Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests

[Farsight]

Guess I was right; you're almost a hundred years out-of-date. There's some good textbooks somewhat more recently. The Feynman lectures, Weinberg, Carroll, etc. Perhaps those more up-to-date texts can shed some light for you on the current scientific situation.

A lot of them are wrong I'm afraid. For example take a look at what Feynman said: in chapter 27 field energy and momentum: “Suppose we take the example of a point charge sitting near the center of a bar magnet, as shown in Fig. 27–6. Everything is at rest, so the energy is not changing with time. Also, E and B are quite static. But the Poynting vector says that there is a flow of energy, because there is an E × B that is not zero. If you look at the energy flow, you find that it just circulates around and around. There isn’t any change in the energy anywhere - everything which flows into one volume flows out again. It is like incompressible water flowing around. So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets!” Only it isn't absurd. What's absurd is thinking the electron is a point particle. That comes from Yakov Frenkel’s 1926 paper on the electrodynamics of rotating electrons, which said the electron will thus be treated simply as a point. Pauli wondered “whether such a formulation of the theory is even possible at all as long as one retains the idealization of the electron by an infinitely small magnetic dipole”. And “whether a more precise model of the electron is required for such a theory”. Unfortunately he didn't do anything about it.

 

[NotEinstein]

A lot of them are wrong I'm afraid. For example take a look at what Feynman said: in chapter 27 field energy and momentum: “Suppose we take the example of a point charge sitting near the center of a bar magnet, as shown in Fig. 27–6. Everything is at rest, so the energy is not changing with time. Also, E and B are quite static. But the Poynting vector says that there is a flow of energy, because there is an E × B that is not zero. If you look at the energy flow, you find that it just circulates around and around. There isn’t any change in the energy anywhere - everything which flows into one volume flows out again. It is like incompressible water flowing around. So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets!” Only it isn't absurd. What's absurd is thinking the electron is a point particle. That comes from Yakov Frenkel’s 1926 paper on the electrodynamics of rotating electrons, which said the electron will thus be treated simply as a point. Pauli wondered “whether such a formulation of the theory is even possible at all as long as one retains the idealization of the electron by an infinitely small magnetic dipole”. And “whether a more precise model of the electron is required for such a theory”. Unfortunately he didn't do anything about it.

How is that related to GR?

 

[Farsight]

How is that related to GR?

That isn't related to GR. That's related to electromagnetism and QED. If you'd like some other particular example I might be able to provide it.

 

[NotEinstein]

That isn't related to GR. That's related to electromagnetism and QED. If you'd like some other particular example I might be able to provide it.

So it's irrelevant to the links you posted earlier; great, glad we agree! Got any actually relevant comments on current day GR?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

A lot of them are wrong I'm afraid. For example take a look at what Feynman said: in chapter 27 field energy and momentum: “Suppose we take the example of a point charge sitting near the center of a bar magnet, as shown in Fig. 27–6. Everything is at rest, so the energy is not changing with time. Also, E and B are quite static. But the Poynting vector says that there is a flow of energy, because there is an E × B that is not zero. If you look at the energy flow, you find that it just circulates around and around. There isn’t any change in the energy anywhere - everything which flows into one volume flows out again. It is like incompressible water flowing around. So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets!” Only it isn't absurd. What's absurd is thinking the electron is a point particle. That comes from Yakov Frenkel’s 1926 paper on the electrodynamics of rotating electrons, which said the electron will thus be treated simply as a point. Pauli wondered “whether such a formulation of the theory is even possible at all as long as one retains the idealization of the electron by an infinitely small magnetic dipole”. And “whether a more precise model of the electron is required for such a theory”. Unfortunately he didn't do anything about it.

Maybe you didn't study physics, Farsight. But that doesn't give you the right to basically harass everyone that does with your crap.

 

[NotEinstein]

Maybe you didn't study physics, Farsight. But that doesn't give you the right to basically harass everyone that does with your crap.

That, and the quote-mining demonstrated here specifically. If you actually read what Feynman is saying there in context, none of the criticism that Farsight has posted on it actually sticks.

 

[Farsight]

And those are all anecdotal.

That's Einstein telling you why light curves.

And with that evidence you would proclaim you understand gravity?

There's more. But yes, I do understand gravity. It's really rather straightforward. Once you do understand it, it's a rather strange feeling when you realise that other highly regarded people don't.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I do understand gravity. It's really rather straightforward.

OK.

Good, tell the world.

 

[Farsight]

That, and the quote-mining demonstrated here specifically. If you actually read what Feynman is saying there in context, none of the criticism that Farsight has posted on it actually sticks.

Feynman didn't understand the electromagnetic field. Hence he thought the Poynting vector associated with the electromagnetic field was absurd.

You might care to read Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper what is spin? He says Pauli pontificated that spin is a quantum-mechanical property, and that the lack of a concrete picture was a satisfactory state of affairs. He quotes from Pauli’s 1955 essay Exclusion Principle, Lorentz Group and Reflection of Space-time and Charge: “After a brief period of spiritual and human confusion caused by a provisional restriction to ‘Anschaulichkeit’, a general agreement was reached following the substitution of abstract mathematical symbols, as for instance psi, for concrete pictures. Especially the concrete picture of rotation has been replaced by mathematical characteristics of the representations of rotations in three-dimensional space”. I have to say I've never heard such arrogant ignorant garbage. Anschaulichkeit means visualizability. Clarity. Understanding. And yet Pauli was saying quantum physics surpasseth all human understanding.

You might also like to read Bert Schroer’s 2003 essay. He talks about Pascual Jordan. On page 9 he says this: “in times of stagnation and crisis as the one we presently face in the post standard model era of particle physics, it is helpful to look back at how the protagonists of quantum field theory viewed the future and what became of their ideas and expectations. Perhaps the past, if looked upon with care and hindsight, may teach us where we possibly took a wrong turn and what alternative path was available”. Which is what Write4U was saying.

Would you like to nominate some other area of physics for a little critical input?

 

[NotEinstein]

Feynman didn't understand the electromagnetic field. Hence he thought the Poynting vector associated with the electromagnetic field was absurd.

Except that wasn't his point, so you're wrong there.

You might care to read Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper what is spin? He says Pauli pontificated that spin is a quantum-mechanical property, and that the lack of a concrete picture was a satisfactory state of affairs. He quotes from Pauli’s 1955 essay Exclusion Principle, Lorentz Group and Reflection of Space-time and Charge: “After a brief period of spiritual and human confusion caused by a provisional restriction to ‘Anschaulichkeit’, a general agreement was reached following the substitution of abstract mathematical symbols, as for instance psi, for concrete pictures. Especially the concrete picture of rotation has been replaced by mathematical characteristics of the representations of rotations in three-dimensional space”. I have to say I've never heard such arrogant ignorant garbage. Anschaulichkeit means visualizability. Clarity. Understanding. And yet Pauli was saying quantum physics surpasseth all human understanding.

You might also like to read Bert Schroer’s 2003 essay. He talks about Pascual Jordan. On page 9 he says this: “in times of stagnation and crisis as the one we presently face in the post standard model era of particle physics, it is helpful to look back at how the protagonists of quantum field theory viewed the future and what became of their ideas and expectations. Perhaps the past, if looked upon with care and hindsight, may teach us where we possibly took a wrong turn and what alternative path was available”.

And that's a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with, but only under the condition that there is a "wrong turn". And there's the rub.

Which is what Write4U was saying.

Write4U also says that spheres are fractals. Write4U also doesn't understand some of the words and terms (s)he is using. Write4U says a lot of things.

Would you like to nominate some other area of physics for a little critical input?

Seems you're doing a fine job of that yourself?

 

[Farsight]

How about Hawking radiation? Have you ever actually read Hawkings black hole explosions? It appeared in Nature in 1974. That’s where Hawking claimed that “any black hole will create and emit particles such as neutrinos or photons at just the rate that one would expect if the black hole was a body with a temperature of (κ/2π)(ħ/2k) ≈ 10−6 (M/M)K where κ is the surface gravity of the black hole1”. He made sweeping unsubstantiated claims based on a vague mathematical analogy between thermodynamics and black hole characteristics, and said the temperature will increase as the hole loses energy. The problem comes when he tried to justify it. He talked about a massless Hermitian scalar field in an asymptotically flat spacetime. He referred to the Heisenberg operator ϕ with ai and ai+ interpreted as creation and annihilation operators. He talked about outgoing waves and waves crossing the event horizon and positive and negative frequencies. Then he talked about waves propagating backward in spacetime from future null infinity to past null infinity! It is spectacularly unconvincing. It demonstrates no understanding of pair production or Einstein’s general relativity or what a black hole is.

His 1975 paper particle creation by black holes is even worse. In section 1 he set the scene talking about general relativity and quantum mechanics in curved spacetime, saying “one can interpret this as implying that the time dependent metric or gravitational field has caused the creation of a certain number of particles“. Have you seen any particles being created by a gravitational field? Me neither. But Hawking said the uncertainty in the local energy can be thought of as corresponding to the local energy density of particles created by the gravitational field, even though it can’t. He repeated his previous claim that “the gravitational field of a black hole will create particles and emit them to infinity at just the rate that one would expect if the black hole were an ordinary body with a temperature in geometric units of κc/2π, where κ is the ‘surface gravity’ of the black hole”. But then he recognised that as the mass of the black hole decreased, the area of the event horizon would have to go down, thus “violating the law that, classically, the area cannot decrease”. That means Hawking radiation is based on a thermodynamic analogy which it breaks. Duh! Moreover Hawking then said “this violation must, presumably, be caused by a flux of negative energy”. Even though nobody has ever seen any negative energy. He then said this: “one might picture this negative energy flux in the following way. Just outside the event horizon there will be virtual pairs of particles, one with negative energy and one with positive energy”. Have you ever seen any negative-energy particles? Me neither. It’s total garbage and Hawking knew it. That’s why he also offered “positive energy particles crossing the horizon on past directed world-lines and then being scattered on to future-directed world-lines by the gravitational field”. That’s particles from the future travelling back in time and bouncing off a gravitational field to become ordinary particles. LOL!

And that's a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with, but only under the condition that there is a "wrong turn". And there's the rub.

Trust me. There have been hundreds of wrong turns. When you come to appreciate just how many there have been, you will be appalled.

 

[NotEinstein]

I just re-read that entire section of the Feynman lectures, and I was right: you are quote-mining. The absurdity Feynman is talking about is how energy is predicted by the theory (EM with the Poynting formulas as given in eq. 27.14 and 27.15) to flow from charges far, far away, spreading out through the vastness of space, and all coming together again into a single wire. In fact, it's literally the line above the part you quoted:

The energy somehow flows from the distant charges into a wide area of space and then inward to the wire.

There is nothing there about electrons being point particles or not.

Give me one reason why I should take your Hawking radiation comment seriously when you either haven't mastered the English language to an adequate degree, or are (purposefully?) misunderstanding what scientists have written?

 

[NotEinstein]

Trust me.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to require evidence for your claims.

There have been hundreds of wrong turns.

I don't disagree there.

When you come to appreciate just how many there have been, you will be appalled.

Oh, but I'm well aware of many. It's a very basic fact of science, that the knowledge we think we have today, is probably going to be proven wrong in the future. What matters is whether we can prove it incorrect right now. To which you respond: "yes", and I'm asking you for proof. So far, you've given an off-topic quote-mine, and Hawking radiation isn't exactly purely GR either.

 

[Farsight]

I just re-read that entire section of the Feynman lectures, and I was right: you are quote-mining. The absurdity Feynman is talking about is how energy is predicted by the theory (EM with the Poynting formulas as given in eq. 27.14 and 27.15) to flow from charges far, far away, spreading out through the vastness of space, and all coming together again into a single wire. In fact, it's literally the line above the part you quoted:
There is nothing there about electrons being point particles or not.

If it comforts you to claim that I'm quote mining, that's your prerogative. But pay attention, what Feynman said is this: "So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets!" Only it isn't absurd, not when you understand that electrons exist as standing waves.

IGive me one reason why I should take your Hawking radiation comment seriously when you either haven't mastered the English language to an adequate degree, or are (purposefully?) misunderstanding what scientists have written?

Because Hawking told a cock-and-bull story about negative-frequency particles travelling back in time and bouncing off the gravitational field. But hey, if you want to believe in that garbage that's down to you.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to require evidence for your claims.

I seem to recall playing this game before, with Young Earth Creationists. I tell them about the strata, the fossils, the carbon dating, the evolution in progress, and so on. They dismiss all my evidence as quote-mining and claim I haven't mastered the English language and don't understand the scriptures.

Oh, but I'm well aware of many. It's a very basic fact of science, that the knowledge we think we have today, is probably going to be proven wrong in the future. What matters is whether we can prove it incorrect right now. To which you respond: "yes", and I'm asking you for proof. So far, you've given an off-topic quote-mine, and Hawking radiation isn't exactly purely GR either.

What I said wasn't an off-topic quote-mine. I gave you multiple reference to Einstein telling you why light curves, and Hawking's popscience wrong explanation. But if you don't like that topic, pick another, and I'll see if I can tell you about it.

 

[NotEinstein]

If it comforts you to claim that I'm quote mining, that's your prerogative. But pay attention, what Feynman said is this: "So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets!" Only it isn't absurd, not when you understand that electrons exist as standing waves.

Please explain to me how there are (non-virtual) electrons in a vacuum.

Because Hawking told a cock-and-bull story about negative-frequency particles travelling back in time and bouncing off the gravitational field. But hey, if you want to believe in that garbage that's down to you.

So, no reason? OK, I'm going to ignore that then.

I seem to recall playing this game before, with Young Earth Creationists. I tell them about the strata, the fossils, the carbon dating, the evolution in progress, and so on. They dismiss all my evidence as quote-mining and claim I haven't mastered the English language and don't understand the scriptures.

So no evidence then? OK.

What I said wasn't an off-topic quote-mine. I gave you multiple reference to Einstein telling you why light curves,

Which is something that's well-establish in current GR, and not in dispute.

and Hawking's popscience wrong explanation.

Which is quite far off-topic. Even if Hawking is 100% wrong, so what? We weren't talking about Hawking radiation, and it doesn't prove that the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, or that all of modern physics is wrong.

But if you don't like that topic, pick another, and I'll see if I can tell you about it.

How about whether spheres are fractals?

 

[Farsight]

Please explain to me how there are (non-virtual) electrons in a vacuum.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Please restate.

So, no reason? OK, I'm going to ignore that then.

Don't. Because it's a great example of pseudoscience garbage that is treated as bona-fide science by gullible people who think they know some physics when actually they don't.

So no evidence then? OK.

Er, no. I give you the evidence, you dismiss it and claim it isn't evidenc.e

Which is something that's well-establish in current GR, and not in dispute.

What you think of as current GR is wrong on multiple counts. What's with the NotEinstein name by the way? Are you some guy who thinks Einstein woz wrong?

Which is quite far off-topic. Even if Hawking is 100% wrong, so what? We weren't talking about Hawking radiation, and it doesn't prove that the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, or that all of modern physics is wrong.

It's an example. I can give you a lot more.

How about whether spheres are fractals?

They aren't. How about where do the quarks and gluons go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons?

But not now, because I'm off to bed.

 

[NotEinstein]

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Please restate.

If you read Feynman more carefully, you'd know that in that sentence, he's talking about energy flows through a vacuum (there's the EM field present, but nothing else). You are claiming there are somehow electrons there.

Don't. Because it's a great example of pseudoscience garbage that is treated as bona-fide science by gullible people who think they know some physics when actually they don't.

Then start your own thread about it, because it's off-topic here.

Er, no. I give you the evidence, you dismiss it and claim it isn't evidenc.e

You gave a quote-mine. Even if it wasn't, Feynman isn't referring to any data or experiments there. So no evidence.

What you think of as current GR is wrong on multiple counts.

So you claim.

What's with the NotEinstein name by the way? Are you some guy who thinks Einstein woz wrong?

No, I'm just acknowledging that I'm not as smart as Einstein was. As in: "I'm no Einstein"

It's an example. I can give you a lot more.

Please post these examples of how the laws of physics vary throughout the universe. (If you want to proving all of modern physics wrong, please start a new thread.)

They aren't.

Talk to Write4U; (s)he disagrees with you on that.

How about where do the quarks and gluons go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons?

How about we at least try to stay on-topic? Also, don't you think it's better to actually prove one, instead of gish galloping all over the place?

But not now, because I'm off to bed.

Same here! Good night!

 

[exchemist]

If you read Feynman more carefully, you'd know that in that sentence, he's talking about energy flows through a vacuum (there's the EM field present, but nothing else). You are claiming there are somehow electrons there.


Then start your own thread about it, because it's off-topic here.


You gave a quote-mine. Even if it wasn't, Feynman isn't referring to any data or experiments there. So no evidence.


So you claim.


No, I'm just acknowledging that I'm not as smart as Einstein was. As in: "I'm no Einstein"


Please post these examples of how the laws of physics vary throughout the universe. (If you want to proving all of modern physics wrong, please start a new thread.)


Talk to Write4U; (s)he disagrees with you on that.


How about we at least try to stay on-topic? Also, don't you think it's better to actually prove one, instead of gish galloping all over the place?


Same here! Good night!

You may already know this, but in case not, Farsight (John Duffield) is a self-taught perennial crank, banned from almost all serious science forums, who behaves as if he has a candle-lit shrine to Einstein in his garage. Good luck.

P.S. He can't do maths. Naturally.

 

[NotEinstein]

You may already know this, but in case not, Farsight (John Duffield) is a self-taught perennial crank,

I kinda figured that out with the crackpot index in one hand, and the hundred year out-of-date-ness, quote-mining, "A lot of them are wrong I'm afraid." and "Some respected cosmologists are talking garbage." comments in the other.

banned from almost all serious science forums, who behaves as if he has a candle-lit shrine to Einstein in his garage. Good luck.

Worshipping Einstein (the person) is a terribly unscientific thing to do; it's a dogmatic argument from authority. I guess one could compare it to making Einstein a prophet/messiah? Under my current "can't admit mistakes"-crank hypothesis, it's actually a case that I hadn't considered yet; it's "can't admit mistakes" by proxy! "Einstein couldn't have been wrong, and I follow his teachings, therefore I cannot be wrong." It gives its user a "do you think you're smarter than Einstein?"-argument (which is fallacious, of course). I'd counter: one doesn't need to be. Today we can "stand on the shoulders of giants" (including Einstein), and reach higher without the need for a superior intellect.

P.S. He can't do maths. Naturally.

Well, Icarus2 is sending a lot of math Farsight's way in the "Dark matter is Negative mass" thread, so we'll soon find out if Farsight can put his math where his mouth is.

 

[sweetpea]

What, the theory of relativity? Everything is relative to the observer?

What, even a theoretical point used in geometry??? BTW, I'm not sure your post was in reply to my #92 post? If not, then ignore this post.