that there is no decrease. Could you please supply a reference to this article? AFAIK, the observations of galaxy redshift (in clusters) are consistent with them being in a gravitational well which comprises the galaxies themselves plus some IGM (inter-galactic medium) plus dark matter. The radial distribution of mass - and esp dark matter - in a big cluster has recently been determined in some detail, using gravitational lensing. See:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0307/0307299.pdf

[Nereid]

elas wrote: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are all names invented to cover the cause of observations where the cause itself cannot be defined. My proposal is that they can all be defined as variations of the relationship between vacuum force and vacuum force carrier. Unless I am mistaken, you should be able to determine measurable quantities such as:
- Higgs particle mass
- neutrino rest masses.

These calculations should be easy for you to do, and would catapault you onto the front pages if subsequent observations showed you were right.

Another thing which I hadn't appreciated until now: under your proposal, ALL new forces can be derived from first principles! Alternatively, you can prove conclusively that there are only four fundamental forces.

Could you please give us the number of new fundamental forces which remain to be discovered? If one of them is similar to what physicists call supersymmetry, please tell us what the mass of the lightest such particle is, and sketch its properties.

[elas]

Nereid

Will try and find reference requested.

Higgs boson is something I cannot predict, but note that all fundamental particles except the lightest are short life particles. As Higgs boson is expected to have a large mass I expect it to have an equally short life.
Standard Model starts with a primeval atom containing the mass of the universe. Clearly then we can go on creating ever more massive particles until we reach the primeval atom or the limit of our abilities.
Personally I find the whole proposal to be to preposterous to be worthy of intelligent consideration, preferring to believe that creation starts from or near absolute nothing and builds up from their. For that reason I am more interested in searching for a lighter particle (graviton)than the heavier Higgs boson.
If this makes me something of a nutcase then let it be, it is a position that I find more believable and one that I am happy to pursue.

[elas]

Nereid
Ten hours of contemplation and I realise my last reply was far to pessimistic. Your suggestion has inspired a whole new way of extending vacuum theory and I will write at length later today.
regards
elas

[ranyart]

Originally posted by elas
Nereid
Ten hours of contemplation and I realise my last reply was far to pessimistic. Your suggestion has inspired a whole new way of extending vacuum theory and I will write at length later today.
regards
elas

I suggest you go here first:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311199

And then here:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311197

Alternatly you can fluctuate here:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311412

[elas]

Unless I am mistaken, you should be able to determine measurable quantities such as:
- Higgs particle mass
- neutrino rest masses

It depends on whether or not the particles are ZP field particles, as are all fundamental particles; or whether like the photon they are parasite particles without there own ZP. I will attempt to predict a mass for the Higgs which could be either, using graphs 39.4 and 39.5; but not the neutrinos that are definitely parasites.

But if one end of the graph can be extended why not the other more promising end? Going beyond the graviton shown on the graphs and associated tables would create a series of particles on the gravity spectrum. There is no need to stop until the predicted speed of the boson associated with the particle is C squared; This would give the cause of Einstein's constant.
Now compare this with String Theory where there are a number of weird parallel universes. In Vacuum theory there is the possibility of just two interlocking non-parallel universes, one on each spectrum. We are in both universes but can only detect one. Should we cease to exist in the observed universe we do not necessarily cease to exist in the other gravity spectrum universe, but simply detach ourselves from the electromagnetic spectrum universe.
No weird dopplegangers just a straightforward but undetectable particle seperation.
If this is science fiction then so is String Theory, it is a case of either both are acceptable theories or neither is acceptable. But if I am right then we can abandon all the weirdness of String Theory and religous doctrines and get down to a serious debate on the sociology of eternity.

In conclusion then, Vacuum theory holds out the possibility of matching the prediction of the Higgs particle found in QP, finding the cause of Einstein's constant in Relativity, and providing an alternative to the multi-dimensional weirdness of current developements of the Standard Model (in the form of String Theories).

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?
Back to the original question: it is not Physics Forums that atracts nut cases, it is physics itself. All physicists and physics professors are constantly approached by nutcases with whacky theories. There was actually a show about this phenomenon on PBS or Discovery about ten years ago: it is not possible to have your name published in connection with physics in the popular media without attracting a horde of nutjobs claiming to have thought of the same thing, to have thought of something better, or to have revolutionary ideas about something else they're sure will impress you.

I believe the reason this type of person is attracted to physics is because of the iconographic image of Einstein as "the smartest man who ever lived". These people want to be compared to him or to be called greater than him, because he was "the smartest". It's as simple as that.

[elas]

I believe the reason this type of person is attracted to physics is because of the iconographic image of Einstein as "the smartest man who ever lived". These people want to be compared to him or to be called greater than him, because he was "the smartest". It's as simple as that.

In ten years who will remember me? In a million years who will remember Einstein? What matters is not who did this or that but that the search for truth and progress continues.
Many of the so called greats such as Bell and Marconi actually stole the knowledge of someone else. An Italian count flew a proper figure of eight test flight the day before the Wright brothers glided downhill for a few seconds. Let them have there ill deserved fame be satisfied that we have telephones, radios and can fly.
At least Einstein acknowledged his debt to others by requesting that his Relativity paper be published without an author. Only an error at the printers caused Einstein to get the credit.
Most physicist are I believe, willing to acknowledge that they seek only to make their small contribution to a grand edifice. The joy of trying to succeed and the delight of success, is an inner joy that is far more important than any tempory fame.

[Nereid]

elas wrote: I will attempt to predict a mass for the Higgs which could be either, using graphs 39.4 and 39.5; but not the neutrinos that are definitely parasites. In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Another thing I forgot to mention, dark energy. As you know, the observational evidence for the existence of dark energy has gone from zero (we knew nothing about it) to strong in only a few years. However, we're definitely lacking in understanding of what it is! Perhaps your VT idea predicts its properties?

In conclusion then, Vacuum theory holds out the possibility of matching the prediction of the Higgs particle found in QP, finding the cause of Einstein's constant in Relativity, and providing an alternative to the multi-dimensional weirdness of current developements of the Standard Model (in the form of String Theories). Proving that VT is consistent with the experimental results of the past hundred years or so is something you also have to do before the possibility can become reality.

[elas]

In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Perhaps the wrong word. I intended to imply that bosons do not have their own vacuum fields, they pass through the fields of other particles. Leptons and baryons always have their own vacuum fields. Therefore one can have a quantum only with a ZP, not without.

Dark matter arises only because Newton and Einstein failed to accurately describe gravity; they got the local maths right but not the description or the deep space maths. Hence the galatic gravity problem and the universal expansion problem.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by elas
In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Perhaps the wrong word. I intended to imply that bosons do not have their own vacuum fields, they pass through the fields of other particles. Leptons and baryons always have their own vacuum fields. Therefore one can have a quantum only with a ZP, not without. Er, neutrinos are leptons, so their rest mass(es) should be derivable from your VT idea, the same way e, u, d, s, c, t, b are (from your website). Further, they should be much easier to derive than the rest mass of the Higgs.

BTW, how does your VT idea account for neutrino oscillations?Originally posted by elas Dark matter arises only because Newton and Einstein failed to accurately describe gravity; they got the local maths right but not the description or the deep space maths. Hence the galatic gravity problem and the universal expansion problem. Could you please give us some calculations of the rotation curves of well-observed galaxies, according to your VT idea? That way we can see for ourselves how well VT predictions match the actual observations.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Another thing I forgot to mention, dark energy. As you know, the observational evidence for the existence of dark energy has gone from zero (we knew nothing about it) to strong in only a few years. However, we're definitely lacking in understanding of what it is! Perhaps your VT idea predicts its properties?...
......Proving that VT is consistent with the experimental results of the past hundred years or so is something you also have to do before the possibility can become reality...
....BTW, how does your VT idea account for neutrino oscillations?
....Could you please give us some calculations of the rotation curves of well-observed galaxies, according to your VT idea? That way we can see for ourselves how well VT predictions match the actual observations.
Is it not too much for a one person?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Is it not too much for a one person? Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date, PLUS any and all as-yet-undiscovered fundamental forces); ... if indeed VT does all these things, then elas should be able to at least outline how (in principle) one could go about getting the predictions I listed.

Have you read the material which elas has published on his (her?) website?

[elas]

NEreid
Er, neutrinos are leptons,

Sorry this is what happens when I dash off a reply without thinking.


Michael
Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date,

You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted. Which is to start with nothing and not create another entity until forced to.To date I have done no more than outline the possibilities of vacuum, I think the lengthy piece I wrote on this forum explains exactly what and why I am trying to acheive, by comparing my aims with the Standard model.

So far I have shown, clearly I believe, how the structure of the fundamental particles can be explained by vacuum theory. Efforts to go beyond this have not achieved the same degree of clarity. But only this morning I saw a diagram that gave me an idea that might at last allow me to achieve greater clarity in respect of the elements.
Combining this with my explanation of the cause of EM wave structure (off web at present) does I believe lay a solid foundation for a Vacuum Theory, I stress the word 'foundation'.
I would not be so brave as to claim anything more than to have found something worthy of further investigation.

I am now going to take a break from PF and get my web site up to date with new diagrams and hopefully a successful way of explaining some aspects of electromagnetism in Vacuum Theory terms. That I regard as a start (nothing more than a start)to explaining the forces in a creditable vacuum manner.

With many thanks for all your help and advise,
regards
elas

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
Michael
Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date,...

You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted...
You have mixed something elas. You have answered reply Nereid instead of my one. Nevertheless, I wish you successes in your researches. Good luck!

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
[You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted. Which is to start with nothing and not create another entity until forced to.[/B] Sorry, but you quite simply don't have that prerogative. Enough is known about the topics you are theorizing about that a lot of extension can be done right away and compared to the existing theories. As a result, the validity of your theory can be examined based on its implications regardless of whether or not you've examined those implications.

To try to limit the scope of your theory is a cop out - it shows that you KNOW its flawed but are hoping to avoid scrutiny of the flaws. Cute, but no - can't do that.

[andrewgray]

Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?
I just wanted to point out that when Einstein first came out with his postulates of special relativity, the establishment tried to fight him for years. So in essence, Einstein himself was a nutcase for a few years in the eyes of the consensus establishment.

Also, Einstein himself never accepted quantum reality as anything but statistical mechanics-like physics. Einstein said of quantum mechanics
The more success it has, the sillier it looks.

Just get on Google and search for Einstein and sillier. So Einstein himself thought all of you quantum theorists were nuts.

Here is a quote from the great P.A.M. Dirac about the use of "renormalization":

I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!

Next, here is what Feynman himself said about "renormalization":
But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent.

I suspect that renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate.

I also have noticed that there are many criticisms that certain "nut-like" theories are "not self-consistent" and "do not follow the scientific process". Care to take a look in the mirror?

Here are a few new quantum inconsistencies that I have discovered while doing my own new theoretical work.

1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron. All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transfered to the electron. The inconsistency here is that in an inelastic collision, it is always momentum that is conserved, not kinetic energy. Saying that all the kinetic energy is transferred in an inelastic absorption contradicts definition and is never seen. (Look up the definition of inelastic collision or absorption in an elementary physics text book).

2) The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments. The usual explanation for the xray Bremsstralung cutoff frequency is that all the electron's kinetic energy is completely converted into a high frequency xray "photon". This seems unlikely because this limiting frequency is emitted in all directions, making conservation of momentum impossible, especially for "photons" emitted at 90 degrees with all the kinetic energy. (Why hasn't anyone noticed this discrepancy before?)

3) The electron acts like a point all the way down to 10E-15 cm. Did most of you know that it is impossible to concentrate a 1/2 quanta of angular momentum into this volume without something exceeding the speed of light? I did not know this a few years ago. Consequently, quantum theorists had to pedagogically announce that "electron spin" is not "something spinning" (too many paradoxes). Electron spin is now simply the eigenvalue of the spin operator, and is not thought of as "something spinning". I repeat: electron spin is NOT something spinning.

4) Inconsistency: In the photoelectric effect, an inelastic photon-electron collision is used. In the Compton effect, an elastic collision is assumed. In between visible light and x-ray frequencies, semi-elastic collisions are assumed.

5) It is possible to view xrays as visible light and visible light as xrays with a simple velocity boost. If one views visible light as xrays, will these "photons" have "elastic collisions" with electrons in this frame?


Old Chinese moral: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones too strongly.

Another Chinese moral: Can we all be just a little more courteous and just helpful in this crazy world?

Andrew Gray
andrewgray AT modelofreality.org

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by andrewgray

1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron. All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transfered to the electron.


No, that is not assumed. What is assumed is that the most energetic electrons are those that have received all the kinetic energy of a single photon.



2) The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments. The usual explanation for the xray Bremsstralung cutoff frequency is that all the electron's kinetic energy is completely converted into a high frequency xray "photon". This seems unlikely because this limiting frequency is emitted in all directions, making conservation of momentum impossible, especially for "photons" emitted at 90 degrees with all the kinetic energy. (Why hasn't anyone noticed this discrepancy before?)


You're right, it is unlikely that any given electron will give all its KE to the creation of a photon. That is borne out experimentally by the smaller signal near the cutoff frequency. Actually, the signal is zero at the cutoff frequency, so I don't see any discrepancy at all.



3) The electron acts like a point all the way down to 10E-15 cm. Did most of you know that it is impossible to concentrate a 1/2 quanta of angular momentum into this volume without something exceeding the speed of light?


Yes, that is a calculation that every beginning student of modern physics is asked to do.


I did not know this a few years ago. Consequently, quantum theorists had to pedagogically announce that "electron spin" is not "something spinning" (too many paradoxes). Electron spin is now simply the eigenvalue of the spin operator, and is not thought of as "something spinning". I repeat: electron spin is NOT something spinning.


Boy, have you got the wrong idea. You seem to think that this interpretation of quantum mechanical spin is needed as an ad-hoc extension to the theory, once it is realized that nothing that small could actually be "spinning". Anyone who knows quantum mechanics (like me) can tell you that that is patently false. Once the theory was developed, it could easily be inferred that spin does not correspond to "spinning" because of the multivaluedess of the rotation operator.

Specifically for spin-1/2 operator acting on a general spin state |a>, we have:

D(θ=2p,z)|a>=exp(-iSz(2p)/(hbar))=-|a>

Since the state |a> picks up a minus sign after a 2p rotation, we know that quantum mechanical spin is not associated with "spinning", even before considering the size of the particle.



4) Inconsistency: In the photoelectric effect, an inelastic photon-electron collision is used. In the Compton effect, an elastic collision is assumed. In between visible light and x-ray frequencies, semi-elastic collisions are assumed.


That is not an inconsistency, and it is really rather obvious why the former is inelastic and the latter is not.

In the photoelectric effect, the photon ejects an electron from a material in which there is an effective binding potential. The KE cannot be conserved, because some energy must be used to overcome that binding.

In the Compton effect, the electron is free, and no such binding potential is present.



5) It is possible to view xrays as visible light and visible light as xrays with a simple velocity boost. If one views visible light as xrays, will these "photons" have "elastic collisions" with electrons in this frame?


Obviously that will depend on whether there are attractive EM forces acting on the electron.


Old Chinese moral: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones too strongly.

Another Chinese moral: Can we all be just a little more courteous and just helpful in this crazy world?


New American Moral: Go and learn some physics before trying to rewrite it.

edit: fixed quote bracket

[andrewgray]

New American Moral: Go and learn some physics before trying to rewrite it.OK.



Now, for reply:
1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron. All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transfered to the electron.

No, that is not assumed. What is assumed is that the most energetic electrons are those that have received all the kinetic energy of a single photon.

OK. OK. What I was refering to, of course, were the electrons that emerge with the maximum kinetic energy. And of course, we are not forgeting the small "work function" energy, either. The main point is that the electrons that emerge with the maximum kinetic energy are assumed to have "absorbed" the entire kinetic energy of the "photon", (and to have lost a bit to the surface "work function"). THESE electrons contradict the very definition of inelastic absorption where the entire KE of one particle is given to another. Again, it is the entire MOMENTUM that is given to the other particle, NOT kinetic energy, according to the definition for "inelastic collision" for particles. Also, if you further study the photoelectric effect, these maximum kinetic energied electrons also emerge at 90 degrees to the light beam, perhaps yet another problem for conservation of momentum.


The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments.

You're right, it is unlikely that any given electron will give all its KE to the creation of a photon. That is borne out experimentally by the smaller signal near the cutoff frequency. Actually, the signal is zero at the cutoff frequency, so I don't see any discrepancy at all.
Well, take for example the xray signal at 99.999999999% of the maximum frequency. There are plenty of xrays here, as the the dropoff is quite abrupt (see for example the diagram at www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_3 ). Now consider that these xrays were emitted at 90 degrees to the flight of the electrons hitting the aluminum target. You still cannot resolve the momentum problem with THESE xray "photons".

Since the state |a> picks up a minus sign after a 2p rotation, we know that quantum mechanical spin is not associated with "spinning", even before considering the size of the particle.
OK. I was just trying to identify inconsistencies in quantum theory so maybe we can realize that we need to cut some slack to people just trying to participate in physics forums. There is no doubt in my mind that the inventors of electron spin, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, intended electron spin to be "something spinning". Using all the mathematics of "spinning" to develop a theory, then reversing direction and now claiming that it is not actually "something spinning" seems inconsistent to me. Why would one person with a higher knowledge of something want to be anything other than encouraging to other people who want to learn about physics, even if their direction might seem a little inconsistent?


Andrew Gray
New American Tradition: More Courteous, Just Helpful in this crazy world.

[heumpje]

That's not inconsistent, andrew. It's the way real science develops. I had my education at the University of Leiden (where Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit also had their education. As a matter of fact I got my Master degree doing research in the same Lorentz insitute) where the idea of spin was developed. It is not an inconsistency... I'm not sure but from your posts it seems that you missed out on angular momentum (generally associated with the spinning). The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things).

I think it might help a bit to read this:
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/spin.html
to start with (gives a hint about how things work in science).

More important, since it precisely shows how discoveries are made and more specifically how electron spin was discovered, You can read his own story (quite a nice one) here

http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html

Goudsmit did NOT intend to describe something "spinning". He intended to clarify an experimental observation and worked and thought really hard about it.

I copied a small piece from the article since it might contribute to the current discussion:


And this, of course, is something I want to say again; people don't believe it. In the beginning when you do something you never know whether it is important or not, and we absolutely had no idea that a new interpretation of the hydrogen spectrum was important. Therefore, this was published in "Physica", in Dutch [5]. We also had an article about those quantum vectors L and S, the coupling of quantum vectors, all that tommy rot, I don't know how you call it, and that was sent off to the "Zeitschrift für Physik". Do you note the difference? We did not know what was important. Everyone worked on those quantum vectors and that was published in the "Zeitschrift für Physik". The hydrogen spectrum was published in "Physica", but you note, this spectrum pointed in the right direction


The difference between these guys and "nutcases" (I actually prefer something less offending but only know a dutch word for it...)
is that they come with something brilliant and before bothering other people with it, genuinly think about where and if there are flaws in their arguments. More important: they generally dont seem to find their own discoveries very important (untill they retire that is. After retirement they are allowed to boast about it)

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heumpje
It is not an inconsistency... The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things). Sceintists are just wierd - I mean, "up," "down," "charm," and "strange" quarks? What the heck is that?

[andrewgray]

It is not an inconsistency... The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things).
You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

[heumpje]

One of the properties of an electron is that it has a magnetic moment...
What is inconsistent about that?

You do an experiment involving a magnet and an electron beam. It turns out the electrons react to the field. They want to line up to it due to their mag. moment (i.e. they experience a torque). I don't see the inconsistency in that.
Perhaps I'm not catching what you mean by inconsistent...

To refer to feynman: "We thought about it, very hard. I can tell you what we found. You don't like it? Tough. Go somewhere else, to a different universe where the rules are simpler, or nicer or more philosophical"

(quote taken from the video taping of his QED lectures in Auckland, New Zealand, first lecture. Haven't seen them before?....it's a must)
http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.html

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heumpje
video taping of his QED lectures in Auckland, New Zealand, first lecture. Haven't seen them before?....it's a must)
http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.html
Thanks. Great stuff.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by andrewgray
You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point. No, I think (I'm a little thin on this one) that an electron has a magnetic moment AND a property called "spin." They are two different properties.

[heumpje]

Auch... That IS sort of a miss there russ. The spin IS the magnetic moment.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpinMagneticDipoleMoment.html

[heumpje]

Originally posted by pelastration
Thanks. Great stuff.

Yes, amazing isn't it. That you can find this sort of stuff on the web for free...let's just say I tought that, that only applied to porn

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heumpje
[B]Auch... That IS sort of a miss there russ. The spin IS the magnetic moment. D'oh.

[Loren Booda]

Isn't the measured magnetic moment predicted here by Dirac (accurately but approximately) proportional to (not the same as) the spin?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Isn't the measured magnetic moment predicted here by Dirac (accurately but approximately) proportional to (not the same as) the spin?

Yes, that's right. The magnetic moment is not identical to the spin. A particle with spin has a magnetic moment because it also has a charge.

[russ_watters]

So then I wasn't completely wrong?

[heumpje]

To be completely, entirely clear on this:

(mu)S=-gs*(mu)BS/hbar

So, the magnetic moment of an electron is proportional to the spin S, with in the proportionality factor gs=2 (the gyromagnetic ratio), [mu]B=9.2*10-24 A*m2 the Bohr magneton and hbar planck's constant divided by two pi. (BTW: somehow you can't do math symbols anymore....The mag. moment and the spin are vectors)

Although the Spin points in the opposite direction as the mag. moment (observe the minus sign) I called it equal since there are only some constants as proportionality factors....

[andrewgray]

You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.
One of the properties of an electron is that it has a magnetic moment...
What is inconsistent about that?

You do an experiment involving a magnet and an electron beam. It turns out the electrons react to the field. They want to line up to it due to their mag. moment (i.e. they experience a torque). I don't see the inconsistency in that.
Perhaps I'm not catching what you mean by inconsistent...

Reply:

Well, in addition to the impossibility of concentrating angular-momentum inside an electron's volume to make electron "spin", there is no room inside an electron for any electric current to have a large enough "moment" to make up a "1/2 quanta of magnetic moment".

Therefore, the electron's magnetic "moment", if it exists, is not a "moment".

Seems inconsistent to me.

P.S. You cannot do your experiment with a magnet and an electron beam (the Stern-Gerlach experiment). This experiment can only be done with electrically neutral particles. In addition, we have proposed a "Stern-Gerlach Killer Experiment" that allows the recovery of the continuous (non-quantized) nature of microscopic angular momentum. See www.modelofreality.org/Sect8_1.html


andrewgray AT modelofreality.org