Not in this thread I haven't.
Denial of reality doesn't serve you any good.
I was posting a scenario whose conclusions appear to be incorrect according to quantum mechanics or quantum mechanics incorrect as its consequence. Or not. Maybe there is an unknown force or particle which could make up for the momentum inequality. I am just saying it can't be as simple as a photon being emitted due to loss of kinetic energy.
You've admitted you don't know calculus expected of high school students, so you
definitely don't know the details of quantum mechanics (and your qualitative understanding is terrible too) so you have
nothing to base your claims on. You talk about how there's an inability to account for kinetic energy and momentum properly yet you don't even know the relevant equations!!! Honestly, I cannot fathom why you're keeping up this. You'd admitted that one of the simplest equations in relativity is over your head yet you're claiming the equations of quantum field theory don't add up?! How can you claim things about something you admit to having no knowledge of?
its too much paper work and 'pure science' doesn't interest me as much as new products
Yes, tell yourself excuses. Its not because you're rubbish, its just you don't want to try.
I would rather work for the industry.
I work 'for the industry', turning 'pure science' into 'products', and I stand by my comments about you having to really rethink your attitude and approach to science if you plan to do anything even vaguely close to it as a job.
And you're wrong, I'm not here to sound well read
You just pretend to grasp things you haven't read for what then?
but rather to demonstrate some critical thinking skills
You've demonstrated you can't think critically. I ask you to back up your claims, you are unable to. I ask you if you know anything relevant, you don't. You admit you don't know anything relevant. You admit to being
years behind the material you make claims about (even if you worked full time from now on you'd need
at least 3~5 years to get up to the level of quantum field theory). I point you to material which demonstrates your claims contradict
experimental reality and you ignore it. You think being able to Wiki for something means you have a better grasp than those people who
write Wiki pages.
How precisely have you displayed critical thinking skills?
and to prove that formal education and mathematics isn't as important as clear thinking and visualization of concepts.
Nice black and white there idiot. Formal knowledge without understanding is worthless, hence why having Google at your fingertips doesn't make you capable of doing quantum mechanics. Imagination which isn't tempered by rationality or informed thought is worthless too. You make it sound like everyone who does formal education in mathematics or physics becomes a robot without imagination. Another way of convincing yourself that its okay you're shit at physics and maths, you wouldn't want to 'taint' your creativity. Every hack thinks the same.
If formal education were so subservient to creativity why haven't all those 'creative' hacks online revolutionised physics and mathematics 10 times over? Why hasn't a single 'alternative physics' forum or poster managed to do even 1% of the things they claim? How many people have been in pseudo here claiming a theory of everything? And how many of them have got even one thing published in a reputable journal?
None.
Its possible to have extensive formal knowledge and be creative and original thinking. Hacks view any work done using formal knowledge as
not thinking originally because they want to convince themselves its impossible to be original and have formal knowledge so that its okay that they have none. Its yet another defence mechanism they (
you) have to convince themselves they aren't just rubbish.
Why the hell would I want a 'calculus monkey' if it wasn't well trained??!
Why would someone well trained at differential geometry and capable of doing research themselves or with other people educated in differential geometry and who can also do research want to be a 'calculus monkey' for someone like you, who has to Wiki for what 'Einstein manifold' means? Tell me, what could you
possibly offer me which I couldn't get from someone else more educated in relevant topics? The fact you think a 'well trained calculus monkey' would be willing to spend their time trying to convert your ignorance into something viable rather than working with educated informed rational people demonstrates your naivety about research and your terrible attitude to science.
Nope, I can't do it qualitatively but I can convince to some degree that there is some disparity (maybe).
Convince who? I've explained where you can find clear unequivocal explanations of how you're
incorrect in your claims about electron-photon models and you're
incorrect about reality. Theory and experiment contradict you. That isn't a matter of opinion or my word against yours,
its fact.
It will be up to the academics to do the formal investigation.
This is precisely what I'm talking about. You think science can be done by some 'creative person' coming up with vague ideas about topics they know nothing about then the 'calculus monkey' just fills in the gaps. If you knew anything about physics you'd know that its naive to think that any vague qualitative idea can be turned into a quantitative model. And even if a qualitative idea seems right the quantitative side can be wrong. Both Newtonian gravity and GR predict Mercury's orbit to precess. Only GR gets it right. If you didn't do the details you might be convinced Newton was the correct model but you'd be wrong.
Besides, the formal investigation has been done. I've been saying this for 4 fucking pages now. I've given you the names of various areas of physics and even a book reference. Its there for you to read. No academic capable of doing quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is going to be your 'calculus monkey' because they'd all say "Errr.... we've done experiments and you're wrong".
Reality says you're wrong. How the hell are you not getting this? Seriously, do you have some kind of learning difficulty?
So you are saying that 'theoretical experiments' aren't worth anything? Just because I haven't gotten my hands dirty doesn't mean that I haven't done any experiments. A theoretical investigation can involve either symbols or concepts - in modern science the symbols are a proof of expertise. Its necessary to bottle up all your research in a neat formula, but there is plenty of stuff behind that, right? Well, I have some of the stuff behind that but I can't do the formulas.
A 'theoretical experiment' (ie a thought experiment) is a way of investigating the logical consistency of a set of premises. It does not investigate
reality, it investigates some part of a theoretical construct. If a contradiction or flaw is found then it means the assumptions which the construct is made from are inconsistent and thus cannot possibly be a valid physical model.
So what are the postulates you're basing your theoretical construct on? Its not those of quantum mechanics, you don't know them. Its not that of relativity, you don't know them. Its not that of quantum field theory, you don't know them. Its not that of electromagnetism, you don't know them. You have simply
made up what you
think physicists say and you're proclaiming that because you
think your
interpretation of work you
haven't read is that there's a flaw then the work of physicists is flawed. You
aren't doing a 'theoretical experiment' with actual quantum mechanics or any other area of mainstream physics because you don't know what mainstream physics actually says!! You've made a strawman, you've
invented what you think physicists said, attacked what you think they say and proclaimed that thus what physicists say is not right. You've just made a huge flawed argument and your claims of being a clear thinker are all the more ironic for it.
And even if a theoretical model were consistent that doesn't mean its physically valid. Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravity are theoretically valid models but they don't model reality. The theoretical models of physicists for electron-photon interactions are physically accurate, in contradiction to your claims. Your claims disagree with reality, how much more obvious does this need to be?
What do you mean 'You can only' ?? Who are you to judge how people do science? Or is science just the name of the corporation you're a part of, and you control science and truth? Screw this institution and its traditions. You keep doing science this way for another few centuries and a religion is exactly what you will get!
Well done on failing to grasp my point. You brought up Faraday, saying that he didn't do any maths, just like you're not. But your comparison is flawed, you brought up someone who didn't do any mathematics but did a ton of experiments. Have you? No. Thus I said you can't bring up Faraday for comparison with your approach because you aren't doing anything like him.
What have you done? You've thought a bit and proclaimed some supposed flaw in work you haven't read. You can't justify it and you haven't. Have you done any experiments? No. So you've not actually done any science. Its funny you accuse me of a methodology which might lead to 'a religion', thinking in your head about something you haven't got any logic behind and which you can't quantify and then reaching some conclusion is precisely how the Catholic Church works out its dogma. I've told you your claims contradict reality, you've ignored me, sorta like how the Catholic Church didn't accept a heliocentric solar system till something like 192-fucking-2.
Wrong, thats what they call inspiration! You become inspired to do something and they you do everything to accomplish that. You set the goals, you do the research, and then you work out the details. In that order. Otherwise, where's your motivation?
Again, you're telling me my business. You have no experience with physics education, never mind physics research and you're telling me how its done? I hate to break it to you but I'm speaking from person experience and historical fact. If you don't do the details you don't accomplish much. Even Faraday made sure to do his experiments
carefully. Yes, a current through a wire in a magnetic field produces a force but
how much? If I throw a ball in the air it'll come down, but
where? If I burn this petrol it'll release energy but
how much?
The fact
you can't see the motivation someone doing the details might have doesn't mean the motivation doesn't exist. Some of my most satisfying achievements have been demonstrating something algebraically, to provide an air-tight solution to a problem no one else has solved before. Yes, there's a particular kind of mentality needed to do quantitative physics and mathematics research but don't be so naive and arrogant to think that because you don't do it no one else can get motivated by it.
This is the same attitude some people at my university have - lets just do research and see where it takes us. I have tried to adapt this attitude with some success, and I can see why its called pure science. Its true, if you are investigating every nook and cranny you might in fact find something which is beyond anyone's wildest imagination - a true discovery.
This doesn't negate what I said, working with the details can lead you down plenty of paths you never thought about. Hell, that's how string theory got to where it is, the details running off down paths no one ever imagined and lead to fundamental rethinks of various areas of gravity and particle physics research.
I think its the other way around - the creative part is really the more important.
Stop telling me how research is done when you haven't done any and you have little understanding of the scientific method. When you put your methodology into practice and your baseless assertions become justified let me know.
Thats why I am trying to keep an open mind and at least try to consult with the experts.
And yet you're ignoring anything and everything I've said which doesn't back up your preconceptions. You have the presupposition that there's something wrong with electron-photon models and the fact you don't know what those models actually say or what experiments in them actually say doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest. That isn't an open mind.
I think it works out well that we each think our part is the most important.
You don't have any part. You're making qualitative claims about something you haven't even got accurate information on. Its like me trying to describe your appearance despite having no clue who you are and never having seen a picture of you. What would you say if I
asserted that you have green eyes, ginger hair, are 4ft 4" and 30 stone? You'd likely say that its silly of me to presume I know your appearance, irrespective of whether I managed to get anything right and most likely I didn't. That's what you're doing, you're asserting things about subjects you have insufficient knowledge of and also flat out ignoring reality.
Is that example simple enough for you?
Yes, something about symmetries of particles - you need group theory to calculate that.
Do you really think your ability to copy from Wiki a single line is going to convince me you understand group theory? You haven't done high school level mathematics or Noether's theorem or quantum mechanics or anything else and yet you're pretending to know group theory? Are you so desperate that you need to repeatedly lie about the same thing, each time more ridiculous, in the hope I'll magically forget you've gotten so many things wrong and say "Wow, you're a whiz at physics!". You need to really re-evaluate your attitude to science and just intellectual honesty in general.
I might be beginning to get where momentum is conserved.
Yes, you can get it from a book where the explanation and experimental evidence will be provided for you in a manner which is meant to help people learn. You aren't going to get it from just thinking in your head, you aren't going to magically rederive Maxwell's equations and Noether's theorem in your head. You can't even manage calculus. You're acting as if its a matter of opinion, that you'll just think about it some more. Its not, its a matter of
fact. QED conserved energy and momentum. Electromagnetism does too. GR does too. Experiments say the universe does too. No amount of musing in your head is going to change that.
Its like the momentum is already changed due to the force and its the extra kinetic energy which is emitted.. maybe something like that
You don't need to consider forces, Noether's theorem does it for you. Besides, instantaneous forces due to particle emissions is not something easily quantified. If you haven't done calculus the notion of delta function impulses is going to be within your grasp. Green's functions are central to so much of mechanics, including quantum mechanics, but that's the sort of thing you learn in that 'formal education' you're trying to convince yourself you don't need.
No, that was a mistake, I uphold my claim.
Well reality still disagrees with you.
Where on the x axis do the two charges meet?
Why don't you work it out? Oh wait, you haven't the first clue in how to do it.
If bremsstrahlung is significant
Why don't you work it out? Oh wait, you haven't the first clue in how to do it.
After this you just have to calculate the momentum of the emitted photons and add that to the momentum of the two objects - it should end up at zero if you are right.
Why don't you work it out? Oh wait, you haven't the first clue in how to do it.
Here is an interesting hand-wavey idea - the emitted photons will have a gravitational pull on the objects won't they? Maybe this will somehow affect the momentum of the system over a long period of time..
GR and Newtonian gravity conserve momentum so immediately the answer is you're wrong. By Noether's theorem the fundamental equations of GR and NG lead to conservation of energy and momentum. Its
impossible therefore to construct a system (no matter how convoluted) where momentum and energy are not conserved. The equations which govern the dynamics do not change the overall energy or momentum, that's all there is too it.
Besides, if you have any experience with gravitational mechanics (or electromagnetism) you'd know that the total momentum of the system can be written in terms of the centre of mass and no internal forces can ever act within a system which change the momentum of the centre of mass (due to Newton's Third Law) and thus while the individual momenta of the different components can change the overall momentum is unchanged, else an external force would have to act. The photons in your setup might change momentum due to gravitational interactions, altering the momenta of the charged particles but
never will the total momentum change.
That's another high school result, the whole 'centre of mass' thing. And 'centre of momentum' frames get used all the time in particle collider models as they simplify the algebra but thanks to Lorentz invariance (which leads to momentum and energy conservation) that choice of frame doesn't change the predicted results. Electron-photon scatterings, electron-electron scatterings which exchange photons, proton-proton scatterings which exchange gluons, all of them are experimentally tested models which are accurate to the limits of our ability to test. Reality once again
disagrees with you. And you'd know this if you'd looked at the book I recommended, centre of momentum frame is covered in that, right around the section where they do the calculations of electron-photon processes and compared to experimental observations.
Reality says you're wrong. How much more stupidity do you want to post?
Oh and if you do choose to post more ignorance, I'll not be replying tomorrow or Thursday. I get my doctorate conferred on me Thursday. Something to do with having done original creative research, that thing you keep telling me about.....