05-27-12, 01:02 PM #41
and because the papers match the scientific evidence of pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas, etc, and tie in with Einstein's E=mc² paper where a radiating body loses mass
Because they match the scientific evidence and have an explanatory power which other theories lack.
| H atom | Double slit | Mandel dip | Bell violation | Pair production | Electron mass -------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------- Mainstream | X | X | X | X | X |
| H atom | Double slit | Mandel dip | Bell violation | Pair production | Electron mass -------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------|------------------- Mainstream | X | X | X | X | X | New proposal | X | X | X | X | X | X
| H atom | Double slit | Mandel dip | Bell violation | Pair production | Electron mass -------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------|------------------- Mainstream | X | X | X | X | X | New proposal | | | | | x |
They don't label spin as "intrinsic" with no classical equivalent, or advance the idea that the electron is pointlike and so create mysteries and end up proposing an unfalsifiable unscientific multiverse.
A lot of people inexperienced with science and physics seem to get this one wrong.
people like Alphanumeric boot it psuedoscience without addressing it.
05-27-12, 03:56 PM #42
Me saying this is just fact. Unless you would like us all to believe you have sufficient mathematical grounding to work with Sturm-Liouville operators?
Now if you were an experimental physicist working with electrons etc then I might think you have justification for saying you understand something of their behaviour beyond myself or others here but you aren't. You have no practical experience, you have no theoretical knowledge, you have only your opinion of layperson analogies and simplifications.
The left hand side, doesn't care what units of mass you use. Kilograms, tons, AMUs, jellybeans. It's a dimensionless quantity and will be around 1850 in any units. The right hand side, , has units of which in itself is dubious. It depends on the units we use. Now it doesn't matter how you define that length in practice, so the whole "We define metres of light" issue is a completely irrelevant point. I define my units of time to be measured in bobs. I define my units of length to be measured in jeffs. It just so happens that in such units the speed of light is jeffs per bob. Thus the numerical value of is as in SI units. But now I define a dave to be 100 jeffs. In these new units c is measured in daves per bob and the numerical value of will be one tenth of what it was in jeffs per bob. So has had it's value changed. But obviously I haven't changed anything to do with masses and even if I had wouldn't change. So the equation equating these two expressions is meaningless.
You've clearly failed to grasp a very basic but essential concept in how quantities are described in physics. The only time you can start saying things like "Wow, these two numbers are really close to one another, maybe that means something?" is when both numbers are dimensionless. There's nothing special about metres, seconds, kilograms etc, they are all convenient scales humans defined to help quantify the universe. Nature doesn't care what we use to quantify things so anything with units includes this arbitrary choice. Only when you compute dimensionless quantities can you remove this bias.
This is why physicists developed natural units. You construct combinations of dimensional quantities to define dimensionless quantities. It's a way of avoiding this type of mistake. Again, this is something you'd be all too familiar with if you'd spent some time in the past 5+ years actually learning working physics models. Unfortunately you've been peddling the same mistaken inconsistent nonsense for all that time. I do hope you have something else to try to justify your work because if you don't then you really do have absolutely nothing to show for the last 5 years.
Out of interest how many hours and how many pounds have you put into this endeavour of yours? All the forums you posted on, all the "[something] explained" threads, all the books you paid to be printed, all the money for the physic magazine ads. If you'd just invested some time and effort at the start you could have saved so much of that. You could have put it towards a pension, you could have learnt a language, you could have learnt actual science, you could have helped with a child's college fund. You could have avoided squandering it.
If you think what you provided answers the thing I've been asking you for years you're mistaken. I've been asking you to provide one, just one, phenomenon in reality which you're able to model accurately using your work and to show it's derivation. What you have provided doesn't come close to that.
Someone only needs to look at the prerequisites university courses in GR or QFT have to see the cascading avalanche of courses they build upon. Most of those courses also allow you to work in things like electrodynamics, fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, numerical analysis etc.
This shows something else you've shown you don't understand. The same sorts of courses required to be able to do string theory, which basically requires a firm grasp of both relativity and quantum sides of physics, also are needed for more 'practical' areas of physics and engineering. The same types of problems needed to solve the Schrodinger equation numerically arise in fluid mechanics. An expert in one can contribute to the other. Quantum mechanics can be used to model, via some rather technical transformations, population dynamics in animals. Some of the more crazy mathematics used to prove fundamental results in GR also allow some clever video analysis things to be done. The type of problem I spent about a year looking at during my thesis can arise in feedback control system design! The web of interconnectivity between various areas of mathematical physics is extremely dense and it's partly the reason a string theory PhD can be viewed as very useful even in the eyes of some employer outside of theoretical physics research.
But this interconnectivity also means that there's an awful lot of grunt work which needs to be done before you get a strong enough mathematical capability to tackle the sorts of problems people find 'cool'.
Of course this is all a bit of an aside, I felt it was important to highlight just how long a slog it can be to get to what would be considered a 'non-weak' mathematical capability. Even getting a degree doesn't get you very far. And you're not even there. So when you say your maths isn't necessarily weak I think you don't realise the scale which actual mathematical physicists work on. If someone says to me "I'm not weak at PDEs" then I'd expect them to have a working understanding of basic PDE theory, be able to solve many classic type problems, know about common methods and be able to pass a reasonable exam on them, typically at least 2nd, more often 3rd or 4th year level.
Since your mathematical capabilities are not even sufficient to notice the glaring mistake you and Hu are peddling I'm sorry (well, not really) to say that your evaluating capabilities for your maths skills is just as rose tinted as for your physics skills (or lack thereof).
And I'll close with a piece of advice : Don't try to argue about the units thing. Just put up your hands, say "I was wrong" and walk away. If you don't then you're going to be arguing about something so basic that anyone here who remembers their high school/secondary school physics lessons will know you're wrong. At least when you talk about the stress-energy tensor only a few people have worked with it. In the case of units a much wider group of people will see your mistake and unwillingness to swallow your pride and accept the calamitous mistake you've made.
05-28-12, 01:33 AM #43
Will nanotechnology and quantum computing allow us to put String Theory to the test? as i am new to this forum, anyone let me know about this.
05-28-12, 02:42 AM #44
No, they won't. Quantum computing is well within the realms of standard quantum mechanics, the problems are mostly technical rather than theoretical. Nanotechnology has many aspects not yet understood even theoretically, due to issues with things like quantum chemistry calculations, but it would serve as an interesting testing ground for several theoretical concepts string theory also includes. For example, graphene is an essential component of many nanotechnologies and to describe the behaviour of electrons in it you use a 2 dimensional field theory. 2 dimensional field theories come up a lot in string theory, so there's a lot of cross over in terms of mathematical machinary.
That's an example of how doing some very abstract mathematical research in string theory can prepare someone for doing more 'down to earth' physics without having to retrain. It's an example of how Farsight's regular claim string theory PhDs are black marks on CVs and useless is patently false.
05-28-12, 06:39 AM #45
Where was I?
PS: do try to keep your posts a bit shorter please.
05-28-12, 07:04 AM #46
Woit's blog re hirings.
05-28-12, 08:44 AM #47
Einstein-de Haas effect. It "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 glass clock. It features a clockwise rotation. But go round the back and it looks anticlockwise. Now spin the clock like a coin using your left hand. You can no longer say whether the first rotation is clockwise or anticlockwise. But you can say that this spin is different to what you get if you spin the clock like a coin with your right hand. Replace the clock with a sphere of light, and then replace the sphere with a fat torus like an apple for the spin ½. Let's say you're representative of the mainstream: you don't need to be impressed by that, you need to be interested in it for physic's sake.
The Other Meaning of Special Relativity in this respect, and the way it links to quantum mechanics via the wave nature of matter. We can diffract electrons, and neutrons. It isn't pseudoscience. Nor is pair production, and nor is the orbital. See this bit from the wiki article: "1.The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. The lowest possible energy an electron can take is therefore analogous to the fundamental frequency of a wave on a string. Higher energy states are then similar to harmonics of the fundamental frequency".
Originally Posted by pryzk
Originally Posted by pryzk
I have to go. One last thing: much as I like talking about the things above, we really ought to stay on topic.
05-28-12, 02:04 PM #48
This, by the way, is a tipoff that many of the authors you cite are amateurs who don't really understand what they should be doing. They shouldn't be trying to explain one or two experiments, because there are so many of those that I'll always be able to point out the vast majority of experiments and behaviour that they haven't dealt with at all. What they should be doing is trying to recover mainstream theories in their entirety, as approximations. Then they'd automatically have explained most of the history of experimental physics in one fell swoop.
Not satisfactorily. If you dispute that, try describing what happens in pair production. How does an electromagnetic wave transform into two particles with mass and charge that can be diffracted? In your own time.
Sure. But can you really explain the double slit experiment?
You're applying the wrong logic, przyk. If somebody comes up with something that ticks all the boxes, you'll be impressed, but then you'll be out of a job. Nobody will need you any more. And nobody will trust you any more.
It is silly to complain that spin or anything else is intrinsic in a theory, unless you have actual evidence that it is not.
The ideal is to minimise the axioms.
For example one of the axioms of the original SR was the constant speed of light. A better version of SR would do away with this, and provide a clear explanation of why we always measure the local speed of light to be the same.
I like The Other Meaning of Special Relativity in this respect, and the way it links to quantum mechanics via the wave nature of matter.
I'd venture to say that a lot of people in physics don't examine their axioms closely enough.
No he isn't. He's dismissing patent evidence and piling on the abuse. I'm the one who refers to scientific evidence and describes things that aren't axiomatic after all.
Last edited by przyk; 05-28-12 at 02:21 PM.
05-28-12, 02:15 PM #49
As for running that's to do with the energy scale and something entirely different. Remember Farsight, you aren't going to be able to just throw out buzzwords and get away with it. Some of us paid attention in school.
Besides, none of that negates the fundamental flaw in your 'stunning' result I pointed out. You provided something which is dimensionless, the proton-electron mass ratio, being equal to something which has units, a multiple of the square root of c. This is flat out wrong. The fact you don't grasp this shows just how poor your physics understanding is. For all your talk of understanding fundamental concepts you couldn't grasp something a child is taught!
I told you, you should just walk away but you couldn't help yourself.
I'd compile a list of things your work can do but currently it's utterly empty. In fact if you put forth those equations then you have shown you're doing nothing but numerology, pretty much falsifying your work. Thanks.
I make comments about your attitude and your mindset because you offer nothing else to talk about. You offer no working models for me to evaluate. You offer no quantitative predictions derived clearly and logically from postulates. You just have your opinion. Thus when I dismiss your opinion, with explanation, you take it as a personal attack. I'm sorry that you haven't provided anything but opinion and thus a rejection of your 'work' is a rejection of your views but that's your fault, not mine.
Much as you may wish to think you intimidate people, you don't. I suspect you realise this, deep down, given comments like how you could beat people at arm wrestling you once made. It's a "If I can't intimidate you intellectually I'll do it physically" mentality. I don't find you intellectually intimidating, I find you comical. I really do wonder if you're going through some mid life existential crisis and this "I've done stuff worth 4 Nobel Prizes!" thing is a way of convincing yourself you matter in the grand scheme of things.
Like I said, people laugh at you.
05-28-12, 03:08 PM #50
Wow, dimensional analysis.
I can't remember what it was like not to know how to do that, anymore.
05-28-12, 09:47 PM #51
05-29-12, 04:09 PM #52
Strings are made out of classical objects.
05-29-12, 04:34 PM #53
05-29-12, 05:17 PM #54
By Roman in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 12-06-11, 02:42 AMReplies: 35
By kwhilborn in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 09-11-11, 01:07 AMReplies: 112
By ronan in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 05-18-08, 11:14 PMReplies: 8
By Reiku in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & CosmologyLast Post: 12-08-07, 12:42 PMReplies: 56