Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 139 of 139
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: The screw nature of electromagnetism

  1. #101  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Here's an online version here. Feynman said nothing of the sort. On page 104 he says this:

    "From the quantum-electrodynamical point of view, another phenomenon completely analogous to Compton scattering is two-photon pair annihilation. Two photons are necessary (in the outgoing radiation) to maintain conservation of momentum and energy when pair annihilation takes place in the absence of an external potential. The interaction can be diagrammed as shown in Fig. 21-1. This figure should be compared to that for Compton scattering (Lecture 20). The only differences are that the direction of photon di is reversed, and, since particle 2 is a positron, ^ 2 = -(momentum of positron). So write..."

    On page 111 he says this:

    "It is easily shown that a single photon of energy greater than 2m cannot create an electron positron pair without the presence of some other means of conserving momentum and energy. Two photons could get together and create a pair, but the photon density is so low that this process is extremely unlikely. A photon can, however, create a pair with the aid of a field, such as that of a nucleus, to which it can impart some momentum. As with bremsstrahlung, there are two indistinguishable ways in which this can happen: (a) The incoming photon creates a pair and subsequently the electron interacts with the field of the nucleus; or (b) the photon creates a pair and the positron interacts with the field of the nucleus. The diagrams for these alternatives are shown in Fig. 22-3..."

    How on Earth can you dismiss what Minkowski and Maxwell and Einstein actually said, and then make up things that Feynman never said to try to bolster your position? Virtual particles are field quanta. It's a pop-science myth that they're short-lived real particles that pop in and out of existence. A cargo-cult myth. Your retraction and apology please. You can say it was a misunderstanding and that it was late or something. People think well of people who apologise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Here's an online version here. Feynman said nothing of the sort...
    Feynman invoked virtual particles all the time. His eponymous diagrams are full of squiggly lines that represent them. He refers to them frequently in his papers, as well as in his more popular works. I happen to have QED in front of me. Page 120 casually refers to virtual photons with no hint of postmodern irony. There is no suggestion here that he does not believe in virtual photons. You have failed to support your assertion about Feynman's belief.

    That said, you are, once again, obsessively concerned about the Holy Pronouncements of the Prophets. By anointing yourself the One and Only True Interpreter of the Holy Texts, you move away from science.

    How on Earth can you dismiss what Minkowski and Maxwell and Einstein actually said, ..
    You have presumed something that is counterfactual. I see no instance where anyone dismissed what these scientists said. I have seen, however, several instances where their relevancy and your (ab)use of them were.

    A cargo-cult myth. Your retraction and apology please. You can say it was a misunderstanding and that it was late or something. People think well of people who apologise.
    Spoken like a True Believer.

    I call into question your purpose in posting, John. If you intend to persuade, you're doing a craptabulous job of it. Every time you have been challenged to provide a single example, worked out mathtematically using Duffield Physics, you run and hide. Then you return with more sound and fury, always signifying nothing.

    Please tell no more tales.

    If you want to persuade, take a different tack.

    We'll see in your subsequent posts whether you are sincerely interested in science, or whether you merely enjoy the sound of your own voice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Feynman invoked virtual particles all the time. His eponymous diagrams are full of squiggly lines that represent them. He refers to them frequently in his papers, as well as in his more popular works. I happen to have QED in front of me. Page 120 casually refers to virtual photons with no hint of postmodern irony. There is no suggestion here that he does not believe in virtual photons. You have failed to support your assertion about Feynman's belief.
    No, lpetrich failed to support his assertion. And he's already agreed that virtual particles are field quanta, not real particles that magically pop in and out of existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    That said, you are, once again, obsessively concerned about the Holy Pronouncements of the Prophets. By anointing yourself the One and Only True Interpreter of the Holy Texts, you move away from science.
    Not me, lpetrich tried to do that, and came a cropper. He quoted the page numbers and tried to pull a fast one thinking I didn't have a copy or there wasn't an online copy. Those pages just didn't say what lpetrich claimed. You must surely know this?

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    You have presumed something that is counterfactual. I see no instance where anyone dismissed what these scientists said. I have seen, however, several instances where their relevancy and your (ab)use of them were.
    Minkowski and Maxwell referred to a screw mechanism, and instead of examining that, some posters here have accused me of being the "One and Only True Interpreter of the Holy Texts". It's absurd to dismiss what those guys said on such specious grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    I call into question your purpose in posting, John...
    Enlightenment. Understanding. Scientific progress. Fighting the slide to technical ignorance and quasi-religious idiocracy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Enlightenment. Understanding. Scientific progress. Fighting the slide to technical ignorance and quasi-religious idiocracy.
    So no actual, worked-out example of how your enlightened, scientifically progressive understanding leads to superior results, I see.

    Got it. We have our answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Shrug. We do physics to understand the world. If you don't want to, and would rather believe in cargo-cult trash like the electron and the proton throw photons at one another, as if hydrogen atoms twinkle and magnets shine, that's up to you. I suppose that next you'll be telling me that the Moon orbits the Earth because they're throwing a blizzard of gravitons at one another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Shrug. We do physics to understand the world.
    As if there is no such thing as applied physics.

    If you don't want to, and would rather believe in cargo-cult trash like the electron and the proton throw photons at one another, as if hydrogen atoms twinkle and magnets shine, that's up to you. I suppose that next you'll be telling me that the Moon orbits the Earth because they're throwing a blizzard of gravitons at one another.
    Gross misconceptions about virtual particles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Shrug. We do physics to understand the world. If you don't want to, and would rather believe in cargo-cult trash like the electron and the proton throw photons at one another, as if hydrogen atoms twinkle and magnets shine, that's up to you. I suppose that next you'll be telling me that the Moon orbits the Earth because they're throwing a blizzard of gravitons at one another.
    Shrug back at you.

    Instead of simply demonstrating the utility of your enlightened approach -- precisely to help us benighted lost souls to "understand the world" -- you bluster vacuously once again. Characterising my reasonable request as "a belief in cargo-cult trash" reveals you to be a poseur. If you actually had a deeper understanding, you'd be happy to impart it, and to demonstrate it to any and all. Instead, you behave in the manner that you do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Reasonable request? Where?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich
    Gross misconceptions about virtual particles.
    Sadly that's what many people believe. If you google on virtual particle and pop you can see "virtual particles pop in and out of existence" all over the internet. I know that virtual particles are "field quanta" and so do you, but many do not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    172
    Farsight, explain what you think a field quantum is, and why you think that a "real" particle is not a field quantum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Reasonable request? Where?
    I have asked you repeatedly to demonstrate a quantitative, worked-out example of Duffield Physics. I have pointed out repeatedly that you have never done this. You have repeatedly ignored my observations and requests.

    Asking you to back up your many stories with actual, quantitatively solved examples is not only a reasonable request, it is a minimum requirement for you to be taken seriously. To date, in all of your posts, you have not provided even one such example. I therefore continue to wonder what your purpose in posting is. You claim it is to enlighten. If that is not just a pose, then I am telling you that enlightenment of those you wish to convert (I choose the word carefully) will absolutely require showing -- not just saying -- that your approach leads to the same quantitative results that mainstream physics has achieved, while at the same time doing something -- again quantitatively -- that mainstream physics cannot do.

    Can you do this, or can you not? If you can, then please show us. If you cannot, then one is led inevitably to suspect that the stories you tell are all you have.
    lpetrich likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I have asked you repeatedly to demonstrate a quantitative, worked-out example of Duffield Physics. I have pointed out repeatedly that you have never done this. You have repeatedly ignored my observations and requests.
    You are not alone in this. When asked for details, at best he tells you to "read the OP".
    Can you do this, or can you not? If you can, then please show us. If you cannot, then one is led inevitably to suspect that the stories you tell are all you have.
    This reminds me of a cheese shop I once knew.
    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    You are not alone in this. When asked for details, at best he tells you to "read the OP".

    This reminds me of a cheese shop I once knew.
    To which I can only reply: We're apparently asking for Venezuelan Beaver Cheese.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Farsight, explain what you think a field quantum is, and why you think that a "real" particle is not a field quantum.
    It's a small portion of a field. A real particle is not a field quantum because it's the whole thing. For example an electron is said to be surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons, but there aren't any actual photons flitting around, and there's no billiard-ball thing in the middle. Instead the electron is field. It's described as a standing electromagnetic field, and as an excitation of the electron field, photons being described as excitations of the photon field, and virtual photons being used to model the interaction between the electron and say a positron. Also note Evanescent nodes are virtual photons and Near and Far Field on Wikipedia, both of which are reasonable:

    "Former QED-based studies of evanescent modes identified these with virtual photons"

    "In the quantum view of electromagnetic interactions, far-field effects are manifestations of real photons, whereas near-field effects are due to a mixture of real and virtual photons. Virtual photons composing near-field fluctuations and signals, have effects that are of far shorter range than those of real photons".


    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    I have asked you repeatedly to demonstrate a quantitative, worked-out example of Duffield Physics...
    I've just read through the entire thread. No you haven't asked that at all. And I can't give you one because this isn't Duffield Physics. I'm telling you about the screw nature of electromagnetism. It's Minkowski and Maxwell physics. The key to it is combining radial "electric field lines" with concentric "magnetic field lines" to visualize the electromagnetic field. Now, I'm asking you to depict the electromagnetic field. And you lpetrich. And you PhysBang. Come on, what's the problem?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I've just read through the entire thread. No you haven't asked that at all. And I can't give you one because this isn't Duffield Physics. I'm telling you about the screw nature of electromagnetism. It's Minkowski and Maxwell physics. The key to it is combining radial "electric field lines" with concentric "magnetic field lines" to visualize the electromagnetic field. Now, I'm asking you to depict the electromagnetic field. And you lpetrich. And you PhysBang. Come on, what's the problem?
    It appear that the problem is we have to accept that you have some strange mental block that stops you from understanding that nobody accepts that this is not your theory. You write things that do not match the physics that ordinary people and ordinary scientists understand: you are apparently some sort of superhuman with an ability to see a hidden truth that the authors you cite never bothered to write down. (Perhaps they feared the Illuminati?) So we cannot believe your claims until you demonstrate that they can even match simple physics experiments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    A seeming question. And I think it is a fair question. I'm not trying to appear mean...


    But how many people actually agree with whatever, Farsight, is pedalling?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    I've just read through the entire thread. No you haven't asked that at all. And I can't give you one because this isn't Duffield Physics.
    "Duffield physics", "Doofus physics", what's the difference? It is all the same word salad fringe stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to AIP's this thread...!

    Hello to all, and Cheers!

    .....

    Hey guys...try not to goad each other so much. Sheesh!

    "A road less traveled" can still have value, even though it didn't take you where you thought you wanted to go. Mistakes have value of their own, because you cannot know

    in advance what a "mistake" might reveal...perhaps something that otherwise you never would have looked for.

    (you will have to trust me on this. I'm old now, and have seen much...most of which was crap!) I was already 37 before I even knew what it means to love someone...never mind

    "what is real" and "what is false"...because sometimes they trade places!

    ....

    It is easy to be condescending and cruel and "point a finger" of disdain at others and dismiss what they present...how about trying to understand the "how and why" of what someone

    is saying first, before you pronounce judgment?


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    I would like to understand a bit more about what we really mean when we describe a field. In GR there is no notion of a field at all, so no requirement for those pesky gravitons whatsoever. Are fields anything more than useful mathematical constructs to represent something we don't really understand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    In GR there is no notion of a field at all
    This is, of course, false.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #118 post.

    I think of "fields" as useful for describing mathematical value assignments, but not much more than that. A gravity-field concept is necessary to describe conditions...but it cannot

    tell you what gravity is of itself. Nor can it define "space" of itself.

    I can't think of any useful substitute for a frame-of-reference other than a "field".

    ....

    Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    This is, of course, false.
    General Relativity is is geometrical theory when you get down to it, rather than a field theory. The Einstein field equations would be better described as metric equations to avoid this confusion. Both theories give similar results but my understanding is that they are not identical.
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    172
    However, the space-time metric can be interpreted as a field, and that's where the confusion comes from, I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    However, the space-time metric can be interpreted as a field, and that's where the confusion comes from, I think.
    All the various tensorial objects that appear in GR ( metric tensor, Riemann tensor, Ricci tensor etc etc ) are in fact tensor fields, i.e. they are tensors defined at each point in space-time. This just as an aside.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    The Einstein field equations would be better described as metric equations to avoid this confusion.
    I do not know why do you continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper. You try to cover one mistake by making another one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    It appear that the problem is we have to accept that you have some strange mental block...
    I don't have it. You do.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    You write things that do not match the physics that ordinary people and ordinary scientists understand
    Things written by Minkowski and Maxwell and Einstein etc that do not match the physics that ordinary people and ordinary scientists understand. Because that understanding is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
    But how many people actually agree with whatever, Farsight, is pedalling?
    Not that many. But the number is increasing. For example, PhysBang now accepts that the speed of light is not constant. See post #2 here where he said this: "The same is true for general relativity, developed in 1915, which holds that the speed of light is constant at any infinitesimal region of a coordinate system".





    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    I would like to understand a bit more about what we really mean when we describe a field. In GR there is no notion of a field at all, so no requirement for those pesky gravitons whatsoever. Are fields anything more than useful mathematical constructs to represent something we don't really understand?
    Some might say so, but I take my cue from Einstein. See The History of Field Theory dating from 1929. In the section headed "Expanding the Theory" Einsten is talking about electromagnetic and gravitational fields. He says this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Einstein
    It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds, and it is natural to suspect that this only appears to be so because the structure of the physical continuum is not completely described by the Riemannian metric".
    So a field is a state of space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I don't have it. You do.

    Things written by Minkowski and Maxwell and Einstein etc that do not match the physics that ordinary people and ordinary scientists understand. Because that understanding is wrong.
    Sure. You, out of all the people in the world, understand this stuff.

    So why not help us understand by demonstrating how things work in simple examples, like giving the equations for a falling pencil, or a simple black hole, or a simple galaxy? This way, you could show that your ideas match what we can find in nature.

    Not that many. But the number is increasing. For example, PhysBang now accepts that the speed of light is not constant. See post #2 here where he said this: "The same is true for general relativity, developed in 1915, which holds that the speed of light is constant at any infinitesimal region of a coordinate system".
    I have accepted for years that one can define a coordinate system where the speed of light is different from c over the long term. In cosmology, the standard metric used to describe cosmological kinematics has light traveling, in a sense, faster (or slower) than c over significant distances.

    What I do not accept is the bizarre theory that Einstein had a secret GR that violates his own mathematics and physical details that only Farsight understands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    I do not know why do you continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper. You try to cover one mistake by making another one.
    I am sorry if you are finding this tricky, but field theories and geometrical theories are actually different models. Perhaps this might help.
    General relativity as geometrical approximation to a field theory of gravity | Juan Ramón González Álvarez - Academia.edu
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Things written by Minkowski and Maxwell and Einstein etc that do not match the physics that ordinary people and ordinary scientists understand. Because that understanding is wrong.
    Book-thumping again. Treating Minkowski and Maxwell and Einstein etc as Prophets of Revealed Truth, while ignoring anything that they'd stated that is contrary to Farsight physics.

    Some might say so, but I take my cue from Einstein. ...

    (Einstein quote snipped for brevity)

    So a field is a state of space.
    Argued by quoting Einstein, as if he was a Prophet of Revealed Truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I've just read through the entire thread. No you haven't asked that at all. And I can't give you one because this isn't Duffield Physics.
    So, by your own words, even if you were to acknowledge my requests (implicit or otherwise), you could not give one. The reason that you provide for that refusal is feeble, John, and inconsistent with your persistent claims (explicit and implicit), repeated below, that you have a different -- superior -- understanding (obtained through Divine Revelation by your enlightened reading of the words of the True Prophets).

    I'm telling you about the screw nature of electromagnetism. It's Minkowski and Maxwell physics.
    There is no misunderstanding about what it is that you are claiming. As the claimant, you are being asked merely, simply and fairly to demonstrate how your different understanding leads to quantitatively demonstrable differences from the defective understanding of us apostates. Your steadfast refusal to do it is puzzling, as any real scientist would positively revel in the opportunity to prove everyone else wrong.

    You started this thread. The burden of proof is therefore on you. Attempting to shift the burden is not merely bad form. It reveals the emptiness of your claims (and repeatedly quoting the Holy Words of the Prophets does not meet the burden of proof, so please discontinue that practice).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    tk421's words should be taken kinda' seriously (as with other's.)

    To quote myself:

    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    A seeming question. And I think it is a fair question. I'm not trying to appear mean...


    But how many people actually agree with whatever, Farsight, is pedalling?
    It's because I don't even understand you and what you're saying. You can accuse me of being stupid. I'm getting quite used to it from various sources. But maybe there's some truth in the matter that you haven't explained anything, Farsight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    I am sorry if you are finding this tricky, but field theories and geometrical theories are actually different models.
    While this is true, this is not the error that I, Ipetrich and Markus Hanke corrected earlier in your posts. Please go back and read the corrections to your misconceptions. You are now making a funny tandem with Farsight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to AIP's this thread, re: c


    Light "slows?" In what manner? I cannot see how comparison values of FoR's regarding time and distance can demonstrate that "light slows" in relation to media transit, regardless of

    whether it is water or a vacuum or quartz crystal...this is a demonstration of applying an arbitrary measurement to a constant! Unless or until there is an experiment which proves

    beyond reasonable doubt that "light can move FASTER than itself!" then no experiment is valid with regard to "light is slowed"...one possibility cannot be valid without the other.

    ( in mathematical terms>0< =>0< in every instance...there can exist lesser or greater values than "0", but "0" is ALWAYS "0". One cannot "devalue" a constant)

    .....

    The observations that c has been "slowed" is a false-positive, as the judgments are being assessed using an arbitrary function of time/distance relative to different frames, and then

    comparing results in regard to c. (if the frames are identical, the results are the same in every instance...c is always c)


    (Thanks for reading!) Hey Jilan, the reference works are nice! Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight;16292


    Some might say so, but I take my cue from Einstein. See [url=http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html
    The History of Field Theory[/url] dating from 1929. In the section headed "Expanding the Theory" Einsten is talking about electromagnetic and gravitational fields. He says this:...


    So a field is a state of space.
    This is exactly where I was coming from. I was wondering whether EM could be also described by a geometric theory. Looks like Einstein thought it was possible and people have tried it. I found this:

    "Rainich-Misner-Wheeler theory. There is a way to obtain electromagnetism from geometry, in the 4d spacetime of General Relativity. Rainich was able to give in 1925 necessary and suficient conditions that spacetime is curved in a way which corresponds to the electromagnetic field. By Einstein's equation, the spacetime curvature is related to the field. So, Rainich decided to see if one can obtain the electromagnetic field from the curvature, using Einstein's equation. He found some necessary and sufficient conditions for the Ricci tensor, which are of algebraic and differential nature. This works for source free electromagnetism. There is an ambiguity, given by the Hodge duality between the electric and the magnetic fields, for the source free Maxwell equations. So, basically, the field is recovered up to a phase factor called complexion. The idea was rediscovered by Misner and Wheeler three decades later, who combined it with the wormholes of Einstein and Rosen. They interpreted the ends of the wormholes as pairs of electrically charged particles-antiparticles. The electromagnetic field, in this view, doesn't need a source, since the field lines go through the wormhole. While this idea may seem bizarre, it allowed to obtain "charge without charge", and to fix the undetermined phase factor. This model of particles had some issues, for instance it couldn't explain the spin, and Misner and Wheeler abandoned it." (Chrisi Stoica, Physics Stack Exchange Sep 2013)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Sure. You, out of all the people in the world, understand this stuff. So why not help us understand by demonstrating how things work in simple examples, like giving the equations for a falling pencil, or a simple black hole, or a simple galaxy? This way, you could show that your ideas match what we can find in nature.
    Because the equations you've got are fine as they are. You just need to correctly understand the associated reality. When it comes to electromagnetism what you think of as field E isn't a field, it's the linear force between two charged particles each with their electromagnetic field.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    I have accepted for years that one can define a coordinate system where the speed of light is different from c over the long term. In cosmology, the standard metric used to describe cosmological kinematics has light traveling, in a sense, faster (or slower) than c over significant distances.
    Then we won't be hearing any more carping from you about the varying speed of light.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    What I do not accept is the bizarre theory that Einstein had a secret GR that violates his own mathematics and physical details that only Farsight understands.
    Nobody's saying that. You can read what Einstein said for yourself. Things like the speed of light varies with position. Ditto for Minkowski and Maxwell. They really did refer to a screw mechanism. I'm not just making this stuff up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    This is exactly where I was coming from. I was wondering whether EM could be also described by a geometric theory. Looks like Einstein thought it was possible and people have tried it.
    Yes they have, google on electromagnetic geometry. You come up with things like Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems by Baldomir and Hammond, published by Oxford University Press. But nobody has heard of it. Guys like lpetrich won't tell you about it in case it causes problems for his precious Standard Model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    I found this:

    "Rainich-Misner-Wheeler theory. There is a way to obtain electromagnetism from geometry, in the 4d spacetime of General Relativity. Rainich was able to give in 1925 necessary and suficient conditions that spacetime is curved in a way which corresponds to the electromagnetic field.
    That's wrong. Wheeler got a lot of things wrong. Spacetime isn't curved, space is curved. When spacetime is curved space is inhomogeneous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    By Einstein's equation, the spacetime curvature is related to the field. So, Rainich decided to see if one can obtain the electromagnetic field from the curvature, using Einstein's equation. He found some necessary and sufficient conditions for the Ricci tensor, which are of algebraic and differential nature. This works for source free electromagnetism. There is an ambiguity, given by the Hodge duality between the electric and the magnetic fields
    That's wrong too. The field is the electromagnetic field. What people think of as electric fields and magnetic fields are really the forces that result from electromagnetic field interactions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    for the source free Maxwell equations. So, basically, the field is recovered up to a phase factor called complexion. The idea was rediscovered by Misner and Wheeler three decades later, who combined it with the wormholes of Einstein and Rosen. They interpreted the ends of the wormholes as pairs of electrically charged particles-antiparticles. The electromagnetic field, in this view, doesn't need a source, since the field lines go through the wormhole. While this idea may seem bizarre, it allowed to obtain "charge without charge", and to fix the undetermined phase factor. This model of particles had some issues, for instance it couldn't explain the spin, and Misner and Wheeler abandoned it." (Chrisi Stoica, Physics Stack Exchange Sep 2013)
    This model had some issues because it's crap. Have a look at Wheeler's geon. A geon is "an electromagnetic or gravitational wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy". This isn't crap. But Wheeler still got it wrong. He should have remembered that electromagnetic force is titanic compared to gravitational force. He should have remembered electron diffraction, and the wave nature of matter. He should have proposed an electron which is "an electromagnetic wave which is held together in a confined region by the attraction of its own field energy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Nobody's saying [that there is a secret GR that Einstein never wrote down].
    No, that's exactly what you are saying. You are claiming that you know divine truth of Einstein. When asked where to find this in the equations Einstein wrote, you can't show us.

    This is your reality. Unless you can show us where, in the actual equations, this metaphysics of your can be found, your reality is yours and only yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Because the equations you've got are fine as they are.
    Including the impossibility of self-interacting circling-photon solutions?

    You just need to correctly understand the associated reality. When it comes to electromagnetism what you think of as field E isn't a field, it's the linear force between two charged particles each with their electromagnetic field.
    Do you have any argument other than scriptural exegesis for that? Because in some of the scriptures that you have thumped, like Wikipedia, the electric and magnetic fields are indeed referred to as fields, though acknowledged to be components of an overall electromagnetic field.

    You can read what Einstein said for yourself. Things like the speed of light varies with position. Ditto for Minkowski and Maxwell. They really did refer to a screw mechanism. I'm not just making this stuff up.
    Argument by scriptural exegesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Yes they have, google on electromagnetic geometry. You come up with things like Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems by Baldomir and Hammond, published by Oxford University Press.
    Search-engine result page again? Did you read that book?

    Wheeler got a lot of things wrong. Spacetime isn't curved, space is curved.
    He was a big expert on general relativity, and he was correct in recognizing space-time curvature.
    x0x likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    in reply to AIP's this thread, re: varying c of light.

    NO...there is no "variance" of c.

    Time/distance values are false...because "light" does NOT experience distance or time! Period.

    .....

    It can be stated "What about observed and/or postulated conditions? Such as a "lightyear" or the transiting of a large gravity-well?"

    My answer...? The Shapiro "time delay" and observations involving "tick" rates are invalid prima facie results...they are flawed by the bias inherent of time/distance values.

    .....

    De-construct a light-year into days/hours/seconds per FoR, and the result will ALWAYS come to the same conclusion, c. No variance.

    De-construct ANY experiment into a "frame-by-frame" reference (such optical clocks) and c remains c in each instance.
    ......

    Distance and time are arbitrary values that have no "influence" in regard to light...light is either present or not present. When present, c is c.

    (if I'm wrong...then I'm wrong. But I cannot see the "how" of being wrong)


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    You need to read the OP on this thread Gerry: http://www.thephysicsforum.com/speci...eed-light.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •