Compton Wavelength

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Harmony, Jan 10, 2012.

  1. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    The Compton Wavelength (source Wikipedia) is defined as follows: "The Compton Wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is the same as the rest mass energy of the particle".

    The formula is h/mc which can easily be derived from: E=hv, E=mc^2.
    The Compton Wavelength for the proton is 1.3214098 x 10^-15m

    The charge radius for the proton is given as 0.877551 x 10^-15m

    If we consider the proton as a wave then it must comprise a whole number of wavelengths and the largest number of wavelengths that fit within the charge radius is 4 (n X wavelength < 2 PI r). The wave radius can then be calculated as 0.8412356 x 10^-15m

    This models the proton as a wave of 4 wavelengths at the gamma radiation end of the spectrum.

    Is this a valid conclusion?

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Farsight

    No. The Compton wavelength is the wavelength. Check out the trefoil knot to get an idea of how it "fits". Follow the knot round and look at the crossing over directions: up up and down.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    You assume the wave goes along the diameter. Why should it be so? What does it give you?

    Farsight, if you wish to peddle your pseudoscience there is a forum for it. Start a thread there.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    In my calculation I am assuming that the wave goes along the circumference since I have taken 2 PI times the radius in the calculation. The approach is similar to the analysis of bound electrons in the atom where it was found that the electrons must consist of a whole number of wavelengths. The electrons were assumed to comprise waves in a circular (or in some cases elliptical) path in this case.

  8. Farsight

    It has to go twice round the circumference, Harmony. The wave is the only thing there, it has to go at least twice round to bind itself. Take a look at this depiction from "Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology?" by Williamson and van der Mark, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997). The dark line represents one complete wavelength.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There's a somewhat similar description at
  9. Farsight

    In addition there's a guy called Andrew Worsley who's written a quantum harmonics paper that’s very interesting. It’s called Harmonic quintessence and the derivation of the charge and mass of the electron and the proton and quark masses, and is in Physics Essays Jun 2011, Vol. 24, No. 2 pp. 240-253. See this web page. He’s applying spherical harmonics, usually applied to electron orbitals, to the particles themselves. I think he's really onto something with this. Look at the depiction above, and imagine an "equatorial" rotation going round at c and another orthogonal "polar" rotation at ½c. It's a bit like a moebius strip, and the electron is a spin ½ particle where 720 degrees are required to return to the original state.

    Andrew gives the electron Compton wavelength as λ = 4π / n c^1½ metres, where n is a dimensionality conversion factor with a value of 1. He also gives the proton/electron mass ratio r = c^½ / 3π. Both expressions are subject to small binding-energy adjustments, but here's the raw numbers:

    4π = 12.566370
    c = 299792458
    c^½ = 17314.5158177
    4π / c^1½ = 12.566370 / (299792458 * 17314.5158177)
    λ = 2.420910 x 10ˉ¹² m
    Actual = 2.426310 x 10ˉ¹² m

    c^½ = 17314.5158177
    3π = 9.424778
    c^½ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
    r = 1837.12717877
    Actual = 1836.15267245
  10. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    It's intersting numerological pseudoscience, not physics.
    Physics Essays is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal of good repute. (It uses the term "reviewed by scientific peers" but this is not described as a filtering process.) It has an impact factor of less than a third of a niche journal like Ukrainskii Fizicheskii Zhurnal which caters to a specific nationality, which is evidence that publishing here is largely a sterile backwater unconnected with progress in physics. Seeking to publish here is merely aping the form of science without the content.
    40% self-references is far in excess of the norm. Of the remaining 6 references, they are window dressing as Worsley rejects their methodology and has nowhere shown that it is capable of working with their models.
    No, he is not applying spherical harmonics. Using π in calculations is not "applying spherical harmonics". Spherical harmonics are not "usually applied to electron orbitals," but are used in any mathematical treatment where orthogonal decomposition of function spaces, spherical symmetry and calculus are used. Spherical harmonics are very important to the treatment of the analytical treatment of the quantum mechanics of a particle in a central potential which is the first degree of approximation used in textbook treatments of 1-electron atoms and ions like hydrogen, but this is not because spherical harmonics are magically connected with physics. Rather it expresses that the electrostatic potential of a point source has spherical symmetry and so spherical harmonics form a basis of expressing the angular dependence of classes of functions in this potential.
    Even after I've exposed the numerological trickery in earlier threads?
    To be clear that's a movement at speed \(\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2} \textrm{c}\) > c, and is not the motion of a rigid body. Nor does this fanciful imagining relate to a framework for making predictions about nature from this assumption.
    No. It's a superluminal toroidal surface without a model that predicts that the motion is a stable mode of motion or connection with a physics of interaction so that the assumption can be validated or invalidated.
    This is true of the electron phase in conventional quantum field theory, but not true of tori or Möbius strips or of the observable electron probability distribution. You can't steal from Dirac's model of point-like electrons and declare electrons are tori in the same cognitive framework. You must demonstrate that your tori are useful in deriving this claim.

    This is pure numerology, not physics. In the English Imperial system (where c is written as such-and-such miles per second, n is not 1, and so "Andrew"'s contention is that the SI units are physically special where there is no reason to suspect that they are. Actually, if you actually parse Worsley's books, he employs surreptitious fudge factors (usually written as * by Worsley) to tweak these results so that n is not exactly 1. Not understanding how units work in engineering or physics is a symptom of over-dependence on calculators.
    Again with the * notation in Worsley's book and again this only works by ignoring units and blessing the SI units as the units of the universe.
    Calling Worsley's ad hoc fudge factors "binding energy adjustments" requires a methodology to calculate them from a model. Worsley's model is pure numerology in that Worsley justifies these factors needed to close up the difference between first stab without calculation and just a self-serving patter.
    In physics, if you aren't working with units then you aren't manipulating physical quantities. Just like you can't say 1+2 = 12 and then subtract 9 as a fudge factor based on the time of day, you can't remove and add units when it suits your purpose.

    In physics, calculations which aren't based on a model are sterile of predictive value.

    Therefore this is not physics.
  11. Farsight

    Spherical harmonics are used to describe the wave function of the electron in a hydrogen atom, rpenner. See this page which features a number of depictions. And you have not "exposed the numerological trickery in earlier threads", you made an unsupported allegation in an attempt to discredit something you do not understand.

    I see that you remain stubbornly unaware that in an atomic orbital the electrons "are more accurately described as standing waves". Or that we can make electrons (and positrons) in pair production from a light wave, and then we can annihilate them to obtain light waves again. Or that the electron exhibits a magnetic dipole moment and can be diffracted, and that the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". The list goes on. We have good experimental evidence that the electron is a standing-wave structure.

    In the light of this, and in the light of how you deliberately ignore the dimensionality conversion factor n, I'm afraid your post comes over as dismissive carping from an envious naysayer. You sound like the sort of person who would reject a novel paper because it poses some kind of threat to your standing, then denigrate the author for settling for a low-impact journal. Exactly the sort of person, in fact, who is "unconnected with progress in physics". I would recommend that you desist, and instead apply yourself with sincerity to the quantum harmonics of particle structure.
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    No one is denying spherical harmonics are used in quantum mechanics, they are in some of the simplest quantum systems, which are taught in introductory courses in quantum mechanics. Rpenner's response wasn't "There's no spherical harmonics in quantum mechanics!" it was "That work isn't an application of spherical harmonics". Didn't you read what he said?

    Furthermore your comments about numerology are completely wrong. The things you refer to are numerology, if you don't understand that then your level of understanding is even worse than basic quantum mechanics, it's stuff A Level students know about.

    Like I said Farsight, if you want to peddle pet theories of yours and make delusional claims about understanding you don't have, take it to one of the pseudo forums. Last warning.
  13. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    AlphaNumeric and rpenner, I'm curious about something: completely disregarding for the moment Worsley, Farsight, etc, and presuming there's a valid modeling for it...does the idea of an electron consisting of a self-contained EM wave appeal to you?
  14. Farsight

    Alphanumeric: the guy asked a question, I answered it. Nobody else has. The papers I've referred to have appeared in journals, and the scientific evidence in post 8 above is robust. So please don't try the "delusional pseudoscience" your-pet-theory line. It doesn't sound too good coming from a string theorist. People might think you're trying to close down physics discussions instead of moderating them.

    RJ: Of course it doesn't. If it did, rpenner would be getting stuck in telling us about toroidal harmonics, and Alphanumeric wouldn't be making threats.
  15. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    I'm just curious because I find the idea quite beautiful. It might give a physical description for 1/2 spin charge and the "boundary measurement" issue, for example. I haven't studied the math above but this isn't the first time (or even the 5th!) that I've seen this suggestion made from various sources. As I said earlier there is a local retired EE professor that wrote a book on the idea, my copy of which I've been looking for in vain...if I can find it perhaps I can post his math.
  16. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    That must be why I wrote:
    Examples of hydrogen-like ions are \(\textrm{He}^{+}, \,\textrm{Li}^{++}, \, \textrm{Be}^{+++}, \, \dots\) which validate the approximation of the 1-electron atoms as a particle in a spherical potential. Other details like spin-spin and spin-orbital interactions slightly alter this simple treatment to make the model correspond better with our understanding of electromagnetism and Dirac-modeled electrons. These improvements also lead to better agreement with the spectroscopic data of rarified atomic hydrogen gas and plasma of the other nearly completely ionized elements. Both electromagnetic effects and Pauli exclusion have removed the multi-electron atom from such simple analysis and so in general numerical methods and not expansion in terms of functions based on spherical harmonics is used in the fields of quantum and computational chemistry.

    In short, unless you are comfortable in manipulating eigenfunctions and the approximations made in early quantum treatments of the atom, spherical harmonics do you no good and are not demonstrated as being applied by Farsight or Worsley. They are specifically used in the analytic treatment of the approximate hydrogen atom because when written in spherical coordinates this problem is seperable into a radial part and and an angular dependence, which is a topic in differential equations -- math that is not being used in Worsley's or Farsight's calculations.

    Pointing to pictures does nothing to further your argument when I did not deny that spherical harmonics were used in some cases to study electron eigenfunctions.
    To review, from post 180 of the thread "Lattices and Lorentz invariance" I demonstrated that there are physical expressions which are coincidentally close to a numerical value of 1 in SI units. This doesn't mean that they are 1 since they have units attached to them.
    \(A = \frac{27 \pi^2 h }{4 m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}} c} \left( \frac{m_{\tiny \textrm{proton}}}{m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}}} \right)^3 \; \approx \; 1.000636 \, \textrm{m}\)
    \(B = \left( \frac{m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}}}{m_{\tiny \textrm{proton}}} \right)^2 \frac{c}{9\pi^2} \; \approx \; 1.001062 \, \textrm{m} \textrm{s}^{\tiny -1}\)
    But A not numerically close 1 in cgs or Imperial systems. A is about 100.06 cm or 39.40 inches or 0.00062 miles.
    And B is not numerically close to 1 in other systems, being about 100.1062 cm/s or 2.239 mph.
    And while \(4 \pi A B^{\tiny \frac{3}{2}} c^{\tiny -\frac{3}{2}}\) is (by definition) the Compton wavelength of the atom \(\frac{h}{m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}} c}\), the Worsley-derived expression \(4 \pi c^{\tiny -\frac{3}{2}}\) is physically unrelated and has bizarre units of \(\textrm{m}^{\tiny -\frac{3}{2}} \, s^{\tiny \frac{3}{2}}\).
    Likewise \(\frac{1}{3 \pi} B^{\tiny -\frac{1}{2}} c^{\tiny \frac{1}{2}}\) is the proton-electron mass ratio, but the Worsley-derived expression \(\frac{1}{3 \pi}c^{\tiny \frac{1}{2}}\) is physically meaningless and has bizarre units of \(\textrm{m}^{\tiny \frac{1}{2}} \, s^{\tiny -\frac{1}{2}}\). We don't have names for such collections of fractional units because nothing we observe has those combinations. But even if we did, that fact is \(\textrm{m}^{\tiny -\frac{3}{2}} \, s^{\tiny \frac{3}{2}}\) is not a length and \(\textrm{m}^{\tiny \frac{1}{2}} \, s^{\tiny -\frac{1}{2}}\) is not dimensionless.

    From Post 184 of that thread I demonstrated that two claims depend on \(D = \frac{4 \pi ( g_e - 1 )^8 c^3 e^2}{\varepsilon_0} \approx 0.99998 \, \textrm{kg} \, \textrm{m}^{\tiny 6} \, \textrm{s}^{\tiny - 5}\) being conveniently close numerically 1 in SI units, but it is close to \(10^{15}\) in cgs units.

    Your misunderstanding of physics jargon in Wikipedia articles isn't at issue here. Your are operating below my tree-level understanding of quantum electrodynamics which covers all the ground exposed by those entries.
    No -- we have good experimental evidence that the electron is well-modeled by a field of Dirac (massive) fermions coupled to a vector field of massless bosons. An electron in a well-defined energy state in a stationary potential is something that is well-modeled by a standing wave -- but that does not apply to free electrons.

    The metaphorical light of evidence more strongly favors the position that you choose to walk in darkness.
    How have I ignored it, when I pointed out to you first that your expressions were garbage. Also, in this thread I directly addressed you new introduction of "n" when I wrote:
    Why we can even compute what n is from just my earlier posts. \(n=A^{\tiny -1} \, B^{\tiny -\frac{3}{2}} = \frac{4 m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}} c}{27 \pi^2 h } \left( \frac{m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}}}{m_{\tiny \textrm{proton}}} \right)^3 \; \times \; \left( \frac{m_{\tiny \textrm{proton}}}{m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}}} \right)^3 \frac{27\pi^3}{c^{\tiny \frac{3}{2}}} = \frac{4 \pi m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}} c}{h c^{\tiny \frac{3}{2}}} = \frac{4 \pi}{\lambda_{\textrm{Compton}} \, c^{\tiny \frac{3}{2}}\) with units of \(\textrm{m}^{\tiny -\frac{5}{2}} \, \textrm{s}^{\tiny \frac{3}{2}}\). It's close to 1 in SI units, but close to 0.0000093333 in cgs units or 449 \(\textrm{mile}^{\tiny -\frac{5}{2}} \, \textrm{hour}^{\tiny \frac{3}{2}}\)
    Am I envious or am I protecting my standing? Can you have it both ways? I've read Worsley's self-published book and know just how shallow and sterile his ideas are. And I don't need to siphon Wikipedia or the source of your illustrations to make my arguments since I can type them up from my working understanding of physics.

    It appears he jumped straight to assaination of my character rather than attempt to demonstrate the manner in which spherical harmonics were applied in the Worsley-derived expressions.

    In the US, I cannot understand how one would expect to complete even an AP (high school course and exam which results in limited college credit) program in physics without mastering the need of understanding units. To understand 1 meter is distinct from 1 mile which is distinct from 1 second would seem to be material mastered by a six-year old. But Worsley, simply tells us to ignore that distinction because he is not interested in relating to the world of physical measurement and reality.

    Huzzah! Mark this well!

    Actually, I got stuck. While I think you can describe toroidal motions with constant rates of angular motion, and this closes like in the diagram (whenever a/b is rational and 0 < S < R ), but the speed is not constant.
    \(x(t) = \left( R + S \cos (a t + a_0) \right) \cos b t \, \; y(t) = \left( R + S \cos (a t + a_0) \right) \sin b t , \; z(t) = S \sin (a t + a_0)\)
    \(\left| v(t) \right| = \sqrt{a^2 S^2 + \left( b R + b S cos(a t + a_0) \right)^2}\)
    Similarly, for "diagonal" motion on a torus embedded in \(\mathbb{R}^3\) with constant speed, I don't see that you are guaranteed to have the paths close as indicated in your diagram, unless you ignore the embedded speed and work in coordinates where the torus is flat. But in that case, you beggar the notion of movement.
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    I have no problem with the concept of the electron being composite and actually formed of something else. However, no model has been put forth which can produce as an effective theory something very closely approximating quantum electrodynamics (I wait for someone to fail to grasp what I just said....) or any experimental evidence hinting at internal structure. As such I don't put any more stock in the concept than I do any other proposal with similar levels of reasoning (ie none). It's something, if I were an experimental particle physicist, I'd not exclude in my considerations if there was some anomalous behaviour observed in electron processes but I wouldn't devote time to computing such effects before hand on the off chance it was observed.

    Firstly a paper being in a journal doesn't make it sound. Or can I use your logic to assume you fully accept string theory? Or are you just picking and choosing when "It's in a journal" is enough? And what about all your work which was rejected from journals?

    And your numerology isn't robust, it's nonsense. If something has units than by picking different units, like feet instead of metres or lunar months instead of seconds, you can make a quantity with units become anything. As Rpenner has now demonstrated multiple times.

    The work you refer to has minimal impact in the community and in the case of your numerology is flat out pseudoscience. And your work, which includes similar concepts, has been roundly rejected from everywhere you've submitted it. It cannot model anything, it cannot provide a single quantitative testable description of any phenomenon so yes, your work is delusional pseudoscience.

    String theory has contributed vastly more to our understanding of physics than anything you've managed. It's improved our understanding of Planck scale gravitational processes, black holes, strongly coupled gauge theory, specifically QCD and condensed matter.

    And I can assure you, I do much more physics than you do. Quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, Newtonian physics, thermodynamics, to name a few things. All applied to real world problems. And in each case I can point to something from my string theory days which proved useful in terms of approaches or methods I wouldn't otherwise have considered. Sorry Farsight, you can't play the "You're only a string theorist" card, some of us do stuff with real world applications and even when I was 'just' a string theorist my work had more physical applicability than anything you've managed.

    Here's a suggestion for not looking like a hypocrite and a hack. Next time you play the "You're just a string theorist" card please provide a working model of a real world phenomenon derived from your work which has accurate predictions for said phenomenon, including with it the derivation of the model from within your work. I've been asking you for years now and its something which any 'real' physics should include. You have never provided it and thus any attack you make on things like string theory for supposedly being maths not physics is sheer hypocrisy. You've been asked enough time and your repeated statement of "You're only a string theorist" as an attempt at an insult you now know to be false. As such if you do it again and fail to provide what I've just asked for I'll consider it trolling. Shouldn't be too hard for you to provide it if your work has any relevance to the real world. You've had enough chances to do it in the past, now it's time to step up or shut up.

    No, I'm trying to make it a physics discussion. Your claims about there being evidence for your take on the electron are false. Your numerology is completely unscientific. As such neither contributions are really helpful contributions. If a question hasn't been answered yet then providing an unsound unscientific answer isn't somehow more justified. I'm sure if I'd come in with "String theory says..." and talked about it like it was all tested and evidence based then you'd have made similar comments in line with your "You're only a string theorist" attitude.

    Numerology belongs in the pseudoscience section, that is what it is there for. So I'm not silencing you, I'm telling you the more appropriate place for such claims.

    You really have no idea about how any of us view science and ideas, probably because you have such a warped view of things yourself and you project.

    As I keep asking you for in regards to your claims, if someone can justify a model which has a decent description of observed phenomena then I'll listen to it. At present no one has one for an electron with internal structure, just like you don't have anything in regards to your claims. Two things will catch my interest, evidence or elegance. Your claims have neither. Neither does the notion of a composite/internal structure electron but that's something fairly broad, while your claims are far too specific and involved given the complete lack of evidence or elegance and thus they aren't in the "Not proven false, don't exclude in considerations" category a composite electron would be in in my mind.

    You need to stop projecting your inability to think beyond your own point of view onto others. Remember, you're the one who thinks he's worth 4 Nobel Prizes and is more knowledgeable in electromagnetism than Dirac, an actual Nobel Prize winner. You're hardly in a position to be calling the attitudes of others into question without bringing down a ton of hypocrisy on your head.
  18. Farsight

    It's certainly worth looking into and discussing. What's the boundary measurement issue?

    If you could list those other sources I'd be grateful. It seems as if a fair few people have suggested this kind of thing, all with a different slant, but all recognisable as "the same elephant". However this elephant seems to have been studiously ignored or even censored and disparaged by vested interest, for want of a better term. It's a science advances one death at a time thing. Physics is a battle of ideas, people are people, and they fight dirty. They come out with things like there's been no such model so any such model is clearly crackpot, QED. It's catch-22 logic that condemns physics to more decades of stagnation.

    You should make contact with him, talk to him, and find out his story. I'll wager there'll be some bitterness there. I'm interested in that book, please let me know if you can dig out the title.
  19. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    The elusive nature of the structure itself. Is it a ball? A cloud? A point particle? A "ball of light" consisting of a localized field would, in a way, describe all three of those things.
    Did you read Kuhn's book on scientific revolutions? He makes this point pretty hard and clear. Science has camps, and it progresses by the next generation adhering to a particular camp rather than existing views actually getting changed. Scientists are no better at accepting change than anyone else. MotorDaddy isn't stubborn because he's a crank (no offense, MD

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), it's just human nature that we all share.
  20. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Er, no, if you put the idea in front of a competent physicist, and let them speak for themself instead of putting strawman arguments in their mouth, they'll be able to point out some real obstacles to incorporating the idea into mainstream physics. You know this because you've personally had some of them explained to you on this very forum, most recently throughout [THREAD=110674]this thread[/THREAD]. Here's a reminder:

    First, if we're only considering classical electromagnetism:
    • Maxwell's equations are linear. An immediate consequence of this is that propagating wavepackets approaching one another from opposite directions will simply pass through each another instead of scattering or otherwise interacting. Particles modeled as classical EM waves will fail to exhibit any interactions.
    • Maxwell's equations are dilation invariant. That means that if you try to model a particle as a certain wavepacket, Maxwell's equations predict that the same wavepacket, scaled up by any arbitrary factor, is also possible. So if e.g. electrons were a certain kind of classical EM wave, there would be no reason they should all be same size or all have the same mass.
    You could imagine fixing these issues by introducing nonlinearities into Maxwell's equations, though you'd have to be able to explain precisely what nonlinearities you need and show that they get you results compatible with experimental data (or more simply, mainstream theories). Here are some issues that are less easy to imagine fixing just by modifying classical electrodynamics:
    • Much of the apparent similarity between classical waves and quantum mechanical wavefunctions disappears when you start considering multi-particle quantum states. In particular, classical waves don't seem to promise the possibility of describing anything analogous to an entangled quantum state.
    • I could also throw in the permutation symmetry of identical bosons and the antisymmetry of identical fermions here, the latter of which is behind Pauli exclusion in quantum theory.
    • Some quantum degrees of freedom, such as spin states, are discrete and don't resemble what the word "wave" normally brings to mind.

    If you're willing to leave classical physics behind and work within the framework of quantum theory, there are still a couple of problems:
    • Electrons are spin half particles. Photons are spin one particles. In quantum physics it is fundamentally impossible to compose a half integer spin state out of integer spin states.
    • Related to this: it is impossible to construct antisymmetric (fermionic) quantum states out of symmetric (bosonic) ones. By the spin-statistics theorem, this is the same problem as the one just above.
    • This one's not my area of expertise, but I'm pretty sure the photon self-interaction terms you'd need would break EM gauge symmetry (in QED this is the principle used to derive the electron-photon interaction), and I'd imagine you'll find they're non-renormalisable.

    So you'll have to forgive us physicists for being a bit skeptical. As they say, ignorance is bliss. In physics we're cursed with the sort of experience I've just described above.
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Farsight, if you're going to make up stuff about professional physicists it's a good idea to do it somewhere which isn't frequented by professional physicists.

    You put words in my mouth and I responded to counter you. Now you're repeating the same nonsense. I can understand you have an axe to grind given the rejection of your work by everyone with a decent physics education but you need to realise that being dishonest and misrepresenting people isn't going to help your case.

    Physics hasn't stagnated, that's a demonstrably false proposition. What you are probably referring to is theoretical physics but that hasn't stagnated either. It's in a rare situation where the models of the 70s/80s have been so successful that they haven't had any serious experimental problems, rather their predictions have been confirmed. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing for theoretical physics novelty would be finding the Higgs, so regardless of the LHC results it'll be good news to many in the community.

    In fact, the guy who used to be head of LEP, the previous accelerator at CERN, described his job as 'Looking for things physicists don't want me to find' because pushing over someone's models with unexpected experimental results is great for physics.

    Just because people dismiss your work doesn't mean we're close minded. I've repeatedly asked you for just one working model of some phenomenon (your choice!) which you can derive from your work. You cannot provide one. Now you've banged on about how laughable and dead you think string theory is for, in your eyes, having precisely that problem. You demand we hold work to a standard and then complain when your is held to that standard and found to fail.

    You have a very warped view of the attitude of scientists, just as you have a warped view of physics, experiments and your own grasp of things (or lack there of).
  22. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Thanks, przyk, this kind of information fascinates me. You'll need to be very forgiving here, because what follows is a layman's hand wavy positing after his first pass on an unfamiliar subject...
    EM waves may not interact with each other in passing but they do interfere. I now understand why Farsight mentions Falaco Solitons. They're composed of nothing but water waves, which shouldn't interact, but if you bring two of them together spinning in opposite directions they annihilate each other. In the case of balls of light, if we consider EM waves to be essentially "twisted space", isn't there a chance that the rotating nature of the twisted space does something similar? Perhaps there's simply a difference between linear propagation of waves and "rotating" ones? It sure seems to me that two whirlpools would interact!
    Wouldn't the quantum nature of the EM wave being brought back onto itself prevent arbitrary scaling? It would have to trace its path in an integer number of cycles and in my mind I'm not seeing how we could just "make everything a little bit bigger" because you are still constrained by c, etc.
    This is closer to what I spend my time working on. I have some ideas here that I've never shared but I believe may have the smallest budding of merit.
    The spin would not reside in the wave itself. It would reside in the configuration of its potentially complex orbital path (e.g. handedness, number of twists, turns, etc)
    This could potentially be related to my comment above.
    If the integer spin of a boson is an intrinsic property, are you certain we cannot formulate a spin one-half fermion if we include orbital motion of the boson, thereby becoming "intrinsic" to the fermion itself?
    I completely understand resistance to new ideas, it's human nature as I mentioned. If it was within my power, though, I'd get you, AN, rpenner, etc to use your tools to try coming up with creative solutions to the objections you raise rather than just presenting them.
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Of the three alternatives listed,
    1a) if we are talking about movement with constant velocity on a "flat" torus, represented as rectangle with certain conditions on the boundary, then such motion has no relation to our 3 dimensional world and Farsight has failed to say something meaningful about his own topic.
    1b) if we are talking about constant rates of angular parameters in the above parametric diagram (a special case of 1a) then while the path can close on itself, the motion cannot be constant as Farsight described it.
    2) if we are talking about a curved torus, a surface in 3 dimensional space, then such a torus is not flat. Motion with a constant velocity which respects that curvature are the geodesics of a torus, and only special cases close on themselves. Only very special cases have constant ratios of velocities, the outer equator (d=R+S), the inner equator (d=R-S), and the meridians (d=0). None of these look like the diagram Farsight uses.

    \(x(t) = \left( R + S \cos a(t) \right) \cos b(t) \, \; y(t) = \left( R + S \cos a(t) \right) \sin b(t) , \; z(t) = S \sin a(t), \; \frac{da}{dt} = \pm \frac{v}{S}\sqrt{ \frac{R + S \cos a(t) - d^2}{R + S \cos a(t)} }, \; \frac{db}{dt} = \frac{v d}{\left(R + S \cos a(t) \right)^2}, \; 0 \le \left| d \right| \le R + S \)
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2012

Share This Page