# The death of "Modern Physics". Prepair it's funeral!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by martillo, Aug 11, 2005.

1. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
The recent constructive exchanges between Martillo and Physics Monkey in this thread encouraged me to look at it more careful (despite the thread title, which for me is a real “don’t open" sign.) Thus I went back and skimmed most of the pages. There I found a few points that might be worth disinterment (to save others and hour or more of old post looking) for continued discussion:

(1) Martillo stating: “The notion of absolute position have sense when we think in the place of things in the Universe. It's relative to an absolute frame of the Universe.”
and Wesmorris refuting, much in the way I would, but I want to asked Martillo:

Does he find the “Dots on an expanding Balloon” a useful analogy for understanding how it can appear to every dot that all the others are moving away from the home dot with speeds that increase with distance (Hubel’s law and recent variations from it)?
If M. finds this a convenient way to think of the observed expansion of the universe, can the origin of his “absolute frame” be on any dot? , any point in the universe? If not where is it? Perhaps M’s response will be: “in the center of the balloon.” Anticipating this, I note that the balloon analogy is a 2D model of a 3D universe. So is the center of 3D space in some unknown higher (fourth?) spatial dimension?

I.e. If the center of the Absolute Refeence Frames (ARFs) is on each dot (in 2D model) there are too many ARFs (one on each dot) and all in relative motion wrt each other. ARF, ARF, ARF, ARF, …. If, the unique ARF origin is in a higher spatial dimension, then for us limited 3D creatures, it does not exist. Again, ARF, ARF, ARF, ARF, ….
(I knew if I looked around I would find a replacement for Giestsekel to ARF ARF, ARF, ARF, ARF, …. at, but I do miss Giest’s pretty pictures )

(2) Aer (I think, but not sure as lost the page now) gave example of proton passing Earth with speed wrt Earth of v =0.9999 (100 “9”s) and noted that to us Earthlings it is more massive that the Earth, and I expect he is correct, or a few more “9”s would make it so. The poster went on to note that it still follows the “straight line” thru space time.
As Earth’s gravity has curved local space’s “straight. I am not sure what I think of this. Surely it gives Earth a hell of a good impulse towards the point of closest approach and breaks everyone‘s bodies (kills them) in doing so but that should not be much concern to us physicists.

” I am wondering if the better way to look at the Earth/Heavy Proton interaction is not to have its trajectory bent by Earth’s gravity (or guided by the locally warped “straight” line Earth’s gravity achieved) but to think of it as relocating Earth so that Earth’s gravity was not much influence on its trajectory. I.e. the heavy proton goes essentially the same trajectory as if Earth were not near the trajectory line, warping space. Any other views? Comments?
I think Earth/ heavy proton encounter is an interesting question, but even if it density in Earth’s frame is great enough to become a black hole, I am sure it does not. In its own rest frame, the density needs to exceed the black hole collapse density to form a BH. There its mass is only 1 Gev and we know that protons are stable (at least against becoming black holes.) so no BH, nor will any accelerator make one, except possibly by colliding two particles to put a lot of energy in their rest frame. Comments?

(3) Pete said: “... The Wright brothers' work was firmly grounded on a century of established aeronautical science…..” in response to:
As usual, Pete is correct, but I would like to add to Pete’s reply, based on a few hours spent in the museum at Kitty Hawk, NC, reading in their workbooks about their wind tunnel experiments. Some of their measurement could not be reconciled with aerodynamic theory. Eventually they realized some published values (of the compressibility I think it was) of the physical properties of air were wrong, and used their experiments to get the correct values and continue to study lift in their crude wind tunnel. They, unlike others, also realized the main problem would be control, and invented “wing warping” to achieve control of flight. They were real scientists, even if they knew how to fix a bike.

Least you think I have some hidden reason to glorify the Wright Brothers, let me add they get much too much credit (MHO). Without any impartial observers, they claim to have flown after rolling DOWN Hill with a good wind providing most of the lift (like a kite) on a track on a sand dune and landed at a significantly lower altitude than the point where they took off - Hell, I can do that, even at my age, without any wings or motor, but would use a big compessed spring instead of the motor and might get a few bones broken when I hit the mattresses after my "flight" of many yards.

Santos Dumont, in front of hundreds in Paris, took off from a level field, flew around for some time (several minutes at least) and returned to the field to land at the same elevation only a few years after the Wright brother’s down hill “flight” of a few yards. SD deserves the credit for the first true powered flight.

In the time I have been here, I have noticed that most of the “crackpots” are ignorant of science’s history and feel no need to know why accepted physics is as it is - a complex web of many interrelated facts and theories, which are generally successful in consolidating many observations and capable of making testable predictions. They all seem to want to start with a clean page and write down the “truth” while sitting in their armchair, ignorant of the work/experiments etc that have gone before except a few famous experiments they may have read about in an newspaper or in the internet.

4 Sorry, after spending an hour, scanning most pages, of this thread, that is all I found of real interest. There is a lot of exchange about the twin paradox, some even correct!- and a lot of “that’s horseshit” slung as if it were a logical argument, but nothing new to report. (If I missed your “wonderful post” I am sorry.)

As a reward for having read all the way to the end (if anyone did) let me offer some (?) humor: I note this thread prefers to sling "horseshit" instead of the ususal "bullshit" - I guess that proves things really are relative.

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2005

3. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Billy T,

Let me give a comment for points 1) and 2).

Your questions in both points assume implicity Relativity issues:

In 1):
In 2):
You must ask for the relativistic prediction on those problems to otherone who believes in Relativity.

I will give my view of both problems:

1) For me space is 3D and not 4D (time is independent) and so the dots of the hypothetical balloon really move expanding in every direction from a central point that is the center of the Universe and where the initial Universe begun. It doesn't matter if we could find it someway or not, it must exist.

I just don't believe in Relativity and so the example 2) has no sense since for me the mass of the proton does not vary with velocity.

Last edited: Sep 4, 2005

5. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
martillo,

It is possible to calculate the energy stored in a particular electromagnetic field configuration. The energy density (energy per unit volume) is given by something like U = epsilon E^2 / 2 + B^2 / 2 mu in SI units. Integrating U over all space yields the total energy stored in the electromagnetic field. Since the field configuration depends on the size and shape of your charge distribution, can you use this electromagentic energy in concert with your energy to mass conversion formula to estimate the size of the elementary particles using current experimental values for elementary particle masses. It would seem this might allow one to predict sizes of particles and define mass electromagnetically in one stroke.

My follow up question is then can we detect experimentally the size of the particles? I suggest the following idea. As you have shown in your notes under reasonable conditions (no wild accelerations for instance) any charge distribution in motion will look far away like a point electric monopole and a point magnetic dipole which is indeed consistent with the general properties of elementary particles (they have a charge and a magnetic moment). But given a knowledge of the size of particles we expect that when we probe the electric and magnetic fields at sizes close to or smaller than the size of the charge distribution we should find highly non-trivial field configurations. Can these variations be detected? If such variations were not found at the scales corresponding to sizes predicted for elementary particles by your theory would this be conclusive evidence against the theory or is some modification possible.

Billy T, thanks for teaching me a new word, I didn't make the connection with inter.

7. ### Odin'IzmProcrastinatorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,851

We interprit almost all of quantum physics this way!

8. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Physics monkey,

Yes.

If such variations do not really happen sure the theory would be wrong.

Question:
How could you "probe the electric and magnetic fields at sizes close to or smaller than the size of the charge distribution"?

9. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
martillo,

To probe the electric and magnetic fields at a scale that corresponds to the size of an elementary particle, you simply need another particle whose size is reasonably smaller. Say, for instance, that a proton is supposedly 1000 times larger than an electron (this is purely hypothetical, I'm not saying it is actually the case). In order to study the electric and magnetic fields of the proton we need to move a small test charge like the electron around the proton (using piezos for instance) and measure the force. If the predicted size of the proton is too small for such detailed manipulation given current technology we can perform high energy scattering experiments to extract information about the field configurations. In this way it should be possible to tell if the proton really is extended and of the size you say.

10. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Odin'Izm,

I'm sure Aer disagree with you while he says that today there's a "Modern Relativity" where mass does not vary with velocity...

Anyway there's a new possibility now!
Almost all things can be interpreted in another way and verifying every experiment already done!
That's what I show in my new theories but you must have the mind open to give the chance to analyze it...

11. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Physics Monkey,

Great!
If you find some results please let me know!

But question: if it is so easy why this haven't been done yet?

12. ### Odin'IzmProcrastinatorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,851
As if I give a shit what Aer thinks.

and two, I've already looked at the "justifications" you provided, they prove nothing and are plain conjecture.

13. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
martillo,

I have been thinking along these lines partly because of your own interesting thoughts, and partly because I suspect that such experiments have been done though I doubt they have been interpreted in light of your theory. I found the following reference from google http://ej.iop.org/links/q61/6BepkzfCXSdUsmLRzbvVHQ/jgv3i5pL91.pdf
which provides an experimental value for the root mean square charge radius of the proton. This result is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal so it seems trustworthy on the surface. I think all you need to do is put the numbers into your theory and see what the proton charge radius should be.

14. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Odin'Izm,

You are totally right, conjectures but what amazing and wonderful conjectures...

Last edited: Sep 5, 2005
15. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Physics Monkey,

I will take a look there but I'm already thinking if it was done with the necessary precision because the rings could be very, very small. The figures in the text are intuitive and have no real scale. A proton could be made of three very small rings with a relative large separation while you say in the experiment are talking about the "radius" of the proton where is implicit a spheric shape...

Anyway I will look there.

16. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Physics Monkey,

In a first fast look and as I thought they conclude about the dimension of the proton but not on it shape. I believe we must think in another experiment with much more accuracy (if it is possible) to get the results we are talking about.

17. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
martillo,

It is regrettable that details of the shape cannot be be determined from the experiment. However, irrespective of what the exact shape of the proton ring is, won't the ring have to have the basic size found in experiments. I mean maybe the ring dips in and out or maybe there are multiple rings , but on average the radius of the ring(s) must be close to the value found in experiments. I think the energy of the configuration is sensitive (up to a numerical factor of order one, i.e. a number between .1 and 10) only the basic size of the distribution and not to the detailed shape. Perhaps the experiment could still be useful. I just did a quick calculation and the theory seems to indicate that the proton charge should be located in a size of roughly 10^-18 m. The experiment found that the charge is only localized in a region of size roughly 10^-15 m. What am I missing here?

18. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Physics Monkey,

It seems you calculated aproximately the size of the rings and found it about 10exp-18 while the experiment gives a dimension of about 10exp-15 for the proton. It can be right, as I said the rings can be very, very small relative to their separation and a relation 1/1000 is possible!

Can you describe briefly your calculations?

19. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
martillo,

In order to estimate the energy of the electric field configuration I simply computed the value of 1/[4 pi epsilon] q^2 / R where q is the charge and R is typical size of the ring. The actual energy of the ring will be simply some pure number times this result, this follows from dimensional arguments i.e. R is the only length in the problem and energy goes like one over length for electric fields. It is a general rule of estimation that the pure number in front is usually between .1 and 10 so that the answer we get using our simple method is never off by more than a factor of ten. If you can't trust me on this one, I can try to explain in more detail (this is a common technique in the physical sciences which you are probably aware of because of your background). Anyways, I do the same for the magnetic energy using this time the observed value for the magnetic moment of a proton. The magnetic energy is much less and can really neglected unless I made a number crunching error. I add these energies and equate them to 1/2 m c^2 using your theory's mass-energy formula. I then solved for R using the known mass of the proton. I came up with the rough estimate of R ~ 10^-18 m.

However, this calculation assumes that the charge is extended only over a region of size R. If you have multiple rings, the value which my calculation predicts is not the individual ring size, but rather the size of the total region where charge may be found. I think

anyways! This means there cannot be charge much outside 10^-18 m if my estimate is correct and this is not what was observed. Are there holes in my reasoning?

20. ### martilloRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
877
Physics Monkey,

I have to make some corrections on your approach.
First, you cannot use the observed value of the magnetic moment of a proton. Please see section 4.9 where I talk about the spin and you will see how the internal magnetic field in the structures is much more greater than the overall magnetic field seen from outside (the spin).
Second, the electric energy stores comes from various rings of opposite charge, I mean they are more similar to various electric dipoles together and not an isolated charge...
Sure these considerations introduce considerable variations in the result.

Last edited: Sep 5, 2005
21. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
martillo,

Sorry, I haven't gotten that far yet

. I will read on and let you know what I think.

22. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
It Is easy to find. - I am sitting on it and so are you, even if you are on planet Pluto (far out, as you seem to be). The “Big Bang” created all space (and time it seems) so every point in the current universe was right there at the center when it all began.

I gave the standard dotted expanding Ballon analogy which is a 2D analogy to our 3D universe. And asked WHERE is the center in each case. In both case any point has all the other point moving away from it and thus appears to be the center of the expnsion or the center of the 2D or 3D space. You can claim to be now at the center of the universe as every thing else is receding from you if you are on Earth or if you are on a planet which is 10 billion light years from Earth. (I would think you are, but the time between message exchanges is too short.

Again where is this unique "center of the universe" with its unique referrence frame?

23. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Ok Please tell me how you understand the following if mass does not increase with velociy:

A cyclotron bends a charged particle into a circular path with a magnetic field perpendicular to the circular path. The magnetic force is : F =qvB, where q is the particle charge and v its velocity and B the field strength. This force is also the centpedial force causing the (radial) acceleration. -(I put "radial" in parrends because it is essential the only acceleration when v is essentially c - i.e. the "tangentail acceleration is vanishing as v approaches c.) Thus F= ma = m(v^2)/r or essentially as v approaches c:

F = qvB = (m/r)(c^2).

Now it is empirically true that B must be continually increased to keep the circle radius, r , constant. Let me re-write the above equation as:

{qv(c^2)r}B = m

and note that everything inside { } is a constant and B often increase, even in the cyclotron by factor of 10. - What is there other than the term on the right side of the last equation to keep the equation valid ? I.e. on the left side B is increasing thus on the right side, the only term, "m" is increasing also, at least that is what I an 99+% of people who understand either physics or cyclotrons believe. I would be most interested to how you explain the experimeantl fact that B must increase to keep the particle in constant orbit inside the cyclotron as it gains energy? We are certain it deos gain energy as if B is reduced a little after particle has made many trips around, the particle comes out and slams into things with great energy it did not have when injected into the cyclotron to be accelerated to essentially c.

Please explain, with words and equations as I have how "m" can remain unchanged as B increases.