Understanding electromagnetism

[lpetrich]

Farsight, quote-mining is no substitute for working out solutions to equations.

Have you seen the intellectual wasteland that is todays physics journals. Pages after pages of useless maths that few read, even few understand and serve only to give the aspergers afflicted some kudos to keep them in their uni or other jobs and contribute nothing to further our understanding of fundamental questions.

Why do you think that that mathematics is "useless"? What would you prefer?

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

What does it make any kind of sense at all?

Let's see ...

* Dirac equation and quantum field theory: oodles of successful predictions, including lots of good numerical agreement. It works not only for electrons, but also for muons, tauons, up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks, charm quarks, bottom quarks, and top quarks, and even, more or less, for neutrinos.
* Farsight's doughnut-shaped electron: none.

if i had my way all those useless but highly skilled nerds wasting their lives writing pages of arse licking maths to prep up their CV would be listening to farsights every word and transcribing it in detail.

What are they supposed to get from Farsight's words?

[ChildInAZoo]

I find that child in a moo is the one thats hard to follow.

Farsight starts out by offering a simple easy access introduction to electromagnetism. Nice and easy.

he then offers his own theory that the electron itself contains a vortice like a soliton.

All very simple.

Child in a moo comes along and starts nitpicking, farsight replies, child in a moo then breaks up farsights replies..with further nitpicking..in effect creating a vortice of his own.

to do what, just waste time and suck the obvious complete understanding out the original post. I mean you can sit all day and do that with anything...but whats the point ?

Child in a moo...you are the proof that electromagnetism is a vortice. You sit with your electromagnetic brain and create vortices everytime you post.

If the electron is like a vortice, then there must be a detailed description governing this behavior. The difficulty with this is that the scientific evidence rules out the possibility that there is such a description. This is not a nitpick, this is a fundamental problem with Farsight's theory.

Farsight begins his presentation with what seems to be a very basic mistake in interpreting Hermann Minkowski's work. In an effort to see whether or not he was actually making that mistake, I asked him for clarification. As you can see for yourself, he has not attempted to answer my questions on this matter. He has made a claim about a mathematical paper, but he does not want to talk about any of the content of that paper; he wants us to take it on faith that he is correct. Having read that paper, I know from my experience and reasoning that Farsight is incorrect, so much so that I don't think that Farsight has read more than the passage that he cites.

Specifically, in Minkowski's paper, Minkowski demonstrates how to consider 4-dimensional distances in a geometrical construction of 3-dimensioanl space and 1-dimension of time. He shows how the 4D structure is the fundamental structure and that we can break down the 4D structure into 3D space + time in different ways, all of which are equivalent in some sense to the same 4D structure. This, he says at the end, is equivalent to the mathematical treatment of applying a wrench in mechanics. In mechanics, a wrench is the application of force at a single point. This causes an object to move in a particular way, however, since all the force is beng applied at a single point, the wrench can be a combination of a number of different forces and still produce the same effect. Thus there is a sense in which a number of different combinations of forces are equivalent similarly to the way that a number of differnt combinations of space and time can be equivalent. Nowhere in the paper does Minkowski discuss circular motion as Farsight describes.

I don't know if Farsight is purposefully misusing Minkowski. I suspect that he simply never read the entire paper because it is beyond him or because he got what he wanted to say from the bit at the end and never cared to read further. In either case, he is far too cavalier towards the real content of science.

I had hoped that, if he could admit that he was mistaken about Minkowski, or if he could produce a real defense at least, that there might be something else of value in his theory. But as it stands, all he seems to be doing it confusing those who don't know the basic science.

Have you seen the intellectual wasteland that is todays physics journals. Pages after pages of useless maths that few read, even few understand and serve only to give the aspergers afflicted some kudos to keep them in their uni or other jobs and contribute nothing to further our understanding of fundamental questions.

Do you call physics an intellectual wasteland because you cannot understand it? Does this seem like a reasonable position to you?

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

People have suggested similar things. But they more-or-less stopped in the 20C because it because apparent that this was impossible. Physicists have produced insights into fundamental questions and many of them have to do with the nature of the electron. An electron that acts like a vortice could not behave like an electron behaves.

if i had my way all those useless but highly skilled nerds wasting their lives writing pages of arse licking maths to prep up their CV would be listening to farsights every word and transcribing it in detail.

Then you would ask us to throw away all the decades of research that has been done in describing the electron in detail because you, and seemingly Farsight, cannot follow the mathematics in which our description of the electron is written?

[Brain Man]

Farsight begins his presentation with what seems to be a very basic mistake in interpreting Hermann Minkowski's work. In an effort to see whether or not he was actually making that mistake, I asked him for clarification. As you can see for yourself, he has not attempted to answer my questions on this matter. He has made a claim about a mathematical paper, but he does not want to talk about any of the content of that paper; he wants us to take it on faith that he is correct. Having read that paper, I know from my experience and reasoning that Farsight is incorrect, so much so that I don't think that Farsight has read more than the passage that he cites.

Specifically, in Minkowski's paper, Minkowski demonstrates how to consider 4-dimensional distances in a geometrical construction of 3-dimensioanl space and 1-dimension of time. He shows how the 4D structure is the fundamental structure and that we can break down the 4D structure into 3D space + time in different ways, all of which are equivalent in some sense to the same 4D structure. This, he says at the end, is equivalent to the mathematical treatment of applying a wrench in mechanics. In mechanics, a wrench is the application of force at a single point. This causes an object to move in a particular way, however, since all the force is beng applied at a single point, the wrench can be a combination of a number of different forces and still produce the same effect. Thus there is a sense in which a number of different combinations of forces are equivalent similarly to the way that a number of differnt combinations of space and time can be equivalent. Nowhere in the paper does Minkowski discuss circular motion as Farsight describes.

I don't know if Farsight is purposefully misusing Minkowski. I suspect that he simply never read the entire paper because it is beyond him or because he got what he wanted to say from the bit at the end and never cared to read further. In either case, he is far too cavalier towards the real content of science.

I had hoped that, if he could admit that he was mistaken about Minkowski, or if he could produce a real defense at least, that there might be something else of value in his theory. But as it stands, all he seems to be doing it confusing those who don't know the basic science.

Yeh but its still nitpicking. Farsight is clearly making an interpretation he chooses from Minkowski, then expanding it further in another direction. There is uniform force occuring which gives rise a single point in electron behaviour, because when they have the opportunity they will spin in concert to form poles and potential differences.

Do you call physics an intellectual wasteland because you cannot understand it? Does this seem like a reasonable position to you?

Its an intellectual wasteland because hardly any of it is read, referenced by other physicists or used. I wouldnt do away with it on just that basis, its not like its doing anybody any harm, and some good can only come from what does emerge. then you wonder whats going on in the community because you will have somebody like Garret Lisi produce a credible theory fully expounded with maths, and all he will get is crap at best from that community for producing something radical or insightful.

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

People have suggested similar things. But they more-or-less stopped in the 20C because it because apparent that this was impossible. Physicists have produced insights into fundamental questions and many of them have to do with the nature of the electron. An electron that acts like a vortice could not behave like an electron behaves.

So who proposed the electron was a vortice previously ?
Why can the electron as a vortice not work with current models ?

Then you would ask us to throw away all the decades of research that has been done in describing the electron in detail because you, and seemingly Farsight, cannot follow the mathematics in which our description of the electron is written?

Farsight proposes the electron is acting like the soliton creating a vortice in some cases, i.e. Like these ?



or explored in magnets here

http://www.springerlink.com/content/984m2226121v5501/

Abstract We discuss the dynamics of a magnetic soliton in a one-dimensional ferromagnet placed in a weakly nonuniform magnetic field. In the presence of a constant weak magnetic-field gradient the soliton quasimomentum is a linear function of time, which induces oscillatory motion of the soliton with a frequency determined by the magnetic-field gradient; the phenomenon is similar to Bloch oscillations of an electron in a weak electric field. An explicit description of soliton oscillations in the presence of a weak magnetic-field gradient is given in the adiabatic approximation. Two turning points are found in the motion of the soliton and the varieties of bounded and unbounded soliton motion are discussed. The Landau-Lifshitz equations are solved numerically for the case of a soliton moving in a weakly nonuniform magnetic field. The soliton is shown to emit a low-intensity spin wave near one of the turning points due to violation of the adiabatic approximation, and the necessary conditions for such an approximation to hold are established.

[Brain Man]

Farsight, quote-mining is no substitute for working out solutions to equations.

Have you seen the intellectual wasteland that is todays physics journals. Pages after pages of useless maths that few read, even few understand and serve only to give the aspergers afflicted some kudos to keep them in their uni or other jobs and contribute nothing to further our understanding of fundamental questions.

Why do you think that that mathematics is "useless"? What would you prefer?

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

What does it make any kind of sense at all?

Let's see ...

* Dirac equation and quantum field theory: oodles of successful predictions, including lots of good numerical agreement. It works not only for electrons, but also for muons, tauons, up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks, charm quarks, bottom quarks, and top quarks, and even, more or less, for neutrinos.
* Farsight's doughnut-shaped electron: none.

if i had my way all those useless but highly skilled nerds wasting their lives writing pages of arse licking maths to prep up their CV would be listening to farsights every word and transcribing it in detail.

What are they supposed to get from Farsight's words?

I would prefer, it they could use any of this to explain something that should be extremely simple you would think.. like magnetic fields, which so far nobody has been able to do. Only a handful of outsiders i.e. farsight and Harley Borgais attempt to put out models which tackle this.

[ChildInAZoo]

Yeh but its still nitpicking. Farsight is clearly making an interpretation he chooses from Minkowski, then expanding it further in another direction.

Really? Let's look at what he wrote: "Minkowski referred to a wrench and Maxwell referred to a screw because the electromagnetic field really is like this. It’s essentially a “twist” field." But Minkowski doesn't refer to a wrench because of twisting. This is just one example of bad citation in the presentation of the thoery.

Its an intellectual wasteland because hardly any of it is read, referenced by other physicists or used.

Where do you get this information on the use of physics papers?

I wouldnt do away with it on just that basis, its not like its doing anybody any harm, and some good can only come from what does emerge. then you wonder whats going on in the community because you will have somebody like Garret Lisi produce a credible theory fully expounded with maths, and all he will get is crap at best from that community for producing something radical or insightful.

Why do you say this? If his work pans out, then he will be lauded by the physics community. So far he has received quite a bit of grant money, so he is hardly marginalized. Unlike Farsight, Lisi is doing what one should in science: attempting to address the important details and, yes, doing this with the proper mathematical representation of these details.

So who proposed the electron was a vortice previously ?
Why can the electron as a vortice not work with current models ?

In the interest of time, I'm only going to address the second question. Any model of the electron that has come kind of physical turning of the electron over some distance (as required by a vortice) cannot work because it cannot reproduce the quantum spin measurements of an electron. An electron behaves in a very particular way when going through a Stern-Gerlach device, a way that rules out that it is a spinning thing. If electrons spun like a vortice, then they would end up going in an angle after passing through a S-G device as determined by the relative orientation of the S-G device to the rotation. However, regardless of the orientation of a S-G device, an electron always ends up going either upwards at a set angle or downwards at a set angle. No theory of a spinning electron can recapture this behavior. If someone tells you that they have a theory of a spinning electron, they should be prepared to have a detailed explanation of the behavior of theS-G device, one that addresses the specifics of our observations with this device.

Then you would ask us to throw away all the decades of research that has been done in describing the electron in detail because you, and seemingly Farsight, cannot follow the mathematics in which our description of the electron is written?

Farsight proposes the electron is acting like the soliton creating a vortice in some cases, i.e. Like these ?

or explored in magnets here

http://www.springerlink.com/content/984m2226121v5501/

Abstract We discuss the dynamics of a magnetic soliton in a one-dimensional ferromagnet placed in a weakly nonuniform magnetic field. In the presence of a constant weak magnetic-field gradient the soliton quasimomentum is a linear function of time, which induces oscillatory motion of the soliton with a frequency determined by the magnetic-field gradient; the phenomenon is similar to Bloch oscillations of an electron in a weak electric field. An explicit description of soliton oscillations in the presence of a weak magnetic-field gradient is given in the adiabatic approximation. Two turning points are found in the motion of the soliton and the varieties of bounded and unbounded soliton motion are discussed. The Landau-Lifshitz equations are solved numerically for the case of a soliton moving in a weakly nonuniform magnetic field. The soliton is shown to emit a low-intensity spin wave near one of the turning points due to violation of the adiabatic approximation, and the necessary conditions for such an approximation to hold are established.

Just because some things in physics behave in one way does not mean that everything in physics behaves in the same way. What you are offering here is equivalent to saying that since water boils at 100 degrees Celcius, then everything voils at 100 degrees Celcius.

I would prefer, it they could use any of this to explain something that should be extremely simple you would think.. like magnetic fields, which so far nobody has been able to do. Only a handful of outsiders i.e. farsight and Harley Borgais attempt to put out models which tackle this.

If the electromagnetism that Farsight explains doesn't act like the electromagnetism we find in our experiments and applications, how much is his explanation worth?

[Brain Man]

Where do you get this information on the use of physics papers?

You can see the reader count in the journal information, citation count in google scholar and there are commentators out there who will give you overviews on whats occuring with activity in a given area.

Why do you say this? If his work pans out, then he will be lauded by the physics community. So far he has received quite a bit of grant money, so he is hardly marginalized. Unlike Farsight, Lisi is doing what one should in science: attempting to address the important details and, yes, doing this with the proper mathematical representation of these details.

Ill return to this in more depth. This hardly represents what happend with Garret. Briefly he had to become an outsider to do what he did and might have got nowhere without a peer like lee smolin. His grant money is small and from a non mainstream source and has dried up. If he didnt have the maths done just right, he would have been ridiculed, so we should be looking to give all that wasted mathematic expertise to people that can think creatively in this manner, not expecting them to educate themselves to this degree.

The whole single person fighting against everybody else for their idea in science if you look at it logically is actually a defunct one in todays overcrowded scientific community. That was fine when it was a small world a scientist had to deal with. Today It becomes as hard as it was for a lone voice to question any aspect of religion. The pruning of what we could know must be massive, and the expectation placed on a scientist (to be creative) far too high. In this sense farsight is right, groupthink has taken over science in the past 20 years, due to the massive employment in it. And hes not the only one. Ive heard this coming from the top.

In the interest of time, I'm only going to address the second question. Any model of the electron that has come kind of physical turning of the electron over some distance (as required by a vortice) cannot work because it cannot reproduce the quantum spin measurements of an electron. An electron behaves in a very particular way when going through a Stern-Gerlach device, a way that rules out that it is a spinning thing. If electrons spun like a vortice, then they would end up going in an angle after passing through a S-G device as determined by the relative orientation of the S-G device to the rotation. However, regardless of the orientation of a S-G device, an electron always ends up going either upwards at a set angle or downwards at a set angle. No theory of a spinning electron can recapture this behavior. If someone tells you that they have a theory of a spinning electron, they should be prepared to have a detailed explanation of the behavior of theS-G device, one that addresses the specifics of our observations with this device.

Just because some things in physics behave in one way does not mean that everything in physics behaves in the same way. What you are offering here is equivalent to saying that since water boils at 100 degrees Celcius, then everything voils at 100 degrees Celcius.

Im glad you said that, as thats the point, there are exceptions. I am sure thats farsights point. That if the electron is able to spin freely there are circumstances in which a vortice could occur, perhaps in concert with other electrons or in the poles of magnets themselves. We dont know everything on electrons. You cant tell me that for sure what the structure of an electron might be at the poles of a magnet exposed to another magnetic force.

If the electromagnetism that Farsight explains doesn't act like the electromagnetism we find in our experiments and applications, how much is his explanation worth?

that sounds very much like the original argument for quantum vs classical physics. Im not saying farsight is an einstein, but maybe garret could be. The entire physics community practically rejected him on the basis he was a new age hippie with no publication recored outside the system promoting advanced versions of sacred geometry as the solution to integrate subatomic connections.

Then you would ask us to throw away all the decades of research that has been done in describing the electron in detail because you, and seemingly Farsight, cannot follow the mathematics in which our description of the electron is written?

im saying that the mathematicians should be utilized to take on intutive theories like Farsights and borgais which offer explanations for charge, gravity and magnetic force. There are many other examples out there left unexplored.

[Farsight]

So who proposed the electron was a vortice previously?

The guys I came across first were Williamson and van der Mark. See the second post and http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw. They're are ex-CERN, and it took them six years before they got this paper into a journal in 1997. I don't know if they were the first, see google for other instances, such as this undated Electron Ring Vortex Model by William Hamilton with some historical information. IMHO it's a great pity that James Clerk Maxwell didn't know about electrons, because On Physical Lines of Force is entitled "the theory of molecular vortices". He thought the vortices were in the intervening space rather than being what the particles are.

Any model of the electron that has come kind of physical turning of the electron over some distance (as required by a vortice) cannot work because it cannot reproduce the quantum spin measurements of an electron. An electron behaves in a very particular way when going through a Stern-Gerlach device, a way that rules out that it is a spinning thing. If electrons spun like a vortice, then they would end up going in an angle after passing through a S-G device as determined by the relative orientation of the S-G device to the rotation. However, regardless of the orientation of a S-G device, an electron always ends up going either upwards at a set angle or downwards at a set angle. No theory of a spinning electron can recapture this behavior. If someone tells you that they have a theory of a spinning electron, they should be prepared to have a detailed explanation of the behavior of theS-G device, one that addresses the specifics of our observations with this device.

This assertion is incorrect. See the wiki Stern-Gerlach article which says:

If the particles are classical, "spinning" particles, then the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors is taken to be truly random and each particle would be deflected up or down by a different amount...

The experiment shows that this doesn't happen, so we know the particles aren't spinning spheres. However the article, which is in line with the current consensus, uses this as a straw-man argument to invoke mystery. It goes on to say:

Electrons are spin-1⁄2 particles. These have only two possible spin angular momentum values, called spin-up and spin-down. The exact value in the z direction is +ħ/2 or −ħ/2. If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast. The speed of rotation would be in excess of the speed of light, 2.998×108 m/s, and is thus impossible.

There's actually nothing wrong with that, but here comes the non-sequitur:

Thus, the spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation and is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is sometimes known as the "intrinsic angular momentum."

Whoa! We've established that the particle isn't rotating like a planet, but why can't it be rotating in some other fashion? There is no justification here for asserting that spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation, particularly since the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

Imagine a a whole bunch of globes, like this:



Now give them an earth-style spin to give yourself a set of "classical particles". Next, jumble them around so that the spin axes point in a variety of directions, then throw them through the inhomogeneous magnetic field. You'd see a line on the screen as per the classical prediction:



Now collect all your classical particles together again, and set them down on the table like a bunch of spinning globes. Now give them another spin in another orientation. Spin the spin axis. You have two choices as regards this new spin direction, this way ↓O↑ or that way ↑O↓. Now throw them through the inhomogeneous magnetic field and ask yourself what you'd see. Two spots, because there are two chiralities to the two compound spins. Apart from that, you can't say which way they're spinning. Spin a glass clock like a coin, and the rotation of the hands is clockwise when its face-on, anticlockwise when its rear-on, clockwise when its face-on, anticlockwise when its rear-on, ad-infinitum. It's spinning both clockwise and anticlockwise. Spin the glass clock with your other hand and the compound rotation is different, but you can only describe the difference by using vague terms like spin-up and spin-down.

The spheres and clocks examples don't cover the spin 1/2 of course. You need one spin to be twice the rate of the other for that. A moebius strip is an everyday example of this, where two rotations around the strip occur for every rotation of the strip. The electron rotation is akin to this, only we talk of a "moebius doughnut" rather than a moebius strip:

[ChildInAZoo]

If the electromagnetism that Farsight explains doesn't act like the electromagnetism we find in our experiments and applications, how much is his explanation worth?

that sounds very much like the original argument for quantum vs classical physics.

I'm not sure what this means QM is incredibly well tested and shows amazing accuracy to results and it successfully predicts things that classical electromagnetism does not. Farsight is saying things that contradict the best tested parts of both QM and classical electromagnetism.

Im not saying farsight is an einstein, but maybe garret could be. The entire physics community practically rejected him on the basis he was a new age hippie with no publication recored outside the system promoting advanced versions of sacred geometry as the solution to integrate subatomic connections.

Given the time and effort that one has to go through to master the relevant details, are you surprised? Can you blame physicists for doubting the ability of someone who has not met the standards of his peers?

[ChildInAZoo]

This assertion is incorrect. See the wiki Stern-Gerlach article which says:

If the particles are classical, "spinning" particles, then the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors is taken to be truly random and each particle would be deflected up or down by a different amount...

The experiment shows that this doesn't happen, so we know the particles aren't spinning spheres. However the article, which is in line with the current consensus, uses this as a straw-man argument to invoke mystery.

This passage above is so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with "straw man argument". A straw man argument is when one attacks a weaker version of one's opponents position than the opponent actually offers. In this case, Farsight is the person offering a straw man argument because rather than actually addressing the science, he is addressing wikipedia.

The constant reference to Wikipedia is a bad sign on its own.

The argument from the SG device is not used to "invoke mystery", it is used to demonstrate a physical behavior. A behavior that quantum mechanics explains in painstaking detail.

It goes on to say:

Electrons are spin-1⁄2 particles. These have only two possible spin angular momentum values, called spin-up and spin-down. The exact value in the z direction is +ħ/2 or −ħ/2. If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast. The speed of rotation would be in excess of the speed of light, 2.998×108 m/s, and is thus impossible.

There's actually nothing wrong with that, but here comes the non-sequitur:

Thus, the spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation and is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is sometimes known as the "intrinsic angular momentum."

Whoa! We've established that the particle isn't rotating like a planet, but why can't it be rotating in some other fashion? There is no justification here for asserting that spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation, particularly since the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

Sigh. Ok, let's go through this more closely. There are two reasons why electrons are not spinning like classical particles. One is that they have defined spins. The other is that if they did have a spin, then they would be spinning faster than the speed of light. One cannot just confuse these two things like Farsight has.

Nor does the Einstein deHaas effect change the quantized nature of electron spin, as Farsight should also claim if he is going by what is written in his citation. But if one has been paying attention, one finds that Farsight always uses sources that support claims inconsistent with his theories and he never addresses this inconsistency.

Imagine a a whole bunch of globes, like this:

Now give them an earth-style spin to give yourself a set of "classical particles". Next, jumble them around so that the spin axes point in a variety of directions, then throw them through the inhomogeneous magnetic field. You'd see a line on the screen as per the classical prediction:

Now collect all your classical particles together again, and set them down on the table like a bunch of spinning globes. Now give them another spin in another orientation. Spin the spin axis. You have two choices as regards this new spin direction, this way ↓O↑ or that way ↑O↓. Now throw them through the inhomogeneous magnetic field and ask yourself what you'd see. Two spots, because there are two chiralities to the two compound spins. Apart from that, you can't say which way they're spinning. Spin a glass clock like a coin, and the rotation of the hands is clockwise when its face-on, anticlockwise when its rear-on, clockwise when its face-on, anticlockwise when its rear-on, ad-infinitum. It's spinning both clockwise and anticlockwise. Spin the glass clock with your other hand and the compound rotation is different, but you can only describe the difference by using vague terms like spin-up and spin-down.

If one does this experiment, one will simply recover the classical distribution again. Can we please see your work showing otherwise, Pope Farsight? Should we accept it on faith that these particles will behave as you say, or should we demand evidence that these particles will behave as you claim.

[lpetrich]

im saying that the mathematicians should be utilized to take on intutive theories like Farsights and borgais which offer explanations for charge, gravity and magnetic force. There are many other examples out there left unexplored.

Intuitive??? More like pretty pictures to me.

Brain Man, Farsight, why don't you try learning the appropriate mathematics? Or do the recruiting yourself?

[Farsight]

If one does this experiment, one will simply recover the classical distribution again.

No you won't. When you spin the spin axis, there is no random distribution of spin axes during flight. But there are two different ways to spin that spinning globe. This way: ↓O↑ or that way ↑O↓. Hence you see two dots. It's simple, a child can understand it. I've explained the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and you're still in denial, dodging and carping.

Can we please see your work showing otherwise, Pope Farsight? Should we accept it on faith that these particles will behave as you say, or should we demand evidence that these particles will behave as you claim.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment is the evidence, along with spin 1/2, pair production, electron angular momentum, electron magnetic dipole moment, and the Einstein-de Haas effect. What "work" do you want? Mathematics? Ah, you're seeking refuge in mathematics to keep the faith and avoid facing up to the scientific evidence. It's not me who resembles the Pope round here.

Brain Man, Farsight, why don't you try learning the appropriate mathematics?

I am, but the problem is that isn't appropriate. It doesn't portray the underlying reality.

[ChildInAZoo]

If one does this experiment, one will simply recover the classical distribution again.

No you won't. When you spin the spin axis, there is no random distribution of spin axes during flight.

Don't make a Papal decree. Show us the physics. You want to say that the bulk of contemporary quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and quantum electrodynamics is incorrect, so you should have the decency to show us your physics. You are attacking very accurately measured results with nothing but your claim. the trajectories that you vaguely describe with words are very accurately described with equations, so use them. If you cannot provide the details, then we cannot take your assertions as anything more serious than fantasy.

[Brain Man]

If one does this experiment, one will simply recover the classical distribution again.

No you won't. When you spin the spin axis, there is no random distribution of spin axes during flight.

Don't make a Papal decree. Show us the physics. You want to say that the bulk of contemporary quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and quantum electrodynamics is incorrect, so you should have the decency to show us your physics. You are attacking very accurately measured results with nothing but your claim. the trajectories that you vaguely describe with words are very accurately described with equations, so use them. If you cannot provide the details, then we cannot take your assertions as anything more serious than fantasy.

the maths for the vortice model of the electron is in the paper by the EX cern guy. From what i could make out he didnt say QED was wrong but incomplete

http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

Can you tell us where Dr williamsons maths is wrong ?

[lpetrich]

When you spin the spin axis, there is no random distribution of spin axes during flight. But there are two different ways to spin that spinning globe. This way: ↓O↑ or that way ↑O↓.

Don't make me laugh. There's no way that you can get that out of classical mechanics and statistical mechanics.

Hence you see two dots. It's simple, a child can understand it. I've explained the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and you're still in denial, dodging and carping.

The Stern-Gerlach effect is a pure QM effect - in the classical limit, one will see a continuous strip. In fact, one can get that result by taking (angular momentum) -> (infinity).

spin 1/2

The Dirac equation -- the electron field contains the two spinor representations of the Lorentz group.

pair production

Quantum Electrodynamics 101.

electron angular momentum

The Dirac equation again.

electron magnetic dipole moment

QED 101

and the Einstein-de Haas effect

Interchangeability of spin and orbit angular momentum.

What "work" do you want? Mathematics? Ah, you're seeking refuge in mathematics to keep the faith and avoid facing up to the scientific evidence. It's not me who resembles the Pope round here.

Farsight, you have yet to prove that mainstream quantum mechanics and quantum field theory cannot possibiy account for the effects that you have listed.

Brain Man, Farsight, why don't you try learning the appropriate mathematics?

I am, but the problem is that isn't appropriate. It doesn't portray the underlying reality.

Farsight, why do you think that mainstream quantum field theory does not reflect the "underlying reality"? The experimental results that you list are all accounted for without much trouble in mainstream QFT.

[Brain Man]

Back to the point about whats going on here in this thread. See this is an example of what is said of new ideas in science being held back. You will have to register to read this. I doubt you will so ill start quoting from it if necessary. Most telling though is that i am a bioscientists entering into depths of todays physics and i was thinking something is not right..it seems like big theorists are actually being punished, and disposed off as quickly as possible, with no interest in the fundamental ideas they propose. This article resonated with everything i had been percieving. So we do have a problem and you guys are part of it.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38468


Science was always hard, but now its splintered into itself completely.

First sacred geometry was considered fringe new age lunacy. Anybody that had anything scientific to state on the subject was labelled a crackpot. Garret Lisi saw something in it, but took it to the stage where he qualified himself. Now its almost getting to the stage of being conceded as self evident answer to subatomic connections.


However (and I have spoken to garret personally about this) he found that todays academic system has become too tight, too many hoops to jump through, that 50 years ago, you could qualify then mess around with projects freely. (just about his own words here). So he became an odd job man, living in a campervan and produced E8 in his free time. That’s todays academia for you. Mostly he was rejected, and was lucky to find lee smolin get the ball rolling. Somethings not working. Garrets an example of a new ager going after complete models. You don’t get this in academica anymore, due to the intense mathematical battles, over fragments, creating more fragments, more demand for more intensity and resources over the fragments. Like black holes appearing everywhere in that system itself, sucking everybody in.

My area is bioscience, but we need better understanding of basic aspects in physics for that. These dont appear to be around so i am putting my trust in the fringe guys. For two main reasons.

There should never be a default paradigm for finding truth and that applies to science. There is something about humans that corrupts anything no matter how good, when there are too many people interested in the same thing. So even with scientific methods, academic systems, and all that was fought for in the enlightenment against religion, its happening again. Religion was a great thing when it first arrived in the context of its age..but lets not get into a debate on that. The self organizing tightness when too many people are playing in any area kills creativity and new ideas. And if you cant see it, you have to ask yourself just where are you in all this, because everybody else outside can see something’s going wrong, and many inside science at the top level can see this as well.


I also don’t buy the trumping of the reason card anymore. Its almost like todays educated are an autopilot, shut out mode. Play card reason, quote this and that, destroy the new idea, go home happy without it appears caring if there are some nuggets of possible truth in what you just kicked around. If I come on the internet, I will find plenty like yourself obviously educated on physics to a degree of depth, will slate these people, say john duffield, milo wolff, Harley borgais, Leo Vuyk, by nitpicking where they find weakness, but importantly whats most revealing is never admitting to the overall point or aim. You would have slated Lisi if he had just told you he thought that sacred type geometry can resolve the connections in subatomic physics had he not had the maths skills to write his papers. You can have technical professional excellence but a terrible script..say a Michael bay movie.

That’s like physics today. That’s why these maths experts should be the ones working for this new breed. What if Garret never got so far as to complete the maths, have all the personality qualities to fight outside the academic system. We might never have this. It should be the other way around, we should be welcoming these people for trying. Being open minded, giving them assistance. Trying to be decent in spite of the fact that the internet allows us no consequences if we behave like assholes.

These people attempt to provide more complete rough and ready means to put things together than anybody in the system we all pay taxes to is bothering to do. And they usually work free for the love of it, and in spite of taking crap all the time. Its clear the quality goes from B movie right up to the high level of lisi. So what ? Some home made movies have more to say than hollywood productions. The point is that what these people attempt to do is provide a completely intutitive script for physics which is something nobody really wants to accommodate. And why not. Physics is a fraction of the complexity in comparison to the biosciences, and even the biosciences have ways to provide narratives such as evolution and complexity theory.

I say stop the crap. Give these people a break, you clearly have no appreciation how lucky we are to have them.