The following is a paste from a thread in the Philosophy forum entitled "Conservation of self"

I thought it might be of value to post it here as well and invite comment on the nature of scientific belief and scientific knowledge.

How do we know when our belief gets in the way of knowing?


sorry the thoughts are running....

A good example of belief/knowledge bunfight could be sciences beliefs and knowledge as to the nature of light.

Now we say that Theories about Light seem to be so true so much so that we believe in them.
Science believes that Light travels at 'c" but for some reason the theory doesn't hold up fully and the belief keeps science trying to prove a theory and the harder they try the deeper the science goes and the more exceptions to the rule are found but science clings to the belief in the theories and is bending over backwards trying to support and defend that belief.

If they knew the answer to the question research would be uneeded. The problem having been solved in full. Theories would not be needed to support theories etc.

So Hope and Belief in something can be and often is all pervasive.

It is true that Science has greater evidence etc but in some ways they have a greater problem to solve than a "religious fanatic" in that science think they know and can in part support their belief with evidence.
Thus they have greater difficulty in discerning delusion from truth......
Afterall the theories "seem" to work.

Afterall 50 odd years defending a theory tends to make persons devoted to that theory.

I think Einstien was quoted as saying " It takes a lifetime of work to create a theory but only one exception to prove it wrong" or something to that effect.

Einstien himself even proved his thoeries wrong and yet today the belief in the completeness of his work is so strong.

Newtonian laws about gravity etc are also held as Gospel and yet there are many exception ( 3 body problem ) ( no universal constant etc)

The belief that Newtons laws are sound has put science in a subjective bind and lateral thought is impossible beyond the belief.
So when science is able to let go and take a fresh look that is when forward movement on the "Big" issues will occur.
Best me thinks that we sit back and ask ourselves why does the theory need defending because if it is a truth then defending it should not be necessary

The above is just a quick posting and in no way is comprehensive or fully thought out.

Any ideas or thoughts would be welcome :)

The above is just a quick posting and in no way is comprehensive or fully thought out.

Hrm, for one time a post is done in the proper place and then it is moved/copied here ?

Bye!

Crisp

A good example of belief/knowledge bunfight could be sciences beliefs and knowledge as to the nature of light.

Now we say that Theories about Light seem to be so true so much so that we believe in them.
Science believes that Light travels at 'c" but for some reason the theory doesn't hold up fully...Please list examples of experiments etc. in which current theories about light 'don't hold up.'Einstien himself even proved his thoeries wrong and yet today the belief in the completeness of his work is so strong.What are you talking about? I'm not aware of Einstein ever proving his own theories to be wrong. Please elaborate. The only issues I'm aware of Einstein ever proving himself wrong on would be quantum indeterminacy and the uncertainty principle. He hated that they were a consequence of quantum physics and wasted a lot of time trying to prove that they weren't correct principles, but in the end even he decided that they were probably correct.
Newtonian laws about gravity etc are also held as Gospel and yet there are many exception ( 3 body problem ) ( no universal constant etc)

The belief that Newtons laws are sound has put science in a subjective bind and lateral thought is impossible beyond the belief.How is Newtonian mechanics holding us back? Please be specific.

Our inability to solve three body problems isn't a consequence of Newtonian mechanics, it's just a consequence of mathematics in general. If you have any suggestions for solving three body problems, I'm sure we'd all like to hear them. Also, while it's true that you can't find an exact solution to the three body problem, it's usually possible to find an approximate answer that has any arbitrary degree of accuracy, so I wouldn’t say that multi-body problems are 'holding us back.'

;) Well,

belief is certainly an obstacle when you are considering theories from the outer frontier of physics. What someone believes can be totally different from the real world. There is macro-logic which is impossible to be extrapolated for the micro world.

The belief that Newtons laws are sound has put science in a subjective bind and lateral thought is impossible beyond the belief
Well, i found a sense in this. All modern theories are based on the Newton physics. It can sound absurd but in some sense Newton physics is more fundamental than quantum mechaniks and TO, because quantum mechaniks do not give profound information about the subjects in the microworld. It does not tells what is gravity, what is mass, why particle have different masses, how mass is transformed into energy and etc. This means that QM uses the Newton physics as a basis and does not explain the main physical quantities - mass, momentum, energy ..... It only constates that they exist and bind them in self-conserved equations.

Why new fundamental theories are needed?

QM uses a quantum values for the main physical observables, but the profound quantum origin of matter and energy is not known. Theories for the elementary particles are unable to give sensible explanation of the laws that governs particles interaction, generation and annihilation (they only observes that such things happens, Standard Model is only an empirical theory without generalization). Because of the lack of proper theory science funds grant billions of dollars for realization of costly experiments that only make the puzzle more complex. These experiments (according to the experimentators) had become so expensive, time consuming and sophisticated (there is particle experiments that lasts more then one decade) that there is not much hope experiments to boost the development of new theories. If this continue it may be reached a point when one particle experiment will be realized for more than the average lifetime, and several generations experimentators will be needed for one particle experiment. They can even breed themselfs around the experimental detectors :p .

I thnk the point I was tryng to pose was that if we go back to the drawing board and have a really good look at the premise that we are using eg Newton etc.....have a fresh modern look at the fundemantals we might be surprised by our results.
I don't know enough about the detail but the thread was just a general discussion about how belief can stall progress.

>> So Hope and Belief in something can be and often is all pervasive.


A John F. Kennedy quote that says "the great enemy of truth is often not the lie --deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."


Well at least one person can think on this forum
:)

The greath enemy of truth is also often not the myth, but the unintelligent attack on the truth.

Well, i found a sense in this. All modern theories are based on the Newton physics. It can sound absurd but in some sense Newton physics is more fundamental than quantum mechaniks and TO, because quantum mechaniks do not give profound information about the subjects in the microworld. It does not tells what is gravity, what is mass, why particle have different masses, how mass is transformed into energy and etc. This means that QM uses the Newton physics as a basis and does not explain the main physical quantities - mass, momentum, energy ..... It only constates that they exist and bind them in self-conserved equations.


On the contrary, Newtonian physics does not explain why there is a mass, however, in QM (or to be more precise: in the combination of quantum mechanics with relativity in the form of te quantum field theories), the physical states are rays in Hilbert space and since physics is invariant under the Poincare group (the Poincare group is the combination of the Lorentz group with translations), these states must form representations of the Poincare group. These representations predict that those states must have a mass, momentum and energy, they also predict that those states must have a spin, which is something that you cannot get by Newtonian physics.

Furthermore, conservation of momentum, mass-energy, angular momentum are not just constatations as you claim, they have theoretical grounds. Since we believe that physics is invariant under translations, rotations or time displacement, Noether theorem tells us that there will exist quantities that are conserved and these quantities are the momentum, the energy and angular momentum.




Why new fundamental theories are needed?

That depends on what you call fundamental theory. If you refer to QM, then no new theory is needed. However, in the framework of QM and relativity, there is still no description of gravitation, so at least there should be a theory of quantum gravity


QM uses a quantum values for the main physical observables

What do you mean by this?


Theories for the elementary particles are unable to give sensible explanation of the laws that governs particles interaction, generation and annihilation (they only observes that such things happens, Standard Model is only an empirical theory without generalization).


Why do you say that?
The principle of local phase invariance of the wave functions predicts us that EM fields must exist and it gives us that the fields equation should be Maxwell's equations. Invariance under local gauge invariance with higher symmetry groups just gives QCD theory and with the (theoretical) Higgs phenomenon the unification of electromagnetism and weak interraction. So, you cannot say that the standard model is only empirical, since it has theoretical grounds. Of course it is not the final model, since you have several constant that are empirical, that does not make the tandard model an empirical theory without generalization.

That depends on what you call fundamental theory. If you refer to QM, then no new theory is needed. However, in the framework of QM and relativity, there is still no description of gravitation, so at least there should be a theory of quantum gravity

The interesting thing about all this is that we are developing theories about things that exist in Gravity "fields". We are attempting to describe things with out being able to describe the fundemental premise. That being "gravity".

It's a bit like trying to understand the fish in the sea with out understanding the nature of the sea (water)

So the task is almost impossible if one does not know the nature of Gravity ( the sea)

So wouldn't it be better to get this fundemental solved first before we spend huge amounts of time and energy on theories on the contents of the "sea" that are going to have to change anyway.

I am sure if all the physicists stopped working on the contents and devoted them selves to just this problem we would arrive at a solution.

Being attractive by nature for instance makes Gravity an inverse force....

In that it doesn't push it only pulls......I know it sounds a little trite to state that obvious point but quite often when talking about gravity one refers to it as a force and not an inverse force.

So how can a force be inverse?

Absolute vacumm could be considered as an inverse force for example....


Hey man as you can tell I know jack shit about physics and maybe that's a benefit. As I don't have beliefs to hinder my thinking and admit I know so little but what I do know is That we Don't know which I think is better that believing we do when we don't

Hey Quantum quack, why don't you shut-up and go read a proper physics book.


We are attempting to describe things with out being able to describe the fundemental premise. That being "gravity".

So the task is almost impossible if one does not know the nature of Gravity

How do we not understand gravity? It is you who does not understand the theory that explains gravity!

Being attractive by nature for instance makes Gravity an inverse force....

Why so? What about quark confinement, these are attractive but the force clearly does not have an inverse relationship.

What about the coulomb interaction between 2 positive charges, that's inverse, but is repulsive.

What about a particle in a harmonic potential, this potential does not have an inverse relationship. 3 counterexamples = you are full of shit!


Hey man as you can tell I know jack shit about physics and maybe that's a benefit.

Gees, you can't tell

As I don't have beliefs to hinder my thinking and admit I know so little but what I do know is That we Don't know which I think is better that believing we do when we don't

No, that's not the reason, it is because you are either too stupid or lazy to learn the theory properly.

The difference between you and a physicists is that you will die happy, and a physicist will not. You will lie in your grave, content in your ignorance of reality to accept that the Universe is simply too complicated not to have been created by some higher order.

A physicist will lie in their grave knowing full well that unless probability conspires to spontaneously reassemble their atoms at some improbable future time, contravening the second law of thermodynamics, but based on theory of Poincare cycles, their consiousness will forever be quenchened by the universe governed by the physics that drew him closer to the true nature of the cosmos than any pope, messiah, Rabi, buddhist has ever been.

>> So the task is almost impossible if one does not know the nature of Gravity

Heehee ain't that the truth... from this 'unknown' gravity all sorts of postulations have been asserted as truth.

I laugh

Science is not about what’s up or down, black or white. It’s about how we deal with the universe. Science is a methodology and the only belief required is the belief in the principles of the methodology.

Ryans.....fro your information I won't die happy in the knowledge that some higher power exists...ha ha...you made me laugh with that one.....

If the theory of gravity is so complete why not inform the forum of it in a way that is complete.....

I and many others would love to know the theory that explains in full the nature of gravity.....

Tell us why a uniform force theory is not available for discussion.

Ryans...can you tell me why two similar magnetic poles repell each other ie North to North. Can you then go on to tell me why two non similar poles attract each other.

Can you even tell me what Magnetism is? Apart from alignment of crystals which says jack shit.

Im curious as to diamagnetic material more then the conventional poles that makes a little sense but to be repelled from both poles is something else.

>> I and many others would love to know the theory that explains in full the nature of gravity.....


Put up, lets compare notes Ryan, I too am very curious :)

You people are hilarious. Your demands for Ryans to provide you with complete explanations for gravity and magnetic interactions only goes to show that none of you know anything about modern physics. Since sciforums doesn't even have a way to enter some of the symbols that would be required for such an explanation, and since you probably wouldn't even understand said symbols is you saw them, why don't you start with these books?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805387323/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/002-5078396-0299262?v=glance&s=books&st=*

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201503972/002-5078396-0299262?v=glance

Oh wait, I forgot, you can't read those books because you don't know anything about math...

do the books describe a complete force unification theory?

If they do I'll bother to go read, if they don't I wont waste my time trying to understand where they are going wrong. Personally I don't care if you bury your self in math and shit. But as yet no one has been able to put it all together the main reason I reckon is that there are too many unecessary pieces.

You go down a certain path and to keep walking you got to justify the journey, Hey I can understand that but what if the journey just goes round in more and more intricate circles and when you die some one else just picks up where you left off....no where closer to the truth than when you started.

What is wrong any way with sitting back and appraising the whole mess, maybe you might see an easier way than multi billion dollars whorth of research on something that isn't even working from the right premise.

When you can even tell me what exactly electricity is and how the fields it generates affect your precious experiments in QM and such then I might bother go read something.

When dealing with such minute stuff don't you think it wise to know whatthe ambient fields are doing to the subject of your experiment.

Has any one learned yet how to insulate a magnetic field fully?

The difference between you and a physicists is that you will die happy, and a physicist will not. You will lie in your grave, content in your ignorance of reality to accept that the Universe is simply too complicated not to have been created by some higher order.

A physicist will lie in their grave knowing full well that unless probability conspires to spontaneously reassemble their atoms at some improbable future time, contravening the second law of thermodynamics, but based on theory of Poincare cycles, their consiousness will forever be quenchened by the universe governed by the physics that drew him closer to the true nature of the cosmos than any pope, messiah, Rabi, buddhist has ever been.

It sounds like you're assuming all physicists are like you, yearning for a God! Im sure there are plenty out there who would rather see things stay the way they are without religious complications.

UNfortunately Ryans has assumed I am tryng to argue from a religious perpsective and based on that flawed asssumption he has as usual attacked in the way he normally does. I take no offense but am amused when small minds come to play

do the books describe a complete force unification theory?

If they do I'll bother to go read, if they don't I wont waste my time trying to understand where they are going wrong. Personally I don't care if you bury your self in math and shit. But as yet no one has been able to put it all together the main reason I reckon is that there are too many unecessary pieces.



I like your modesty.
Do you have a complete unification theory by yourself?
If you don't, I suggest that you stop posting here so that we don't waste our time trying to understang where you are going wrong.
When you are talking about math and shit then I can tell you that math is the language of physics and shit is the language of people who cannot understand math.

BTW, do you have an idea of what is a unification theory?

That's cool quantum quack, keep flappin away. I could explain all this stuff to you, but I really suspect that you will be like all the other crakpots here who don't know shit about math and argue on philosophical pedantics side issues to the presented theme. So like Nasor said, go read those links, and then come and have a serious discussion with me about gauge invariance, charge conservation and some divergencless fields, which would adequately explain some of the problems you raised.

If one the other hand you aren't intelligent enough to understand those books, don't feel bad, you can always say to people that you actually chose a career in philosophy.

1000f,

That depends on what you call fundamental theory. If you refer to QM, then no new theory is needed. However, in the framework of QM
and relativity, there is still no description of gravitation, so at least there should be a theory of quantum gravity

If you do not understand gravity you do not understand anything about the elementary particles. You dont understand where mass comes from. What is the mass?

I think that currently there is no local theory about gravity. The elementary interactions causing gravity are unknown. Particles called gravitons can not be explained from QM and Theory for Relativity al all.

QM has lower limit of application. It can not explain what are processes that leads to quantization of energy, mass, charge and momentum.

Newtonian physics is fundamental because it introduces the basic concepts and laws of conservation. QM just make a more detailed 'quantum' description of the Newton laws. But it is not entirely "quantum" mechanics. Thus QM is not the final mechanics about microworld and do not solves the problems in the optimal way.

I dont think also that Standard model is even close to the full understanding of the el. particles. These Higgs bosons are very mythical. Also this unification of electromagnetism and weak interraction. These two interactions are very different and its wrong idea to be explained in this way. Why instead someone explains me where come from these W and Z bosons and why some particles decays and other like proton are quite stable. Why there is at all stable particles? And since electromagnetism is transmitted by photons , what is the common between photons and W and Z that both interactions are unified? And why weak interractions have range only from ^
10^-17 m? Since standard model is not empirical why it cant say where all these numbers come from - charges and masses of particles, lifetimes of the unstable particles, channels for decay, ranges for interaction .... I dont understand also the explanation of the quark confinement and the gluon theory. How are packed quarks in the particles and what binds them?

do the books describe a complete force unification theory?

If they do I'll bother to go read, if they don't I wont waste my time trying to understand where they are going wrong. Personally I don't care if you bury your self in math and shit. But as yet no one has been able to put it all together the main reason I reckon is that there are too many unecessary pieces.

You go down a certain path and to keep walking you got to justify the journey, Hey I can understand that but what if the journey just goes round in more and more intricate circles and when you die some one else just picks up where you left off....no where closer to the truth than when you started.

What is wrong any way with sitting back and appraising the whole mess, maybe you might see an easier way than multi billion dollars whorth of research on something that isn't even working from the right premise.The thing is, quantum physics and relativity provide equations that predict the behavior of matter perfectly. Why should we 'step back and reevaluate' a system like quantum mechanics when every experiment that anyone has ever been able to come up with to test it has shown it to be correct? You might not like the assumptions or theoretical frameworks that go into making them, but you can't really argue about whether or not they are correct. This means that if you want to replace quantum physics and relativity with some sort of complete unified theory, you would have to find a way to come up with the exact same equations that are used by quantum physics and relativity. The search for a 'theory of everything' that physicists are so preoccupied with isn't about wiping away relativity and quantum mechanics; it's about finding a theory that explains why relativity and quantum mechanics are the way that they are. It's a search for a single theory that allows us to derive all of our current equations, which have been proven correct time and again. How can you ever hope to accomplish that if you don't even know that the current equations are?

This is how I see it.

Science has achieved enourmous success in various fields...to many to mention. They have explored mathemtical precepts to the inth degree.
I have a great deal of respect for their efforts and even Ryans efforts to defend their work.

The issue for me is that when running these big experiments it takes electricity to do them. you know ...plug the machine in and push the go button. It takes magnetic fields to create electricity. The experiments that support the theories exist with in ambient gravity.

It's sort of like playing with the toys we have discovered never kwing how they work only that it is our job just to re-configure the toys.
The toys respond to gravity and magnetism.

Until these forces are understood we a deluding ourselves that we know the nature of the toys.

WE play with mass and matter and come up with really intriguing methods and rules to play with them but the nature of them escapes us.

We know a lot about effect but not the fundemental causes.
We know what we can do with electricity, we can measure it we can send probes and robots to Mars but we don't know how it works only that it does.

So Ryans and others how can you give science credibility if these fundementals are not understood. If you want me to invest resourses into physics how would you get past this fundemental flaw in credibility?

I want to learn about gravity magnetism and electricity but there is no one to teach me.

I find it funny that you compare electronics with particle acceleration, chemistry and gravity. Electronics is the most accurate predictable branch of physics out there. Electronics has a lot of advantages that physics and chemistry dont although chemistry is close. Electronics is actually simple E=IR everything is based off of that simple statement. E(voltage ) is a potential I(current) the rate at which electrons flow past a point. R (risistance ) is the resistance of the material to the flow of electronics.

The whys of electronics. why a voltage potential
so many electrons on this side and none on this side
__________________________________________________ _
- - - - - -- ->
- - - - - - ->electrons flow this way ->
- - - - - - ->
__________________________________________________ __

This picture shows both why a potential and why a current. It also kind of shows resistance. for an electron to react it takes time not much but some and on the path to even out there are atoms it could collide into or be attaracted to giving the resistance.

Electrons will repell from each other and go to the side with no negative force it becomes a general physics question as to why electrons repell and are attracted to protons. Thats the ugly part about the question why is there is always something more.

Its a simplified version but true.
The simplicity of electricity may be why not many electronics questions are asked. Even complex devices like transistors have very predictable ways of working. I think electronics has the slight advandage with the ease to predict and demonstrate without costing a huge amount. chemistry is similiar in but has the problem with dealing with all elements and possible reactions of all elements electronics deals with one particle and how it interacts. with electronics you dont get a overview of everything but you get a precise view of the electron.

>> Newtonian physics is fundamental because it introduces the basic concepts and laws of conservation. QM just make a more detailed 'quantum' description of the Newton laws.

True.. I have read QM, and I find it all equates well with Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory, which has a Newtonian base.

>>The thing is, quantum physics and relativity provide equations that predict the behavior of matter perfectly. Why should we 'step back and reevaluate' a system like quantum mechanics when every experiment that anyone has ever been able to come up with to test it has shown it to be correct?

Yep QM is close to the money, as is Newtonian mechanics

BUT

General relativity is unsound, since it has no solid base... all the parameters used in GR are rubbery and relative. Not a useful set of concepts to build reality upon.... you might as well get your theories from an opium den.

I find it funny that you compare electronics with particle acceleration, chemistry and gravity. Electronics is the most accurate predictable branch of physics out there.

As with Gravity, Electricity is farely predictable so much so that we can utilise both very well in what we want to achieve. I do not dispute this point.

But here lies the problem, we know nothing of the fundementals of how either are created.
WE know that things happen in predictable fashions, like passing a copper wire through a magnetic field creates a quantifiable amount of electricity. But we really don't know why this happens.

We know that when the weather is right we can see lightening and we call it static electrcity but we don't really know what static electricity is.

We allow ourselves comfort by saying that it is the flow of electrons. But we don't know why electrons flow nor are we fully able to describe what an electron is. We can witness electron movement but be buggered if we can describe why this happens simply because of a wire and a magnetic field.

The same with Light, we can measure it's effect, shit we can even see it. We have given it's speed a value and that's fine but why it needs to travel in the first place or why it travels in a straight (curved) line even is beyond us.

We can only see and measure light electricity, magnetism by their effect not by their substance.

For example can any one tell me why the rotational direction of a magnetic field changes when the current in reversed in a wire?

WE do know that it does.

I find it somewhat stunning to think that our whole world is driven by a source of energy that is created by a force we don't understand.

Shit...the pc I am writing on relies on our humble magnet and magnetic fields.

Any one can come up with an electron theory for electricity and make it appear true. But to get down to the very essence of it we know so little.

If I give you a gallon of petrol and tell you to utilise it's energy you'll find many ways to predict it's abilities but can you tell me why petrol behaves the way it does in it's most fundemental way.

Atomic theory is all well and good but how does an atom form. What is it made of and how is it's strength contained...how come it has potential?

And you'll probably say that it has a negative charge or a positive one...and I ask what is this charge but static or magnetism or gravity......and therefore what is magnetism, static and gravity comes up as a valid question time and time again.

So I ask how can science have full credibility when the very premise on which science is built may very well be flawed.

You may ask a religious nutter why he believes in what he does and he may just ask you the same question; Why do you believe in QM when you can't quantify Gravity or magnetism?
So as this thread started to pose,science has a greater challenge against delusion than some religious nut. At least most people recognise a nutter easilly but this can not be said for science.

BTW I read some where that some one described a magnetic field as a space time distortion that bends the space the copper wire takes up as it passes through the field.
Which creates a pressure in the wire that escapes along the wire to it's destination.

So how can space time distortions ( gravity) create static electricity?

Does this not suggest that space has an energistic potential?

>> Newtonian physics is fundamental because it introduces the basic concepts and laws of conservation. QM just make a more detailed 'quantum' description of the Newton laws.

True.. I have read QM, and I find it all equates well with Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory, which has a Newtonian base.

Yep QM is close to the money, as is Newtonian mechanics

BUT

General relativity is unsound, since it has no solid base... all the parameters used in GR are rubbery and relative. Not a useful set of concepts to build reality upon.... you might as well get your theories from an opium den.

I really think this kind of bullshit posts should be censored. Is this where this forum is going ?

Hi Crisp... you never answered my Q, eh

James R would love to accomodate your request.

But I am not the only scientist that thinks this way. You replyr shows that you can not discuss rationally.. just throw a hissy...

Why mate?, have you got anything to say on this.... do you know what inertia is?
Do you know what gravity is caused by ??

You just brown nose...

OK thats fine by me, but why the slander?
Can't cope?????????????????

Electronics does not need to come from a magnetic field. Batteries are chemical reactions that produce a voltage potential.

We know that an electron has magnetic properties.
from knowing that an electron has magnetic properties it will be excited by a magnetic field travelling through it(or the atom containing the elctron travelling through a magnetic field)

We dont know why an electron has magnetic properties.
I agree that the reason electrons repell each other and are attracted to protons is unknown and it would be great to know why such properties are.

We know that an electron spins.
from this spin its magnetic field spins.
with the magnetic field spinning the force it excerts acts that way. When electrons flow they align in the same direction and the spin is in the same manner. From this when electrons travel one direction they spin in one direction and excert magnetic fields in that rotational direction.

Yes asking what is gravity, magnetism, static charge (negative, postive) are good questions that dont have good answers but I only have a limited life time here and I dont want to go wrong where someone before me went wrong so I read where other people went wrong and hope I can make it one step farther even if its in the wrong direction at least I proved one way was wrong :) .

I agree that the reason electrons repell each other and are attracted to protons is unknown
by you.


and it would be great to know why such properties are.

Go and learn QFT in general and QED in particular, you will know why electrons and protons attract each other.


We know that an electron spins.

No we don't know that an electron spins, since it is a point particle. It has a "spin angular momentum" which is a property which does not depend on motion, but on the property of the electron's under rotations.


from this spin its magnetic field spins.

???


with the magnetic field spinning the force it excerts acts that way. When electrons flow they align in the same direction and the spin is in the same manner. From this when electrons travel one direction they spin in one direction and excert magnetic fields in that rotational direction.

????


Yes asking what is gravity, magnetism, static charge (negative, postive) are good questions that dont have good answers but I only have a limited life time here and I dont want to go wrong where someone before me went wrong so I read where other people went wrong and hope I can make it one step farther even if its in the wrong direction at least I proved one way was wrong :) .
So you think gauge invariance is wrong and all its consequences are wrong.

FNG2k4 << from this spin its magnetic field spins.

An axially rotating magnet does not cause the field to spin.

what is spintronics then? Im pretty sure an electron spins.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.html#c1

from this spin its magnetic field spins.
I'll admit this is my assumtion perhaps I'm wrong here but when I spin a magnet those fields are spinning also. Why not with an electron also. An electron has mass so it can spin i see no problem with that tell me why its wrong? what if you thought the lines of flux where actually shells of flux?

Also left hand rule of elctronics current flows this way magnetic lines wrap around accordingly. take your left hand wrap your fingers around the wire and the thumb pointing in the direction of current flow and the way your fingers wrapp around the wire are the same as the magnetic field.


Does gauge invariance explain what gravity is?

>> when I spin a magnet those fields are spinning also.

are they ??

Lets assume you place a wire perpendicular to the lines of force above one of the magnetic poles... now turn the magnet on the axis line between the poles.... does current flow ??

I think not.... the magnetic field is static, even though the magnet spins around its axis....

This is not the case when the magnet is rotated about its mid point between the poles, say when hanging by a thread of cotton.

what is spintronics then?
This is a magnetic technology.


Im pretty sure an electron spins.
I am pretty sure that it doesn't.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.html#c1


When you give a link to some site that you'll think support your claim, I suggest that you read it. The link that you gave supports the claim that the electron doesn't spin but:An electron spin s = 1/2 is an intrinsic property of electrons




from this spin its magnetic field spins.

Where did you see that?


I'll admit this is my assumtion perhaps I'm wrong here but when I spin a magnet those fields are spinning also. Why not with an electron also.
Because an electron is a point particle, it has no structure, it cannot spin.


An electron has mass so it can spin i see no problem with that tell me why its wrong?
Do you know what is mass? Do you know what is spin angular momentum?
I guess you don't, since if you would know you wouldn't ask this question. There are particles with mass and no spin, there are particles with spin and no mass.


what if you thought the lines of flux where actually shells of flux?

Could you explain this nonsense?


Also left hand rule of elctronics current flows this way magnetic lines wrap around accordingly. take your left hand wrap your fingers around the wire and the thumb pointing in the direction of current flow and the way your fingers wrapp around the wire are the same as the magnetic field.

So?


Does gauge invariance explain what gravity is?
Do you know what is gauge invariance is?

My question on the shell of flux then rotating a magnet about the poles does change the magnetic field but you cant observe that magnetically because you dont cross any shells. So the magnetic field isnt static but appears that way.

so an electron cant spin because if it was spinning it would be going faster then light and we would have detected that by now?

http://www.electronspin.org/1.htm

so an electron cant spin because if it was spinning it would be going faster then light and we would have detected that by now?

No, an electron can't spin because it is a point particle, and a point does not spin.

The electron's spin is called like that because the spin angular momentum has the same "properties" as the orbital angular momentum (it has the same commutation relations). Orbital angular momentum is a quantity that spinning objects have. The total angular momentum of an electron will depend on both the orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum. However, the spin angular momentum is a quantum mechanical property of the electron. It has no classical (or Newtonian, this is how you call the classical mechanics) equivalent.

By the way, the spin angular momentum has nothing to do with the fact that the electron has an electric charge. It has to do with how the electron's wave function transform under rotations.
The neutrino, for example, is electricaly neutral but it has also a spin like that of the electron.

However, the spin angular momentum is a quantum mechanical property of the electron. It has no classical (or Newtonian, this is how you call the classical mechanics) equivalent.

i do not quite agree with this. for example, the classical electromagnetic field has intrinsic angular momentum.

i do not quite agree with this. for example, the classical electromagnetic field has intrinsic angular momentum.
OK, I was speaking of the half integer spin.

OK, I was speaking of the half integer spin.
well then we are in agreement.

>> So the magnetic field isnt static but appears that way.

If the field isn't static and you can not detect change,,,, how can you show what the magnetic field is doing????

However there is anistrophy in the direction of the magnetic field lines around the Earth and in the Solar System in general, so it is apparent that magnetic fields are dragged around by the motion of the electric fields

This is great news to me. Thanks
:) :) :)

ahh hmmmmm..excuse me but what is a magnetic field?

any one??

rubber bands
:)

Seriously, they are field harmonic effects created by matter, and for magnets the spin alignment accentuates the field strength.

Seriously, they are field harmonic effects created by matter, and for magnets the spin alignment accentuates the field strength

If you asked me the same question would you be satisfied with this answer?

With all due respect, words like "Field" "created" " Matter" etc lack proper definition.

For example I could answer by saying that a magnetic field is a form of polarized gravity.

I actually could be right but it doesn't answer the question.

because the key words "Polarized" and "gravity" are not defined.

so therefore my answer lacks credibility due to a lacking of substance.

It could be argued that because of the intensity of absolute vacuum, matter is formed by the folding of spacetime the intesity of "Nothing" being the source of gravity (space time distortions). Therefore "matter" is simply intense form of space.

But again this is no answer because it fails to define "space" and for that matter "Absolute vacuum".

A question comes to mind.

If one considers gravity to be an "Inverse force" how would this effect the way of looking using Newtons work? or does it at all?

ahh hmmmmm..excuse me but what is a magnetic field?

any one??

A magnetic is a field with 2 sources: moving charges and changing electric fields (changing with time).

Magnetic fields act on moving charges and when the magnetic fields are changing with time they act on electric fields.

The ways the charges act on those fields and how those fields are acting on each other are given by 4 equations known as Maxwell's equations.

The ways those fields are acting on charges is given by the Lorentz force.

So you see that the magnetic and electric fields are related, they have the same sources and each one is a source of the other, this is why they allways come together (except for the case where they are static where you can have magnetic field with no electric field and vice-versa). And in fact they are members of one entity: the electromagnetic field.

If you look at the Maxwell's equation, they are not invariant under galilean transformations, however they are invariant under Lorentz transformations.
In fact, if we use relativistic notation, the electromagnetic field is written as just one entity, it is an antisymetric second rank tensor. In relativity you can really see how these two fields are in fact one electromagnetic fields.
The 4 Maxwell's equation become 2 fields equations.

Up to now, I gave you a description of these fields. However there is a theoretical basis for the existence of the electromagnetic field. This is known as local gauge invariance. Local gauge invariance is of quantum origin. It states that if you have a complex matter field (complex in the sense of real part and imaginary part), since the physical observables are related to the absolute value of the fields, then multiplying these fields by a complex phase do not change the physics. However, there is no reason why this phase would not depend on position, so this phase is allowed to depend on position. When you take derivatives of the matter field, you see that the phase part affects the result of the derivatives and so there should exist a compensating field, and it happens that this field has as fields equation the Maxwell's equations. And the way the matter field generate this matter the same way that for the em field. This compensting field is the em field.

1100f, thanks for taking my question seriously.

You mention the word field a number of times and you have shown that these fields can be quantified but maybe I am missing something I still don't see "What" a field is made of whether it be magnetic of electric. As I said I may not be understanding that you have just described it.

Mr. Quack here is asking a good question. Don't know if its answerable but what IS an EM field made of? It seems as though as a wave passes through it, space develops what seems like a positive then negative charge fluctuation. If there are no charged particles present in a vacuum, how can this be? Are fields intrinsic to space (a property of space itself)?

Thanks John, I agree, space or should I say Vacuum has an intrinsic value, the more intense the vacuum the greater the value.

"Postulate"
EM fields are the distortion of space "with" time...

In other words "Nothing" actually is something by default of it's nature. Nothing therefore has an energistic potential.

When movement occures in "Nothingness" it becomes something ( static )

When time is created in Nothingness ( movement ) we have static.

When somethng travels through space it distorts space ( Vacuum) generating static.

When you distort space you create energy.

So what is gravity or magnetism but space ( vacuum ) distortions

A magnetic field from a bar magnet is in fact a space time distortion. The magnet created by electricity in effect doesn't conform to local space thus we experience a field

Just a thought

BTW the reported Casmir effect tends to support the notion

Three cheers to Quantum Quack. An open minded questioning individual if evolution ever threw one up.
It would be interesting to know if the intelligence on any other planet ever suffered the delusion of believing that
“An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force”
is actually a law of physics.
I mean its a statement of fact, not a law that explains a jolly thing. There is no proportion or equivalence or a thing to suggest that the presence of a law. The closest it gets is “unless”. Before that it is just F= ma under the condition of zero unbalanced force, We are the dumb planet, yet we go on. All is well in St Pertersburg, gravity wise.

Regards

Leeaus

I am not sure but the Casmir effect suggests that the plates fail to conform to the ambient vacuum thus a field exists attracting them to each other.

The plates of glass ( i think they used ) become magnets or more specifically a source of attraction being monopoled noy unlike gravity.

The field exist because the glass doesn't conform to the vacuum or the space they take up thus gravity or space time distortion exists. They come together.

Maybe some one else knows more on this effect??

so the universe exists in an ambience of intense vacuum (Nothingnes) and it is only movement that allows for matter to come into existence. With out time there is no "Matter" just "Nothing"

As soon as there was movement in the "Nothing" there was energy ( static) and gravity simultaneously

Any one follow my drift here?

ha ...I just realised something,

If you create a magnetic field Space time distortion and you oscilste the strength of the field isn't the outcome a high voltage discharge. Tesla's coil,,, ignition coils etc.
when you modulate a magnetic filed doesn't it produce an emission llike radio waves ect....Just guessing.

if modulating the magnets strength you are modulating it's conformity to local space thus producing static. THus creating a pulse of space distortion ( static) that travels away from the source (EM) rippling teh vacuum ( space ) as it goes.

The speed being governed by the intensity of the vacuum it travels through.
Thus Light speed = "c"

QuantumQuack,

so the universe exists in an ambience of intense vacuum (Nothingnes) and it is only movement that allows for matter to come into existence. With out time there is no "Matter" just "Nothing"

As soon as there was movement in the "Nothing" there was energy ( static) and gravity simultaneously

Any one follow my drift here?

ANS: Before I make my point let me assure everyone I am not here to hijack this thread. So I will make my comment and vacate. But due to the correlation I simply couldn't let this pass.

N---------->(+s)+(-s) Origin of Existance. Nothingness bifurcates into equal and opposite "Somethings" and is based on flow of energy from the vacuum.

Where such flow creates space, gravity, time and mass is a standing wave of energy in motion forming a concentration of static energy. I believe you have been exposed to this concept.

I wonder at what negative pressure would a spontaneous release of energy (static) occure.?

For instance if you take a significant vacuum and "bounce " it.Would it release static energy?

Is that the enormous quantum fluctuation theory u talk of MacM? Indeed I have heard of it. Don't u think (if u believe in it) that if that was true, then within this there would be smaller fluctuations in vacuum (albeit not random) which are what we call EM fields? Is this what ur trying to say?

James R
Please can you erase all my posts from this thread?
Please

John Connellan,

Is that the enormous quantum fluctuation theory u talk of MacM? Indeed I have heard of it. Don't u think (if u believe in it) that if that was true, then within this there would be smaller fluctuations in vacuum (albeit not random) which are what we call EM fields? Is this what ur trying to say?

ANS: No. I was not referring to any particular mainstream theory. I was only pointing out the strong correlation to his suggestion to my own arguements which have been made here heretofore. But this isn't about that and I choose to not expound in this thread further on the issue.

It was just that when I make such statements there are a lot of people here that want to jump all over them and scream "Crackpot". Let me make it clear that since I hold a simular view I am not calling Quantum Quack a crackpot. End of point.