Understanding electromagnetism

[Brain Man]

Believe it or not we are studying it. We actually use these insights to decide how to approach other scientists. i.e. We psychologically profile a scientist before interacting with them, and have preset methods as a guide. i.e. Certain universities enforce and condition standards of rigid conformity, such as cambridge, oxford, while others such as UCLA are more freewheeling, open minded and creative...

Interesting stuff Brain Man.

yeh ive seen that one. They reason they accuse you of smoke and mirrors is because its a projection of their own processes.

And how, just look at the thread, totally derailed with schoolboy maths that's totally off-topic, and absolutely unrelated to Twiglet's challenge as to why c is a limit. I do find this kind of thing pretty amazing. I've had dingdongs with Young Earth Creationists and Islamic Fundamentalists, and have seen Morton's Demon in action in a religious context, dismissing all evidence that threatens conviction. But it's still rather odd to be reminded that this is a human trait rather than something unique to religion. For me a prime example was seeing Stephen Hawking on Discovery talking earnestly about time travel, the latter being something of a personal bugbear, and the reason why I started posting on this forum. It does give me pause for thought about the nature of human consciousness, along the lines of this:

Q: Am I conscious and self aware?
A: No. you only think you are.

Edit: come on Twiglet, that arithmetical exercise is nothing to do with why c is the limit. Now I've taken time out to post up threads explaining energy and mass, whereafter I'll explain the speed limit. Do be so good as to read them and give comment, otherwise people will think you're dodging your own challenge.

yeh what a hoot.. i had flashbacks to school class room and dropping weights of the desk..

whats going on here ... i never saw anything like this..

well it is supposed to be a comedy science forum .

[Brain Man]

right people whats going on here with all this schoolboy stuff

If u love doing maths so much how about helping out farsight, let him lead out these shallow hills across valleys and all that..

[Twiglet]

right people whats going on here with all this schoolboy stuff

If u love doing maths so much how about helping out farsight, let him lead out these shallow hills across valleys and all that..

How?

The only assumption farsight has committed to is that time isn't a real dimension.

Do you have any other assumptions farsight?

[Brain Man]

right people whats going on here with all this schoolboy stuff

If u love doing maths so much how about helping out farsight, let him lead out these shallow hills across valleys and all that..

How?

The only assumption farsight has committed to is that time isn't a real dimension.

Do you have any other assumptions farsight?

thats a good start, it brings up a debate about motion and time, which could get very complicated..

i find it interesting because im doing stuff that involves perception of time, so it is a very profound theory to me. Well it has been crucial to have some route into resolving that issue.

[Twiglet]

right people whats going on here with all this schoolboy stuff

If u love doing maths so much how about helping out farsight, let him lead out these shallow hills across valleys and all that..

How?

The only assumption farsight has committed to is that time isn't a real dimension.

Do you have any other assumptions farsight?

thats a good start, it brings up a debate about motion and time, which could get very complicated..

i find it interesting because im doing stuff that involves perception of time, so it is a very profound theory to me. Well it has been crucial to have some route into resolving that issue.

A debate isn't the same as science Brainman. The debate just goes round in circles with farsight claiming over 50 pages that he is right and all science is wrong. Without some kind of testable formulation, it's hot air.

I don't know a way to make the maths of relativity predictive without using time as a dimension. In fact the whole concept of being able to predict a result relies on the concept of time to label when change occurs.

If we are to build something from the ground up, we need more than that assumption. We need to know how time is derived from space. Without that, we are simply left with too many variables to make anything coherent. I can't think of a way to express time as a function of space mathematically which isn't rendered ridiculous by reality. We would need something (which actually worked) like T=(x^4 + y^2 + z^3/2)^1/3 + e +GMm/r^2 or whatever - we need a relationship to work with which we can then test.

Without that, we are nowhere.

[Brain Man]

A debate isn't the same as science Brainman. The debate just goes round in circles with farsight claiming over 50 pages that he is right and all science is wrong. Without some kind of testable formulation, it's hot air.

That is true, at some point the theory needs applied in some way. I get the impression farsight has not been trained in this aspect. The discipline of writing a paper in the traditional style would probably do him some good, even if its not published. The formula of introduction, hypothesis, testing and results..or if just a review then at least thinking of methods for testing is probably the next stage for him.

I don't know a way to make the maths of relativity predictive without using time as a dimension. In fact the whole concept of being able to predict a result relies on the concept of time to label when change occurs.

Im glad thats not my problem. Whats important for me is understanding the brains peception of time. For that it has to get to what time is at the most basic level. What is it outside the brain, and what is it inside.

Of course the brain is always trying to make predictions, so the question that arises is does it make predictions as aspects of movement of events in space or tying these to time. Whats the priority ? a topic for another day i think.

[Twiglet]

A debate isn't the same as science Brainman. The debate just goes round in circles with farsight claiming over 50 pages that he is right and all science is wrong. Without some kind of testable formulation, it's hot air.

That is true, at some point the theory needs applied in some way. I get the impression farsight has not been trained in this aspect. The discipline of writing a paper in the traditional style would probably do him some good, even if its not published. The formula of introduction, hypothesis, testing and results..or if just a review then at least thinking of methods for testing is probably the next stage for him.

I don't know a way to make the maths of relativity predictive without using time as a dimension. In fact the whole concept of being able to predict a result relies on the concept of time to label when change occurs.

Im glad thats not my problem. Whats important for me is understanding the brains peception of time. For that it has to get to what time is at the most basic level. What is it outside the brain, and what is it inside.

Of course the brain is always trying to make predictions, so the question that arises is does it make predictions as aspects of movement of events in space or tying these to time. Whats the priority ? a topic for another day i think.

It would make an interesting derail, and I have some ideas I vaguely remember being circulated around from my physics days when I attended a few seminars on neural nets.

The way it was being approached was in terms of short and long term memory being a resonant e-m pattern across neurons, rather like waves on a pond which dissipate out. There was some evidence suggesting that pattern persists for about 8 seconds. I don't remember all of it, but one example was when crowds clap, they generally do so for that period of time.. as well as exercises like repeating back number sequences and sentences.

Long term memory was seen as stuctural chemical changes, which determine what patterns are more favourably "instanced" by an experience, accounting for learning.

Instinct was to do with pre-programmed patterns put into the basic structure of how the brain is put together.

There shouldn't be anything magical about neuroscience, the processes for vision (for example) are well understood from the point of view of the photoelectric effect causing rods and cones to fire off electric signals which are then processed from electromagnetic impulses into neural "circuitry" which fires off more impulses electrochemically.

There are some deep questions about consciousness and freewill which we can get into if we go onto a derail, where interpretations of quantum theory get into the mix.

[JimC]

right people whats going on here with all this schoolboy stuff

If u love doing maths so much how about helping out farsight, let him lead out these shallow hills across valleys and all that..

What's up is that many of the posters here suspect that Farsight and possibly yourself cannot do the basic mathematical processes required to do any serious physics, so some fairly simple challenges were set...

Painting word pictures is not enough...

[lpetrich]

The only assumption farsight has committed to is that time isn't a real dimension.

Do you have any other assumptions farsight?

He claims to have demonstrated that, with some arguments that I find very specious. He claims that we can perceive motion, but not time, which is hooey. He also claims that time is derived from motion because we use motion to measure time -- he interprets "motion" very broadly.

Turning to special relativity, here's a good introduction to it, mathematics and all:

Special Relativity - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks

There are some other physics-related "books" there, like General Mechanics (Newtonian) and Electrodynamics, though their quality and completeness varies.

In any case, it's very clear from SR that space and time are closely related, and that time is not derived from motion. No amount of Einstein-thumping can change that, because Einstein helped develop SR. In fact, Farsight seems like he is quote-mining Einstein and Maxwell and Feynman.

[Farsight]

It could hardly be simpler. E=mc^2=m0c^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 In the limit as v approaches c, E approaches infinity, hence infinite energy is required to propel any particle with inertial mass to the speed of light.

This is woefully inadequate. It's like saying "because the runes tell me". A mathematical expression doesn't explain why c is the limit. And it doesn't explain why the particle has inertial mass or why E approaches infinity. Now come on, you set the challenge, I've risen to it by explaining E and m in these two threads:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =9&t=12530
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =9&t=12575

..so let's have your response. Your smokescreen of irrelevant off-topic mathematics doesn't cover your evasion. Particularly since it was you who challenged me to explain pair production, which is why I started this thread. And you won't even read it! Because you're so convinced that what you know about "the shape of a magnetic field" is right. It isn't. You're right in there in the same boat as Young Earth Creationists, suffering from a conviction that what you know is right, so much so that you won't examine the evidence that says you aren't. Show me the evidence that says I'm wrong, and I'll say I'm wrong. But guess what? You can't.

Edit:

The only assumption farsight has committed to is that time isn't a real dimension. Do you have any other assumptions farsight?

No, I avoid assumptions, and challenge the assumptions that you take for granted. By the way, I say time is derived from motion through space. No motion means no time. But please can we talk about that on the appropriate thread. This is electromagnetism.

JimC. See mistermack's thread for some mathematics from me. Also see Twiglet's How Accessible is Physics? I do bits of maths tutoring from time to time.

Now, can we get back to electromagnetism please? Read [url=http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 08&start=0]the OP[/quote] and try to explain why you think I'm wrong.

[Farsight]

...it's very clear from SR that space and time are closely related, and that time is not derived from motion. No amount of Einstein-thumping can change that, because Einstein helped develop SR...

What does change it the patent observational evidence that clocks clock up motion, not the flow of time. And this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Without-T ... 0713993871

[Tigger]

It could hardly be simpler. E=mc^2=m0c^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 In the limit as v approaches c, E approaches infinity, hence infinite energy is required to propel any particle with inertial mass to the speed of light.

This is woefully inadequate. It's like saying "because the runes tell me". A mathematical expression doesn't explain why c is the limit.

Aha! I see it all now. Having actually derived this mathematical expression from first principles when I was in my final year maths degree course studying a "basic" QM module, and with a PM from Twiglet and a post by Colubridae (cheers) to remind me of the derivation, I see the problem in this thread - and others.

Farsight, this expression is indeed sufficient (to use the mathematical meaning) to demonstrate that c is the limit.

If you accept the mathematical axioms literally starting before 1+1=2, and follow them through, the above equation is inarguable and by definition it does explain.

[Brain Man]

It would make an interesting derail, and I have some ideas I vaguely remember being circulated around from my physics days when I attended a few seminars on neural nets.

The way it was being approached was in terms of short and long term memory being a resonant e-m pattern across neurons, rather like waves on a pond which dissipate out. There was some evidence suggesting that pattern persists for about 8 seconds. I don't remember all of it, but one example was when crowds clap, they generally do so for that period of time.. as well as exercises like repeating back number sequences and sentences.

Long term memory was seen as stuctural chemical changes, which determine what patterns are more favourably "instanced" by an experience, accounting for learning.

Thats still where short term memory is at, activity patterns (although they aren't proved to be patterns) sustained across the cortex by yet unknown mechanism up to 30 seconds (as spikes are in the millisecond range) which some theorists propose are astrocyte magnetic fields (hence they can travel across cell membranes over wider distances). Whats important about short term memory is that the activity is random, dynamic, sporadic and timing is not important for it (although gamma oscillation arise as a subfunction of this sporadic processing to bind activity together). The short term memory primes appropriate brain regions to increase their sensitivity to sensory input, by raising blood flow in those regions and sensory latency can be reduced to a maximum of about 3ms. (the brains latency limit to respond to external input)

Long term potentiation or LTP is a more involved process utilizing the hippocampus/cortex/striatum/frontal lobe where the timing is very important. i.e. Alpha and theta brainwaves which are pretty stable in one one form or another while we are awake are required.

Thats why it appears like the brain does not need time to process the moving world. It seems to need the synchronization functions of the primary brain waves to produce our instincts, inner and social world.

There are some deep questions about consciousness and freewill which we can get into if we go onto a derail, where interpretations of quantum theory get into the mix.

Better to start another thread on that, although the philosophy doesn't grab me too much, as then you have to get into definitions of consciousness which becomes difficult technically for most, and the freewill stuff has been done to death previously unless there is anything new.

[colubridae]

Your smokescreen of irrelevant off-topic mathematics doesn't cover your evasion.

Look at this:-

“electrons are made of mostly fire, some earth, no water, no air.
Clearly they are involved in lightning so lots of fire. But no flowing so no water”

“in what proportions?”

“well we can’t know that”

“but they flow through copper wire?”

“ yes but this is due to the small amount of earth. It makes them round and because of this they are able to roll. Giving the elusion of flowing”


edit spelling


“but what about Einstein’s photo-electric effect?”

“good point. Again this is due to the fire lifting them out of the metals. No air is required since they don’t float out”


“but what about the different light frequencies?”

“this is due to the varying amounts of earth and fire in the source materials”

This is how not to do science.

[lpetrich]

It could hardly be simpler. E=mc^2=m0c^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 In the limit as v approaches c, E approaches infinity, hence infinite energy is required to propel any particle with inertial mass to the speed of light.

This is woefully inadequate. It's like saying "because the runes tell me". A mathematical expression doesn't explain why c is the limit. And it doesn't explain why the particle has inertial mass or why E approaches infinity.

Farsight, why do you think that mathematics incapable of giving the reason? What would you consider acceptable reasoning and why?

The mathematics is an important part of the theory, so it is completely legitimate to mention it.

Now come on, you set the challenge, I've risen to it by explaining E and m in these two threads:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =9&t=12530
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =9&t=12575

..so let's have your response.

Lots and lots of words and some pretty pictures, but no real consideration of the appropriate mathematical formulations.

Your smokescreen of irrelevant off-topic mathematics doesn't cover your evasion. Particularly since it was you who challenged me to explain pair production, which is why I started this thread. ...

The mathematics is completely on-topic. Why do you think it isn't?