Electromagnetism: quantum mechanics or vortices?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by James R, Jan 7, 2015.

  1. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I agree. Farsight is not the only one being over zealous.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Go and look at the thread. I took the arrows off the electric and magnetic field lines. Look through the various pages, where are all the arrows in all my pictures? They're not there. You're imagining this problem, Fednis.

    No you didn't. Here's a static picture of the left-twisting torus and the right twisting torus. They look the same. You need the arrows to show how they're moving.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again, go back through the thread and point to all those arrows. They aren't there. On page1 I took the arrows off the field lines, and at the bottom of the page I showed a depiction OnlyMe found along with the Williamson / van der Mark electron. That has the chiral lines, and one of them has an arrow. Big deaI. On page2 I said the arrowheads on the radial electric lines of force don't work. That's the only mention of arrow or arrowheads on that page. There's more about that on page 3 with 5 mentions of arrow, but no stress-flow arrows. Page 4 is similar with only 3 mentions. In page 5, where you came in, the word arrow does not appear. The only arrows that appear are those depicting linear force in post #99 at the bottom. On page6 post #108 I said the ring torus is chiral, like a Moebius strip with arrows drawn around it. Without the arrows showing the motion around the major and minor axes, the two ring tori look the same as per the picture above. Post #120 is where you start carping about arrows, missing the point that the arrow shows the major axis rotation whilst the twist of the paper shows the minor-axis rotation. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, scrabbling for reasons to dismiss something you ought to be deeply interested in. Stop doing it.

    Note that Hu's "Hubius helix" is the same as the dark line on the Williamson / van der Mark electron. See page 15 re charge: "the disparity in the charge of the electron and positron can be connected to the parity or the sign of the twist of the Hubius Helix". Remember that picture of the photon where I was irritated when you said there was no curvature? The curvature at the bottom right is the positive field variation, the curvature on the bottom left is the negative field variation.

    Yep. It's a common mistake. People can't understand that charge is this all-round curvature, where you wrap a field-variation into a standing field.

    There's various people groping towards the truth. In some respects its like the blind men trying to describe the elephant. Only I've seen the elephant. I know what they're on about.

    I said I'd have a look. How about if you do your own research too?

    And did you know that Thomson (Kelvin) and Tait coined the term spherical harmonics?

    Continued.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Sigh. You ask for explanations, I give them, and you're trying to find ways to reject them. Come on Fednis, get your thinking cap on. You know the photon is an E=hf wave, you know it takes many-paths because it's a wave rather than a point particle, you know that it propagates thataway → at c. And you know you can put it through pair production and diffract an electron that has a magnetic moment wherein the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. You know that that electron is a wave, you know it isn't moving linearly at c, so how is it moving? Come on man, think! Here's a clue:

    "...rotational... rotation... spin... rotation about the arbitrary axis... measuring electron spin in that arbitrary direction... rotated... rotations about tilted coordinates... spin... rotation about some axis... electron spin out from a unitless rotation... to specify how "big" the spinning is."

    Like I said, I'll try to find a better depiction.

    You're still not getting it. Look at the ring torus. Look at the bit in the middle closest to you. In what direction is the vector? It's up and left. Now go across to the far side of the torus. What direction is the vector? It's down and right.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now draw two circles to represent sections through the torus. Next draw two bigger circles, and repeat until your circles are congruent. That represents the spindle-sphere torus. What direction is your vector at the top? Up and left and down and right.

    Pay attention Fednis, and don't be sarky, because it's got an arrow:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Tsk.

    I'm beginning to doubt it.
     
  8. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    No you aren't. You're merely carping and mud-slinging because you can't show any problems with the physics.

    But I am in a position to call you out and say you can not and will not give any examples of me being confronted with inconvenient facts then temporarily halting a chain of advocacy before repeating the same claim months later in a different thread. Because there are no such examples. Which means you're a charlatan and a liar.
     
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    From the first, the only difference between your positron and electron was the direction of spin. It is still there in your first post. Whether or not there are arrows drawn on the direction, you indicate the direction of the rotation in a 2D way that is not isotropic. You only late attempt to dodge this with a different picture altogether.
    "People can't understand that charge is this all-round curvature," because it doesn't make sense. You need to demonstrate how this curved space can both go undetected in all other respects and create all the phenomena associated with charge. So far, you have only a vague idea with no details and hence no support.
    You are claiming to have had a mystical revelation that no other person has had, yet you are not claiming that this is your own idea.

    You need to see a doctor and tell her or him about this behavior.
    Farsight, if you have not had a look yet, then you haven't done anything close to gathering evidence for your idea. Most of us already knew this about you; I'm hoping that someday you will come to this realization.

    The problem with your "explanations" is that you always dodge the question, "How can this possibly produce the world as we observe it?" Your explanations never give specific details and, as Fednis48 pointed out, the vague details you give contradict each other because you reject them and then go back to them.
    Quantum theory has a lot of answers about electron movement, none of which involve a rotating photon and none of which your idea can match. So you do not have an explanation.
    This does not seem to be true. You seem to have too much invested in keeping your idea vague and never exploring the details. If you really cared, you would take the time to learn the relevant math and physics.
    This is, almost by definition, anisotropic. So you have failed once again to demonstrate isotropy.
    If it has an arrow like that, it's anisotropic.
    I think this is a lie. I think that, on one level, you know very well that none of your claims will be supported by mathematics. I think that this is part of the reason why you, consciously or not, avoid learning mathematics. I think that another part is that every time you have tried to use mathematics you end up making clear errors that undermine your point (e.g., presenting numerology using the fine structure constant that are dependent on choice of units).

    But this doesn't have to be the case. You could actually learn to use mathematics correctly. You could learn physics in a way the you could demonstrate the ideas clearly and distinctly where possible.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    I endorse this product or service.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    I apologize for being unclear. I meant to refer to the flow direction of the electromagnetic field, not the actual arrows sometimes used to signify it. I fully acknowledge that you variously used arrows (as in the Williamson/van der Mark diagram), spirals (as in the 2D plots near the beginning of the thread), and animated motion to depict this flow direction. No matter how it's drawn, though, every positron you have shown has been identical to the corresponding electron except with reversed flow direction. (Reversed arrows, oppositely winding spirals, or time-reversed animation.) As PhysBang put it, "From the first, the only difference between your positron and electron was the direction of spin." As of post 152, you are suddenly giving pictures in which the flow direction is not relevant to the electron/positron distinction; indeed, the green toruses in said post show a difference between electrons and positrons without specifying the flow direction at all. It's up to you which type of model you want to advocate, but you really need to pick one and commit to it. As it stands, rpenner and I have spent many pages arguing that your electrons are isomorphic to your positrons, only to have you dodge out of all those arguments by changing the model.

    This, right here, is why I think debating you is fruitless. These are links that you yourself provided, with no qualifications or directions to specific quotes/ideas I should take from them. Now, just a post later, you are explaining how major aspects of the papers are wrong, and saying that your model is not like the papers in those respects. This fits perfectly into the pattern of a vague, qualitative veneer over a base of ever-changing details. What we know about your model is that it involves a bound photon going round and round while twisting, and the topology of said photon gives rise to the phenomenon we call charge. But beyond that, the specifics are nebulous and ever-changing. Is the photon's motion described by a Moebius strip, a torus, or a spindle sphere? Does the electron/positron distinction depend on the direction of field flow, or on the handedness of the winding? For that matter, does the photon even have a well-defined direction of field flow, or is it better described with directionless loops? Does the photon undergo a whole wind for every loop? Half a wind? Or maybe, as you briefly suggested, does it undergo many winds per loop, or even an irrational number? In what ways do the papers you cite describe your model, and in what ways do they differ?

    And through it all, you keep coming back to how obvious you think the whole thing is, because it squares so well with the intuitive nature of the electron. In other words, you're asking us to accept the veneer on its own merits, while taking it on faith that the underlying details can be worked out. That is not how science works, and it makes your model as useless as it is hard to pin down. I think PhysBang has your number: you're so invested in your beliefs being right that you're not willing to provide enough detail for anyone to show that they're wrong.

    In the spirit of engaging every specific example you offer, you're right that at any two points on the spindle sphere, the flow function is two valued: its values are equal and opposite vectors. (Except on the top and bottom of the sphere, where it is uncountably valued.) However, each vector pair can be associated with a line to which both are parallel, and that line changes as one moves around on the sphere, so the result is still not isotropic.

    Everything seemed to be going well, and early testers loved the innovative scents of "Seismic Collision", "Infinitely Many Clocks", and "I've Seen the Elephant". Unfortunately, to be rigorous, they insisted on calling the product "Old and/or Spatially Distance Spice, Depending on Your Reference Frame" which was a flop with consumers, and the stylish Klein Bottle storage proved extremely difficult to ship. So don't expect to see it in stores near you any time soon.
     
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    That got a genuine LOL out of me.
     
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    This charge is not original with me:
    November 10, 2006:
    April 29, 2013:
    While I could waste months compiling, cataloging, and dissecting possibly over a thousand specific facts which have been brought to Farsight's attention and yet ignored, here is the most relevant.

    Minkowski was talking in analogy with a 6-dimensional geometric object in mechanics, not a mechanical device or simple machine, when speaking of a force-screw (Kraftschraube), so it is a fact that Farsight's repeated use of this quote (ignoring the previous paragraph) has been a distortion:

    November 13, 2011:
    April 25, 2013:
    April 28, 2013:
    May 4, 2014:
    May 10, 2014:
    November 27, 2014:
    So I think that, especially if you visit those sources in context, I have met any reasonable burden of proof for my thesis. The prosecution rests. Does the defense wish to enter any evidence at this time that Farsight did further educate himself on electromagnetism as it was known by Minkowski, Liénard and Wiechert or a German language physics source that explains Kraftschraube der Mechanik better than German-speaking physics posters have?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2015
  14. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Apology accepted. If I can clarify though, it's a stress flow. An energy-momentum flow if you like. You could say it's the motion of a wave or field-variation or pulse of potential. This then results in a standing electromagnetic field which IMHO can best be thought of as chiral frame-dragged space.

    The electron and the positron have the opposite chirality, which means the toroidal motion twists either clockwise or anticlockwise like your right-handed and left-handed Mobius strips.

    PhysBang is a dishonest abusive anonymous troll intent on spoiling the discussion. Pay no attention to him.

    I haven't dodged or changed the model, you're making a mountain out a molehill that just isn't there. Go and google on Farsight positron chiral and you can see I've been consistent.

    It isn't. You're claiming that when you haven't even read this thread from the beginning, and when I went through page after page refuting your assertion. See post #41 where I said the positron has the opposite chirality to the electron. I've said previously that the spiral was a simplified flat 2D picture, rpenner knows this full well.

    The latter. But we start with the Möbius strip because you're familiar with that from Dirac's belt (see Mathspages and spinors (see Wikipedia). We inflate the flat twisted strip to the ring torus, then inflate that to the spindle-sphere torus.

    The handedness. The chirality. But that depends on the direction of the flow:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    See above re what's flowing. The photon has a "flow" thisaway → linearly at c, and a flow this way ↑ followed by this way ↓.

    It's better described as a pulse of potential, the spatial derivative of which is the sinusoidal "electric" field variation and the time-derivative is the sinusoidal "magnetic" field variation.

    You have to have two loops because the photon has to be interacting with itself displacing itself. Think about a Mobius strip: the photon path is represented by a line drawn twice round the strip, not by the paper.

    It's no veneer, I haven't made up things like molecular vortices or the screw nature of electromagnetism or Dirac's belt or spin ½ or spinors or electron diffraction or magnetic moment or Einstein-de Haas or spherical harmonics or the wave nature of matter. Science is understanding, I'm asking you to understand the electron, not reject all that hard scientific evidence in favour of some cargo-cult nonsense that says the electron is some photon-spitting fundamental point particle that surpasseth all human understanding.

    No he doesn't. He's a troll, he can't show where I'm wrong.

    You are clinging to ignorance here Fednis. Stop doing it.

    And do not demand a full-blown theory before you'll listen, because if you do, you've made yourself redundant, and sizzz, that's the sound of your future career. Flipping burgers for a living.
     
  15. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    That's just another ad-hominem assertion from a troll. It isn't an example of me being confronted with inconvenient facts then temporarily halting a chain of advocacy before repeating the same claim months later in a different thread.

    Nor is that. It's a specious assertion, and it's wrong. The positron has the opposite chirality to the electron. Google on positron chirality.

    And yet again, this is not an example of me being confronted with inconvenient facts then temporarily halting a chain of advocacy. You have merely repeated your own sophistry that attempted to persuade readers that Minkowski didn't say what he said. And what's noticeable is that you have not given the Minkowski quote:

    "In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect."

    Nor have you provided the related Maxwell quote:

    "a motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw".

    This is crystal clear. You cannot suggest that there's any translation issue, or somebody "talking in analogy with a 6-dimensional geometric object"[/I]. So your assertion is shown to be false. As is your assertion that I temporarily halt a chain of advocacy when confronted with inconvenient facts. As I knew, you couldn't provide any supporting evidence, because it isn't true.
     
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    OK, so show how this produces isotropic behavior. You have said a lot to try to dodge this question.
    So, again, you are retreating to anisotropic position. Show how your ideas reproduce isotropic behavior.
    Do you have any evidence for this claim? I have merely asked you to clarify your scientific positions. Thus, I have been trying to add something to the discussion. You, on the other hand, keep attempting to stifle discussion: you do not want us to see your scientific details. At this point, it seems clear that you have little, if any details to offer and you are intent on stifling questions, like the ones I ask, in order to present yourself as an authority that you do not warrant.
    This seems demonstrably false. It might be that you feel that you have been as vague as possible in order to avoid committing to contradictory claims, but you have clearly been going back on forth on the nature of your claims.
    Sadly, that google search does not reveal consistency: it reveals a position that you have explicitly abandoned in this thread, a position that you now seem to be taking up again.
    You are using mathematical terms and evaluations here; let's see the actual equations. This would be something that adds to the discussion rather than vague promises.
    You quite clearly invented the "screw nature of electromagnetism", as many people have documented that you are alone in your interpretation. As to the other things, you are attempting to put them together in a way that, as you have admitted, nobody else is. That you continue to cling to this lie does neither you nor anyone else any service.
    Farsight, you are asking us to reject the best available theories along with the best available evidence in favor of your claim of a mystical revelation.
    To an extent, you are correct that I often can't show where you are wrong; this is because you refuse to provide details and continue to refuse to produce details when asked. For example, when you claim that all physicists are making an error in calculating galaxy rotation curves, I have asked you to identify the specific error. You have never identified that error. Thus on that matter and on most others, people are forced to come to the conclusion that you are not telling the truth about the issue.

    Farsight, your sole criterion for "adding to the discussion" appears to be whether or not someone is agreeing with you.
    Fednis48 appears to be clinging to the mathematical definition of the mathematical object to which you are appealing. Why is this clinging to ignorance?
    Farsight, I fail to understand how you feel that the ability to do science makes one less qualified for a job in science than the ability to accept the word of a zealot without question. Again, aside from your admittedly vague pictures, all you offer is your claim of mystical revelation, "There's various people groping towards the truth. In some respects its like the blind men trying to describe the elephant. Only I've seen the elephant. I know what they're on about." Since you admit that you cannot produce the equations to describe your idea, you cannot have compared your idea to measurements; mystical revelation is all that is available to you, but it is not science.
     
  17. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    This is the same claim that the people at the BAUTforums documented. For example, there, as here, you refused to answer the very basic question as to how scientists should be calculating galaxy rotation curves. You avoid confronting the inconvenient fact that you have no idea how to do this, despite your claim to have discovered a significant error.
    No, it is not. Though you have attempted to do textual analysis, the evidence is that other people did textual analysis better. Regardless, that does not bear on the fact that you have yet to make your textual analysis into science. You have avoided the inconvenient detail that nobody can turn your screw idea into a way to do any physics. Despite having been asked for these details, you have instead merely called me a troll for asking for the scientific information.

    It seems quite clear that you have lost this point, Farsight. As always, I recommend that you take this as an opportunity to learn some physics and then later return to this article.

    Your continued adherence to this position shows merely more unscientific dogma and undoubtedly does no good for your mental health.

    On the plus side, it does give people evidence to discount your claims when you attempt to spam your ideas into other venues.
     
  18. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    Alright, stress flow it is.

    And it's on the spindle sphere. This post is off to a good start!

    Well, yes. I have in fact read this thread from the beginning (even if I didn't start posting for several pages), and you have indeed stated that the electron and positron have opposite chirality. But before page 8, I find two 3D depictions of the electron vs. the positron: the pair of spindle spheres in post 108, and the leftmost toruses in post 125. In both cases, the positron is a time-reversed electron (and you said so verbatim in post 108), but they have the same chirality and are isomorphic to each other. rpenner and I pressed you on this issue, because the electron/positron pairs you were showing did not have the chirality properties you claimed they did. As of page 8, you switched to diagrams in which the electrons and positrons do have opposite chirality and are not time-reversals of each other. In particular, the animated toruses in your latest post share the same format as the ones in post 125, but the positron is clearly animated differently, and they do not inflate into the same spindle spheres as in post 108. From now on, I'm holding you to the latest set of diagrams.

    We're on a roll! I think that in the notation I was using, the Möbius strip has half a twist rather than two; just to be unambiguous, we're looking at a loop that cycles around the major axis twice for each loop around the minor axis.

    This, combined with the above details, gives a much clearer picture of the model we're looking at. So clear, in fact, that we can describe it with equations(?!). We can define the stress flow associated with the electromagnetic field throughout all space as a function of spherical coordinates, \(F(\theta,\phi,r)\) where \(\phi\) tracks the major axis ("around the equator" coordinate) and \(\theta\) tracks the minor axis ("around the cross section" coordinate). Although Farsight hasn't said so explicitly, I'm going to assume that the radial coordinate is separable; that is, the full 3D function can be built up from a bunch of concentric spheres with different amplitudes but the same angular properties. My guess is that the radial function \(R\) would have to asymptote to \(r^{-2}\) for normalization reasons, but for now let's keep it general:

    \(F(\theta,\phi,r)=R(r)f(\theta,\phi)\)

    In this form, \(f(\theta,\phi)\) describes the spherical surface that Farsight has been plotting. So, what is this function? In general it could be time-dependent, but Farsight has told us that it's a steady state, so the function itself should be independent of time even if the "flow" it describes is dynamic in nature. We can further say that the function must be a vector function (because flow has direction) and that the \(\hat{r}\) component of said vector must always be zero, because steady state flow into (out of) the electron would make it a source (sink) of the field, rather than a conservative circulation. Since Farsight has described his model as bispinor rotation, and just based on the animations provided, the circulation rates about the two axes must be independent of both each other and the location of the sphere. According to a recent reply, the circulation of \(\phi\) is more specifically twice that of \(\theta\). And without loss of generality, we'll use the recent pair of toruses to specify that the electron has right-handed chirality and therefore the the same sign on the circulation direction of both variables. All this together gives:

    \(F(\theta,\phi,r)=R(r)(2\hat{\phi}+\hat{\theta})\)

    Of course, all of this is unitless, and needs to be multiplied by an overall coefficient - probably involving \(\hbar\) - to make it physically relevant. But really, was that so hard? Now there's only one thorny issue left: this function is at least doubly valued everywhere. Spherical functions often restrict their domains to \(\phi\in[0,\pi]\) to preserve one-to-one mapping with Cartesian coordinates, but because this sphere was inflated from a torus, it cannot do so and every Cartesian coordinate ends up double-counted. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to show that if this equation is transformed into Cartesian coordinates (Wikipedia has the formulas if you're stuck), the function's values for a given spatial coordinate are always two opposite vectors. (Except at the north and south poles, \(\theta=n\pi\), where its values are an infinite ring of vectors.) So Farsight: what does this mean, physically? No matter what is "really there" - be it electromagnetic field amplitude, spatial stress, or something else - surely its value must be a well-defined function of spatial coordinates. Simply summing the multiple values gives a value of zero everywhere, so some other mapping must be going on, and I'd ask you to tell me what that is. I assert that for any answer you can give, the resulting model will immediately predict nonsensical behavior.

    You said your spindle sphere was isotropic, and I explained why it wasn't. That's not clinging to ignorance, it's just stubbornly insisting that you show me the logical coherence of your model before I accept it.

    A full-blown theory? Of course not - a theory requires extensive study and comparison with experiment, which takes a long time. But I am going to demand a working hypothesis.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2015
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Not an ad hominem fallacy because PhysBang didn't advance the idea that people should reject your formal arguments, just your claims -- those statements of fact which are based on your credibility as a soi disant authority on physics and "interpreting" the words of the dead.

    (Posted from Texas between a missed connection and its replacement.)
     
  20. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Interesting side note: Someone on reddit was promoting this nice essay by Einstein, "Geometry and Experience", http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~ncrato/Math/Einstein.htm . In it, Einstein writes, "Space is homogeneous, that is to say, the same spherical configurations are possible in the neighborhood of every point." (He adds a footnote, "This is intelligible without calculation—but only for the two-dimensional case—if we revert once more to the case of the disc on the surface of the sphere.")
     
  21. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    Fascinating. Ask Farsight for an equation, and he'll just dismiss you. But accuse Farsight of having an equation, and he vanishes in a puff of smoke.
     
    rpenner and PhysBang like this.
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    He may be too afraid to post here, but his greatest hits are still appearing on the internet: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/feb/05/photons-simulate-time-travel-in-the-lab (See comments)

    NB: A strange article, by the way. A group of scientists test a conjecture by Deutsch about the nature of quantum states that could save closed timelike loops from destructive interaction and the article calls it a simulation of a closed timelike curve, which it is not.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    11,290
    Farsight isn't about the math but is about the physical model or picture

    Don't see the problem with Farsights perspective
     

Share This Page