Understanding electromagnetism

[Farsight]

I'm John Duffield the relativity+ guy, and I've been asked to describe how pair production works. To do this I need to explain the fundamentals of electromagnetism. Some of this will be new to many of you, even those amongst you who consider yourself well-versed in physics. But please examine what I say carefully. It is backed by evidence and references, and is not idle speculation.

Einstein won his Nobel prize primarily for his 1905 photoelectric paper "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This established the quantum nature of light. Another paper in this his "mirabalis" year was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". This is electrodynamics and refers to Maxwell, but is considered to be Einstein's special relativity paper. Another important paper was "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" concerning mass and energy. This is of course where Einstein refers to a body losing mass via radiation, and where E=mc² comes from. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers for more, but note it's all rather a mixed bag, and Einstein covered rather more than some appreciate. He’s mainly remember for gravity and The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity (3.6Mbytes), and some rather forget the electromagnetism content, and that he was in on the ground floor of quantum mechanics in 1905, and still centre stage at the 1927 Solvay Conference:



This meeting discussed the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and Einstein essentially lost the argument. After this he was still lauded by the media and public, but became somewhat detached from the scientific mainstream. Quantum mechanics morphed into quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, and so on, but Einstein didn’t play much of a part. Instead he became something of a trophy for Princeton, working largely alone trying to unify electromagnetism and gravity to come up with a unified field theory. Electromagnetism was very important to Einstein, and Einstein was very important to physics. He had pictures of Maxwell and Faraday on the wall of his study, along with Newton. I don't know if you've read Newton’s Opticks, but note query 30 where he says:

"Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another?"

It's only when you go back and read the original material do you realise where Einstein was coming from. For example in his 1920 Leyden Address Ether and the theory of relativity he said this:

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion.

That's Einstein talking about aether, which relativity is supposed to have dispelled. It's a good example of how the original material puts a totally different slant on things. It's similar for Maxwell. Read his original seminal work and it's very different to what is described as Maxwell's Equations. That's because "Maxwell's Equations" aren't Maxwell's equations, because Heaviside rewrote them in vector form. There's so much that you start doing your own research, and you find out Einstein and Cartan and torsion, about Einstein and Gödel and time, about Maxwell and Kelvin and vortices, and about physicists and papers you’ve never heard of before. You start noticing things like a little something in Minkowski’s Space and Time paper from 1908. Most people are aware that this constituted an important development for special relativity. However very few people pay much attention to this little paragraph two pages from the back:

"Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicuous way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

It isn't onlilne as far as I know, but see page 73 of The Principle of Relativity: A collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity. You scratch your chin and wonder about this, then you read some more Maxwell. In particular you read On Physical Lines of Force. That’s on wikipedia, see page 53 and note this:

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

He's talking about a screw mechanism, which is what Minkowski's wrench was all about - a wrench turns a bolt, which has a screw thread. And look at the page heading. It's The Theory of Molecular Vortices. Maxwell was suggesting the electromagnetic field was a sea of vortices, and particles moved through it.



But sadly he missed a trick and got it back to front. Here's why, and here's how you can really understand the electromagnetic field:

[Farsight]

Look at the right-hand rule on English wikipedia. For a current in a wire, your thumb points in the direction of the current flow, and your fingers “are curled to match the curvature and direction of the motion or the magnetic field”.



But note it’s one field, it’s the electromagnetic field, not separate electric fields and magnetic fields. Jefimenko's equations are a useful reminder in this respect.

"...neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable electric charges and currents."

The electromagnetic field is a dual entity, there’s only one field there. Moving through an electric field doesn’t cause a magnetic field to be generated, because as Minkowski said, it’s the field, and it exerts force in two ways. What does it look like? It doesn’t actually look like anything, but iron filings on a piece of paper tells you that you can visualize a field, even if it's just a flat slice through it. For this you need a drill bit or a reamer:



If I look at it from the top it reminds me of an electric vector field, like this one from Andrew Duffy’s PY106 physics course material at http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/ :



When I then look at the rotational magnetic vector lines of the right-hand-rule, I'm searching for a combined visualisation. So I grab a reamer in my right fist, put my left thumb on the bottom of it, and push upwards. It turns. I'm emulating the right-hand rule for the current in the wire. The reamer is giving an analogy of the electromagnetic field around a vertical column of electrons. Pushing upwards is emulating the current flow, and the rotation I can feel is the magnetic curl or rot, which is short for rotor. Minkowski referred to a wrench and Maxwell referred to a screw because the electromagnetic field really is like this. It’s essentially a “twist” field. Motion through it results in “turn”. Or vice-versa. Turn a screw with a screwdriver and you get forward motion, so you can induce a current up the wire. Start with the forward motion like with a pump-action screwdriver and you get rotation. This is why we have dynamos and generators, because this is how the electromagnetic field is. This analogy works.



What does it look like for a single electron? That reamer depicts the electromagnetic field for a column of electrons at an imaginary cylindrical surface some distance round the wire. You have to use a fatter reamer to visualize the electromagnetic field for a larger cylindrical surface. Then to match the way the field diminishes with distance, the degree of twist has to reduce. So imagine a continuous series of fatter and fatter reamers, all occupying the same space, all with the twist diminishing. Now take a horizontal slice through this set of reamers. You’re also taking a horizontal slice through an electron’s electromagnetic field, and it's going to be something like this:



That’s what the electron’s electromagnetic field would "look like" if you sliced through it from any direction. It’s isotropic, apart from a minor issue with magnetic dipole moment. In three dimensions it would be something like a torus studded with doubly-curved Fibonacci spiral wires, but three dimensions is tricky to think about. Restrict yourself to the slice as per the depiction above. Let your eyes linger on it. Can you see it? Can you grasp it? In the centre there's some kind of vortex. The electron is the vortex. That's was Maxwell's mistake. The vortex is in the particle, not in the intervening space. If only he'd got that right or somebody had fixed it! There's stress-energy travelling in a rotational path, with the rotation in two orientations, which is why the electron exhibits angular momentum and spin 1/2 magnetic dipole moment:


(see http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw)

And that's why it can be created along with a positron from a +1022keV photon. Via pair production. You have to conserve angular momentum, that's why you can't make an electron on its own. And when you do, there's this "frame dragging" effect around it. It alters the surrounding space, creating an electromagnetic field. Can you see what the field is? It's curved space. Not curved spacetime, like a gravitational field, curved space, with a chirality. It tells you the photon is not far away from a gravitational wave. Check out LIGO to read about the length change. An electromagnetic wave is depicted as a sinusoidal electromagnetic field variation. If the electromagnetic field is curved space, that waveform is giving a slope, describing a partial curve followed by another opposite partial curve. There's a displacement going on, like the length-change of the gravitational wave. The photon... is a spacewarp.

If you're with me so far, maybe I can now explain how pair production works.

[ChildInAZoo]

Before we go much further, I noticed that you appeared to make a small error on the Minkowski reference. Minkowski is probably using "wrench" (or his translator is using the word) to indicate the physics term "wrench", which does not necessarily involve rotation, but does involve an application of force at a single point and thus can be imparted through an infinite number of differently composed forces, as long as the combined forces all produce the same result. Thus the analogy is to the way we can break down the electromagnetic field into electric fields and magnetic fields: this breaking down into two components is infinitely variable as long as the restrictions given by the Lorentz transformations hold.

Unless you have some other references to that particular paper, you should not say that Minkowski suggests that there is one specific means of representing electromagnetism as a single field and that electromagnetism invokes rotation.

Edit-to-add 1: Aside from the Minkowski paper mentioned above, you should probably move to somewhat better references. Wikipedia is not really a credible source, nor are papers on physics presented at a Cybernetics Society meeting. If Williamson's presentation was worthy of peer review, it would have been presented to a physics meeting, not to an audience in an unrelated field.

Edit-to-add 2: I note that you contradict one of your sources. The LIGO page that you reference clearly relies on spacetime curvature, not simply spatial curvature. Perhaps it would be better if you simply present your actual theory without these confusing references. Just present us with your fundamental principles as a clear list.

[Farsight]

Before we go much further, I noticed that you appeared to make a small error on the Minkowski reference. Minkowski is probably using "wrench" (or his translator is using the word) to indicate the physics term "wrench", which does not necessarily involve rotation, but does involve an application of force at a single point and thus can be imparted through an infinite number of differently composed forces, as long as the combined forces all produce the same result. Thus the analogy is to the way we can break down the electromagnetic field into electric fields and magnetic fields: this breaking down into two components is infinitely variable as long as the restrictions given by the Lorentz transformations hold.

I'm afraid there's no error, ChildInAZoo. Minkowski clearly refers to one field and two forces, and to a wrench in mechanics. If you find the original Raum und Zeit and look at the second paragraph of section V, he's talking about a "power screw mechanism". With the Maxwell reference to a screw-mechanism and the physical evidence of say galactic jets where two streams of charged particles moving at different velocities spiral around each other, and electron beams following a curved path in a magnetic field, the electromagnetic field really does appear to be a "twist/turn field".

Unless you have some other references to that particular paper, you should not say that Minkowski suggests that there is one specific means of representing electromagnetism as a single field and that electromagnetism invokes rotation.

I can only draw attention to what he said, which was one field and two forces. And to magnetic "curl". This is also called "rot" which is short for rotor. Electromagnetism really does invoke rotation, as demonstrated by the early Faraday experiments with mercury. (NB: The radial electric vectors depict how two "vortons" move apart or together when they have no other relative motion.)

Aside from the Minkowski paper mentioned above, you should probably move to somewhat better references. Wikipedia is not really a credible source, nor are papers on physics presented at a Cybernetics Society meeting. If Williamson's presentation was worthy of peer review, it would have been presented to a physics meeting, not to an audience in an unrelated field.

Noted. But in my defence, the Wikipedia articles present known information that isn't contentious. The Williamson / van der Mark paper Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? was peer-reviewed, and appeared in Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997). A somewhat similar paper The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu was also peer-reviewed, and appeared in Physics Essays, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004.

I note that you contradict one of your sources. The LIGO page that you reference clearly relies on spacetime curvature, not simply spatial curvature. Perhaps it would be better if you simply present your actual theory without these confusing references. Just present us with your fundamental principles as a clear list.

You perhaps misread what I said there. I referred to the length-change that LIGO is attempting to measure, not spatial curvature. Please note that this isn't really "my theory". I've giving an overview drawn from little-known sources. And I'm not sure a clear list delivers understanding. I have to show the actual evidence and employ logic and illustrations and analogy to convey the underlying dynamical geometry. It isn't easy, if it was we'd would have all understood it a hundred and fifty years ago, and unified electromagnetism and gravity a hundred years ago.

I must go, but if you have access to a pond or swimming pool, try out Falaco solitons. These offer a fluid analogy that demonstrates a vorticial attraction, repulsion, and annihilation. There's even something that looks as if it might be akin to low-temperature superconduction. For some reason people have difficulty accepting this until they've had some form of demonstration. The fluid analogy is by no means perfect, but I recommend it.

[ChildInAZoo]

I'm afraid there's no error, ChildInAZoo. Minkowski clearly refers to one field and two forces, and to a wrench in mechanics. If you find the original Raum und Zeit and look at the second paragraph of section V, he's talking about a "power screw mechanism".

You mean "Kraftschraube der Mechanik"? This should mean, in scientific English, "wrench in mechanics." I'm afraid that your interpretation does seem to hold. Perhaps if you could, instead of looking at this analogy, actually discuss Minkowski's actual position? On the face of it, you seem to be directly opposed to Minkowski's conclusions in his paper.

With the Maxwell reference to a screw-mechanism and the physical evidence of say galactic jets where two streams of charged particles moving at different velocities spiral around each other, and electron beams following a curved path in a magnetic field, the electromagnetic field really does appear to be a "twist/turn field".

These are specific examples out of a host of phenomena. Surely you don't mean to use these as evidence for all electromagnetic behavior.

I can only draw attention to what he said, which was one field and two forces.

But surely you can address the content of his work, not an analogy he threw in to the end of his paper. Besides, your main point seems to contradict the scientific part of his paper, so you should address that.

But in my defence, the Wikipedia articles present known information that isn't contentious.

Well sometimes. Given that it is administered at random and by unprofessionals, and given that there are many, many public professional sources out there, there should be many better choices for you to pick from.

The Williamson / van der Mark paper Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? was peer-reviewed, and appeared in Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997). A somewhat similar paper The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu was also peer-reviewed, and appeared in Physics Essays, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004.

Surely you know that Physics Essays is not a peer reviewed journal. It is almost a guarantee that those who publish there are not doing serious physics and are well outside of mainstream physics and are not good citations.

You perhaps misread what I said there. I referred to the length-change that LIGO is attempting to measure, not spatial curvature.

Regardless, it seems very silly to reference a well-established scientific project that clearly contradicts your position.

Please note that this isn't really "my theory". I've giving an overview drawn from little-known sources.

You seem to have adopted this theory and you are presenting it here. As far as I am concerned, it is your theory. Has anyone else published a similar overview? Is there anyone with a greater understanding of this theory than you? If not, then this is entirely your theory.

And I'm not sure a clear list delivers understanding. I have to show the actual evidence and employ logic and illustrations and analogy to convey the underlying dynamical geometry. It isn't easy, if it was we'd would have all understood it a hundred and fifty years ago, and unified electromagnetism and gravity a hundred years ago.

You should be able to spell out your starting assumptions, and perhaps your conclusions, in point form. What you have now, mixed in with dubious references and with citations that you clearly do not support, is confusion. Why don't you start piecemeal and build the connections between your assumptions and your conclusions.

I must go, but if you have access to a pond or swimming pool, try out Falaco solitons. These offer a fluid analogy that demonstrates a vorticial attraction, repulsion, and annihilation. There's even something that looks as if it might be akin to low-temperature superconduction. For some reason people have difficulty accepting this until they've had some form of demonstration. The fluid analogy is by no means perfect, but I recommend it.

I would rather that, instead of wasting time with analogies, you would present us with the actual equations that fluid dynamics is supposed to be an analogy for. Have some faith in your audience. That is, I assume that you are not here to simply deliver "shock and awe" in the form of name-dropping and large words.

[Farsight]

You mean "Kraftschraube der Mechanik"? This should mean, in scientific English, "wrench in mechanics."

Yes, sorry, I lost my post and my repost was abbreviated, omitting the reference to google "translate".

I'm afraid that your interpretation does seem to hold.

Thanks. As I suggested in the OP, all this often comes as a surprise to people who consider themselves well-versed in electromagnetism.

Perhaps if you could, instead of looking at this analogy, actually discuss Minkowski's actual position? On the face of it, you seem to be directly opposed to Minkowski's conclusions in his paper.

I don't dispute the mathematics of Minkowski space-time, but I'd say the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to relative motion, not the underlying time axis. And if I take a look at his final paragraph:

The validity without exception of the world-postulate, I like to think, is the true nucleus of an electromagnetic image of the world, which, discovered by Lorentz, and further revealed by Einstein, now lies open in the full light of day. In the development of its mathematical consequences there will be ample suggestions for experimental verifications of the postulate, which will suffice to conciliate even those to whom the abandonment of old-fashioned views is unsympathetic or painful, by the idea of a pre-established harmony between pure mathematics and physics.

I'd say his world-postulate was oversold. It wasn't the true nucleus of an electromagnetic image of the world. It didn't lie open in the full light of day. There's not as much harmony as he thought, because world lines don't actually exist, point particles are a mathematical convenience, and proper time isn't "proper" at all. A clock doesn't actually measure time. A clock "clocks up" motion. What we actually see is space and motion through it, not space and time. Yes, I'd say I am opposed to his conclusions.

These are specific examples out of a host of phenomena. Surely you don't mean to use these as evidence for all electromagnetic behavior.

No, they're just random samples. But a magnet is a magnet because electrons are moving in an aligned circular fashion rather than a random fashion. Ferromagnetism is where more of the same occurs, permanently. Paramagnetism is where it's temporary. Diamagnetism is induced due to an alteration in electron-pair motion. Then there's things like the Einstein-de Haas effect. And all the while the electron has only one field, the electromagnetic field, not two separate fields. There might be a better way to describe it than a "twist/turn field", but it really does fit with what we actually observe. The electric "vector field" and the magnetic "vector field" are describing the forces, not the field itself. They describe what it does, not what it is.

But surely you can address the content of his work, not an analogy he threw in to the end of his paper. Besides, your main point seems to contradict the scientific part of his paper, so you should address that.

See above. I referred to Minkowski's wrench and Maxwell's screw mechanism to demonstrate that I wasn't just making this up. It really does have pedigree.

Well sometimes. Given that it is administered at random and by unprofessionals, and given that there are many, many public professional sources out there, there should be many better choices for you to pick from.

Noted. I was just looking for something on the Einstein-de Haas effect, but struggled a little. This isn't bad, but I'd say the wiki article is better. I do like to refer to papers when I can, but many journals are subscription only. The arXiv isn't bad, but of course a paper is only a paper, not necessarily scientific fact.

Surely you know that Physics Essays is not a peer reviewed journal. It is almost a guarantee that those who publish there are not doing serious physics and are well outside of mainstream physics and are not good citations.

That's not what it says here:

"As a dynamic new journal, Physics Essays combines rigorous scientific reporting with freedom to express ideas based on logically sound and well balanced points of view... Physics Essays, an international, peer-reviewed journal of impeccable quality, supported and advised by a renowned Editorial Board, has been established as the sole journal to act as the voice of the international physics community in a truly interdisciplinary fashion."

And I must point out that there's a tautology to your point, which reduces to "it isn't mainstream, so we can safely dismiss it". This IMHO acts as a barrier to scientific progress. I rather thought In search of the black swans was a good commentary on this. Think of what I'm telling you about as the ugly duckling.

Regardless, it seems very silly to reference a well-established scientific project that clearly contradicts your position.

It doesn't. It supports it. LIGO is attempting to detect gravitational waves via a length-change in the two arms of the interferometer. I give ample evidence to portray the electromagnetic field as a twist/turn field. Hence for an electromagnetic wave consisting of an action distorting a cubic-lattice, a horizontal line like this _ goes to this \ followed by this ¯ then this /. Thus there must be a length change, like the length-change expected in a gravitational wave.

You seem to have adopted this theory and you are presenting it here. As far as I am concerned, it is your theory. Has anyone else published a similar overview? Is there anyone with a greater understanding of this theory than you? If not, then this is entirely your theory.

Nobody else has published a similar overview as far as I know. I'd say yes they do have a greater understanding, but they are having difficulties getting it into a journal.

You should be able to spell out your starting assumptions, and perhaps your conclusions, in point form. What you have now, mixed in with dubious references and with citations that you clearly do not support, is confusion. Why don't you start piecemeal and build the connections between your assumptions and your conclusions.

Because I have to show you the evidence. There's nothing confusing about the electron having only one field, the electromagnetic field. Or the right hand rule wherein the relative motion of one electron with respect to another results in circular motion instead of linear motion. It might be unfamiliar to you, and yes I could always present this differently, but I don't feel that would clear things up. I suspect the confusion arises because it doesn't conform with what you think you know. We have one type of field, and those electrons really do have angular momentum, and an electron really is created along with a positron from a +1022keV photon via pair production. It exhibits a field, and this field isn't as simple as the gravitational field. It has a disposition, and you can grasp it. But you cannot grasp it via mathematics that describes the effect rather than the cause. Gravitomagnetism tells you that there are parallels.

I would rather that, instead of wasting time with analogies, you would present us with the actual equations that fluid dynamics is supposed to be an analogy for. Have some faith in your audience.

It's difficult. I'd be trying to describe the dynamical geometry of a 3.86 x 10^-13 m spatial extension, namely the stress-energy of a photon, moving in a double-loop moebius-doughnut configuration, how this results in a frame-dragging chiral distortion of the surrounding space, and then how one of these things moves through similarly distorted space. To be blunt, I'm not up to it, and if I was, I wouldn't be giving it here. It's a discussion forum, all I'm offering is an outline.

That is, I assume that you are not here to simply deliver "shock and awe" in the form of name-dropping and large words.

I'm here on this thread to respond to your request for me to tell you how pair production actually works. Before that I'd started the Time Explained thread in response to a conversation on another thread where people were talking seriously about time travel. Before that I was talking to a guy at the ISST about time and when I googled for something, I found this forum. And overall, I'm here to do my bit for physics. A-levels down 57% in 25 years, scant progress, nuclear physics cuts that don't make the press. It bothers me. So I offer what I can.

[ChildInAZoo]

Thanks. As I suggested in the OP, all this often comes as a surprise to people who consider themselves well-versed in electromagnetism.

I'm not so concerned about electromagnetism as an obvious mistake in citation. Looking at Minkowski's paper, it seems to say nothing like what you suggest.

I don't dispute the mathematics of Minkowski space-time, but I'd say the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to relative motion, not the underlying time axis.

But you obviously do dispute his mathematics, because Minkowski defines motion in a special way that includes special use of the time axis. Again, can you support your assertion using the content of Minkowski's paper?

Yes, I'd say I am opposed to his conclusions.

When you say this, it could be interpreted that you knowingly cited Minkowski in bad faith, knowing that his work did not support your theory. Surely you can be clearer as to exactly what it is in Minkowski that you are using.

No, they're just random samples. ... There might be a better way to describe it than a "twist/turn field", but it really does fit with what we actually observe.

But do you have an actual description that we can use in general? You seem to be ruling out a whole class of electromagnetic phenomena.

The electric "vector field" and the magnetic "vector field" are describing the forces, not the field itself. They describe what it does, not what it is.

Sure, but one can't say that the electromagnetic field is something that cannot possibly do what the electromagnetic field does.

I referred to Minkowski's wrench and Maxwell's screw mechanism to demonstrate that I wasn't just making this up. It really does have pedigree.

But this is surely a mistake. You haven't defended the idea the Minkowski actually meant anything like what your theory says and now you claim that you disagree with Minkowski's specific conclusions, so your theory is not descended from Minkowski. If you have a specific technical point to derive from Minkowski, you should present it.

Surely you know that Physics Essays is not a peer reviewed journal. It is almost a guarantee that those who publish there are not doing serious physics and are well outside of mainstream physics and are not good citations.

That's not what it says here:

"As a dynamic new journal, Physics Essays combines rigorous scientific reporting with freedom to express ideas based on logically sound and well balanced points of view... Physics Essays, an international, peer-reviewed journal of impeccable quality, supported and advised by a renowned Editorial Board, has been established as the sole journal to act as the voice of the international physics community in a truly interdisciplinary fashion."

It might say this, but one has only to review the material that they accept and look to the pedigree of the authors to adjudicate it. I suppose if one is not up-to-date on physics and the physics community, this could be a problem. It looks like you have been the victim of a sort of academic fraud.

And I must point out that there's a tautology to your point, which reduces to "it isn't mainstream, so we can safely dismiss it". This IMHO acts as a barrier to scientific progress. I rather thought In search of the black swans was a good commentary on this. Think of what I'm telling you about as the ugly duckling.

It's not that "it isn't mainstream, so we can safely dismiss it", it's that "it's really too bad to be in the mainstream, so we can safely dismiss it". If one is concerned with making a point with a citation, then one is implicitly making an argument from authority. Such an argument can only be acceptable if the authority is relevant and of some trustworthiness.

Regardless, it seems very silly to reference a well-established scientific project that clearly contradicts your position.

It doesn't. It supports it.

This statement is clearly contradicted by your own posts and their content. Anybody can see this for themselves. How can someone take you seriously when you write things so obviously contradictory? At best, you mean to say that there is something in the experiment that can be used to support your position, but you have to admit that the scientific project itself supports something greatly in conflict with your position.

LIGO is attempting to detect gravitational waves via a length-change in the two arms of the interferometer. I give ample evidence to portray the electromagnetic field as a twist/turn field. Hence for an electromagnetic wave consisting of an action distorting a cubic-lattice, a horizontal line like this _ goes to this \ followed by this ¯ then this /. Thus there must be a length change, like the length-change expected in a gravitational wave.

This may be the case, but you haven't shown us that LIGO will detect electromagnetic waves in the way you suggest. Indeed, you haven't given us any information about LIGO. All you wrote was, "Check out LIGO to read about the length change." Ass soon as we do this, we see, "When large masses move suddenly, some of this space-time curvature ripples outward, spreading in much the way ripples do the surface of an agitated pond." This contradicts your claim, "It's curved space. Not curved spacetime..." If you take you own theory seriously, you have to admit that your citation of LIGO was a mistake, at least in presentation. IN order to use LIGO properly for your theory, you have to show exactly how LIGO will detect your particular electromagnetic waves, just like the experimenters with the LIGO project show exactly how it detects gravity waves.

Nobody else has published a similar overview as far as I know. I'd say yes they do have a greater understanding, but they are having difficulties getting it into a journal.

If there is no overview available in any form, then this is definitely your theory. If this is something that is unacceptable to journals, then there is likely some significant problem with it. If you show us the details, perhaps we can work this out.

Because I have to show you the evidence. There's nothing confusing about the electron having only one field, the electromagnetic field. Or the right hand rule wherein the relative motion of one electron with respect to another results in circular motion instead of linear motion.

You have to show us what the evidence is for before you can show us evidence. Evidence is a relationship between a set of observations and a theory. We do not know what your theory is. Regardless of how much sense you think this has, your presentation is confusing. Lay out the theory first, then provide the evidence.

It might be unfamiliar to you, and yes I could always present this differently, but I don't feel that would clear things up. I suspect the confusion arises because it doesn't conform with what you think you know.

Well, let's see. So far, your theory doesn't conform to anything, since it is obscured by your presentation. If you cannot present your theory in a straightforward manner, perhaps you need to step back and work on it.

To be blunt, I'm not up to it, and if I was, I wouldn't be giving it here. It's a discussion forum, all I'm offering is an outline.

So what you are offering is not, then, actually a scientific theory. OK, then, but we still need to see your assumptions. This is required for any philosophical approach to science and has been very helpful in the interpretations of quantum mechanics.

That is, I assume that you are not here to simply deliver "shock and awe" in the form of name-dropping and large words.

I'm here on this thread to respond to your request for me to tell you how pair production actually works. Before that I'd started the Time Explained thread in response to a conversation on another thread where people were talking seriously about time travel. Before that I was talking to a guy at the ISST about time and when I googled for something, I found this forum. And overall, I'm here to do my bit for physics. A-levels down 57% in 25 years, scant progress, nuclear physics cuts that don't make the press. It bothers me. So I offer what I can.[/quote]
If you can't follow the details of pair production, then how can you hope to explain it? As you wrote, "Evidence, understanding, rigor, prediction, refinement, further experiment, etc, cycling round the scientific method to end up with application and engineering. If there's no evidence and no prediction, it remains speculation. One typically requires mathematical rigor to make firm prediction." You seem to be doing your bit for Farsight, not for physics. If you refuse to lay out your theory, and the speculative nature of your theory, aren't you just as bad as those creationists and global warming deniers being decried in that other thread?

[Animavore]

Ask these guys about "fucking magnets".

[Twiglet]

When you say this, it could be interpreted that you knowingly cited Minkowski in bad faith, knowing that his work did not support your theory. Surely you can be clearer as to exactly what it is in Minkowski that you are using.

and

But this is surely a mistake. You haven't defended the idea the Minkowski actually meant anything like what your theory says and now you claim that you disagree with Minkowski's specific conclusions, so your theory is not descended from Minkowski. If you have a specific technical point to derive from Minkowski, you should present it.

and

This statement is clearly contradicted by your own posts and their content. Anybody can see this for themselves. How can someone take you seriously when you write things so obviously contradictory? At best, you mean to say that there is something in the experiment that can be used to support your position, but you have to admit that the scientific project itself supports something greatly in conflict with your position.

Well, let's see. So far, your theory doesn't conform to anything, since it is obscured by your presentation. If you cannot present your theory in a straightforward manner, perhaps you need to step back and work on it.

It's a consistent pattern see:


http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =9&t=10256

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 6&start=50

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... &start=350

As far as I can see, farsight attacks ideas linguistically because he is unable to understand their mathematical formulation, and in the case of relativity, it is very clear to me that he lacks a conceptual understanding of why c is an absolute limit within that theory. You have asked him to supply his own ideas in a self consistent way from assumption to conclusion. He is unable to do so in all 3 of the threads cited above, despite being asked to do so on numerous occasions by various posters.

When someone points out flaws, his reaction is usually an appeal to his own knowledge, rather than explanation, or explanation by way of appeal to bits of wikipedia which generally don't back up his points anyway.

Incidentally moderators, this is not an ad hominem attack, I can substantiate it with pages of text from the threads cited. It's a statement of fact.

[Trolldor]

Ask these guys about "fucking magnets".

Fuckin' beat me to it.

Arse.

[Farsight]

I'm not so concerned about electromagnetism as an obvious mistake in citation. Looking at Minkowski's paper, it seems to say nothing like what you suggest.

The quote from Minkowski's paper concerning the wrench in mechanics is an honest quote, as is the Maxwell quote re the screw mechanism.

But you obviously do dispute his mathematics, because Minkowski defines motion in a special way that includes special use of the time axis. Again, can you support your assertion using the content of Minkowski's paper?

I don't dispute the mathematics, instead I dispute the interpretation of that mathematics. I define time using motion, not the other way around. And again, the quote from Minkowski's paper concerning the wrench in mechanics is an honest quote.

When you say this, it could be interpreted that you knowingly cited Minkowski in bad faith, knowing that his work did not support your theory. Surely you can be clearer as to exactly what it is in Minkowski that you are using.

I'm simply quoting a paragraph to show the provenance of the wrench analogy, also referring to Maxwell's screw to demonstrate that the depiction I give is well founded. That's all.

But do you have an actual description that we can use in general? You seem to be ruling out a whole class of electromagnetic phenomena.

I can offer no better description. And if you feel I'm ruling out a whole class of electromagnetic phenomena, please lets discuss some examples.

Sure, but one can't say that the electromagnetic field is something that cannot possibly do what the electromagnetic field does.

Again, let's discuss some examples.

It might say this, but one has only to review the material that they accept and look to the pedigree of the authors to adjudicate it. I suppose if one is not up-to-date on physics and the physics community, this could be a problem. It looks like you have been the victim of a sort of academic fraud.

That's an ad-hominem assertion, seeking to discredit. Please stick to the evidence and the discussion.

It's not that "it isn't mainstream, so we can safely dismiss it", it's that "it's really too bad to be in the mainstream, so we can safely dismiss it". If one is concerned with making a point with a citation, then one is implicitly making an argument from authority. Such an argument can only be acceptable if the authority is relevant and of some trustworthiness.

As above.

This statement is clearly contradicted by your own posts and their content. Anybody can see this for themselves. How can someone take you seriously when you write things so obviously contradictory? At best, you mean to say that there is something in the experiment that can be used to support your position, but you have to admit that the scientific project itself supports something greatly in conflict with your position.

As above.

This may be the case, but you haven't shown us that LIGO will detect electromagnetic waves in the way you suggest. Indeed, you haven't given us any information about LIGO. All you wrote was, "Check out LIGO to read about the length change." As soon as we do this, we see, "When large masses move suddenly, some of this space-time curvature ripples outward, spreading in much the way ripples do the surface of an agitated pond." This contradicts your claim, "It's curved space. Not curved spacetime..." If you take you own theory seriously, you have to admit that your citation of LIGO was a mistake, at least in presentation. IN order to use LIGO properly for your theory, you have to show exactly how LIGO will detect your particular electromagnetic waves, just like the experimenters with the LIGO project show exactly how it detects gravity waves.

See http://www.ligo-la.caltech.edu/LLO/overviewsci.htm and read "How LIGO works":

LIGO will detect the ripples in space-time by using a device called a laser interferometer, in which the time it takes light to travel between suspended mirrors is measured with high precision using controlled laser light. Two mirrors hang far apart, forming one "arm" of the interferometer, and two more mirrors make a second arm perpendicular to the first. Viewed from above, the two arms form an L shape. Laser light enters the arms through a beam splitter located at the corner of the L, dividing the light between the arms. The light is allowed to bounce between the mirrors repeatedly before it returns to the beam splitter. If the two arms have identical lengths, then interference between the light beams returning to the beam splitter will direct all of the light back toward the laser. But if there is any difference between the lengths of the two arms, some light will travel to where it can be recorded by a photodetector.

My reference to LIGO referred to the length change, not to LIGO detecting electromagnetic waves. I am beginning to doubt your sincerity.

If there is no overview available in any form, then this is definitely your theory. If this is something that is unacceptable to journals, then there is likely some significant problem with it. If you show us the details, perhaps we can work this out.

The significant problem seems to be that it poses some kind of threat to vested interest.

Well, let's see. So far, your theory doesn't conform to anything, since it is obscured by your presentation. If you cannot present your theory in a straightforward manner, perhaps you need to step back and work on it.

I have done. It's perfectly clear. The magnetic field can be described as a turn field, this being backed by ample evidence. The magnetic field is one aspect of the combined electromagnetic field, and this can be described as a twist/turn field, which is again backed by ample evidence. I've given the evidence and the references and the argument, you have offered no counter-evidence or counter-argument.

So what you are offering is not, then, actually a scientific theory. OK, then, but we still need to see your assumptions. This is required for any philosophical approach to science and has been very helpful in the interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Noted. I'll give it some thought.

If you can't follow the details of pair production, then how can you hope to explain it? As you wrote, "Evidence, understanding, rigor, prediction, refinement, further experiment, etc, cycling round the scientific method to end up with application and engineering. If there's no evidence and no prediction, it remains speculation. One typically requires mathematical rigor to make firm prediction." You seem to be doing your bit for Farsight, not for physics. If you refuse to lay out your theory, and the speculative nature of your theory, aren't you just as bad as those creationists and global warming deniers being decried in that other thread?

No, I'm afraid you are. There are no details of pair production. If you beg to differ, please supply them, and explain how a +1022keV photon is transformed into an electron and a positron. I started this thread to give the background for such an explanation that you requested. It now seems you find my offer to give this explanation somehow threatening.

[ChildInAZoo]

The quote from Minkowski's paper concerning the wrench in mechanics is an honest quote, as is the Maxwell quote re the screw mechanism.

*
I don't dispute the mathematics, instead I dispute the interpretation of that mathematics. I define time using motion, not the other way around. And again, the quote from Minkowski's paper concerning the wrench in mechanics is an honest quote.

*

I'm simply quoting a paragraph to show the provenance of the wrench analogy, also referring to Maxwell's screw to demonstrate that the depiction I give is well founded. That's all.

I thought that you wanted to do something better than the shills from the global warming denier industry. It appears that I was mistaken. You were asked to provide evidence that Minkowski's wrench analogy was anything like your wrench analogy, and you have attempted instead to gloss over the substantive difference and try to move on to something else. Why do you make see-through excuses rather than providing an honest defense of your position on Minkowski or a simple retraction?

If you are honest, show us exactly some of Minkowski's mathematics and how you intend to re-interpret it. On the face of it, this mathematics is inconsistent with your theory.

I can offer no better description. And if you feel I'm ruling out a whole class of electromagnetic phenomena, please lets discuss some examples.

Well, then, it seems like you don't have any understanding of electromagnetism at all.

It might say this, but one has only to review the material that they accept and look to the pedigree of the authors to adjudicate it. I suppose if one is not up-to-date on physics and the physics community, this could be a problem. It looks like you have been the victim of a sort of academic fraud.

That's an ad-hominem assertion, seeking to discredit. Please stick to the evidence and the discussion.

That is not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem requires that I be saying something irrelevant. In this case, you are offering us information that we should accept because it is from an authority. However, the authority you offer is a poor authority. The information I offer about the Physics Essays journal is relevant and it is sticking to the evidence because we should all be able to recognize that we cannot accept it as a source of evidence. wikipedia is probably a better source of information, ironically. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to abandon Physics Essays and look to a better source.

This statement is clearly contradicted by your own posts and their content. Anybody can see this for themselves. How can someone take you seriously when you write things so obviously contradictory? At best, you mean to say that there is something in the experiment that can be used to support your position, but you have to admit that the scientific project itself supports something greatly in conflict with your position.

As above.

Wait a minute. This is exactly the sort of shill behavior that you were complaining about. You were asked about a direct contradiction and you refuse to address the contradiction. Are you dishonest in that thread and this one? If you take your theory seriously, why don't you address the contradiction? I was not even taking the contradiction as a point against your theory, I was merely offering helpful advice on proper citation, and you used what you call unscientific tactics in order to avoid the relevant point.

See http://www.ligo-la.caltech.edu/LLO/overviewsci.htm and read "How LIGO works":

LIGO will detect the ripples in space-time by using a device called a laser interferometer, in which the time it takes light to travel between suspended mirrors is measured with high precision using controlled laser light. Two mirrors hang far apart, forming one "arm" of the interferometer, and two more mirrors make a second arm perpendicular to the first. Viewed from above, the two arms form an L shape. Laser light enters the arms through a beam splitter located at the corner of the L, dividing the light between the arms. The light is allowed to bounce between the mirrors repeatedly before it returns to the beam splitter. If the two arms have identical lengths, then interference between the light beams returning to the beam splitter will direct all of the light back toward the laser. But if there is any difference between the lengths of the two arms, some light will travel to where it can be recorded by a photodetector.

My reference to LIGO referred to the length change, not to LIGO detecting electromagnetic waves. I am beginning to doubt your sincerity.

Now perhaps this is not an attempt to dodge the issue, but it does seem like one. You are referring to a public web-page about LIGO, not a scientific paper. The papers on LIGO have a much greater scientific depth. But more importantly, in this thread you promised to talk about electromagnetism, so what else are we supposed to think you are talking about with LIGO? Given the context you introduced, we have to assume that you are talking about LIGO in order to talk about length change due to electromagnetism. Why are you talking about LIGO?

If there is no overview available in any form, then this is definitely your theory. If this is something that is unacceptable to journals, then there is likely some significant problem with it. If you show us the details, perhaps we can work this out.

The significant problem seems to be that it poses some kind of threat to vested interest.

this just seems petulant. It is another excuse to avoid being clear and direct. If you are serious, let us see your proposal in a clear and direct fashion. That is all that was asked for.

Well, let's see. So far, your theory doesn't conform to anything, since it is obscured by your presentation. If you cannot present your theory in a straightforward manner, perhaps you need to step back and work on it.

I have done. It's perfectly clear. The magnetic field can be described as a turn field, this being backed by ample evidence. The magnetic field is one aspect of the combined electromagnetic field, and this can be described as a twist/turn field, which is again backed by ample evidence. I've given the evidence and the references and the argument, you have offered no counter-evidence or counter-argument.

Of course I've offered no counter-evidence or counter-argument, because there is nothing to provide evidence for either way. As a writer, you do not get to decide whether you have been clear or not. As a reader, I assure you that you are being confusing. Try to present your theory ins a straightforward manner and perhaps I will be able to give you more evidence in favor of your theory.

There are no details of pair production. If you beg to differ, please supply them, and explain how a +1022keV photon is transformed into an electron and a positron. I started this thread to give the background for such an explanation that you requested. It now seems you find my offer to give this explanation somehow threatening.

This passage definitely gives the impression of someone doing some kind of post-modern performance art. You can't really mean that, "There are no details of pair production." What about all the references on the wikipedia page you cited? Pair production happens only in certain circumstances and produces only certain results. There is a great deal of study of the details of pair production. Are you saying that we should ignore these details? Why should we follow you and ignore these details rather than research the details for ourselves and believe in scientific theories contradictory to your own?

[newolder]

If you're with me so far, maybe I can now explain how pair production works.

Nope, you lost yourself here:

That's Einstein talking about aether, which relativity is supposed to have dispelled.

You omitted the part where Einstein made the contrast between ether and matter fade away:

... Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. ...

and here:

It’s isotropic, apart from a minor issue with magnetic dipole moment.

Isotropy is uniformity in all directions. So, 'minor issues' apart, how is your picture uniform in all directions when it clearly spirals and gets fatter as one moves out from the centre?

and here:

There's stress-energy travelling in a rotational path, with the rotation in two orientations, which is why the electron exhibits angular momentum and spin 1/2 magnetic dipole moment: 

This word salad needs tossing.
It certainly does not provide a rigorous mechanism by which you can follow with:

And that's why it can be created along with a positron from a +1022keV photon. 

You still have yet to answer why this rotating “stress-energy” does not radiate and where (by what mechanism) the rest mass of an electron appears. Heigh ho.

[Farsight]

I thought that you wanted to do something better than the shills from the global warming denier industry. It appears that I was mistaken. You were asked to provide evidence that Minkowski's wrench analogy was anything like your wrench analogy, and you have attempted instead to gloss over the substantive difference and try to move on to something else. Why do you make see-through excuses rather than providing an honest defense of your position on Minkowski or a simple retraction?

The evidence isn't in Minkowski's mathematics. It's in electromagnetic phenomena. An electron has an electromagnetic field, not an electric field which is distinct from a magnetic field. If you arrange electrons into a vertical column as per the wire in the right-hand-rule, then without initial relative motion a test electron moves away from this column in a linear fashion as per "electric field" vectors. If however the test electron starts with a downward motion, which is equivalent to the vertical column moving upwards like the current and the test electron being initially at rest, then the test electron moves in a circular fashion around the "magnetic field lines". An yet there is only one field present, the electromagnetic field. Minkowski was quite clear when he referred to the single field produced by the electron and the analogy with the wrench as in mechanics. This fits observation, and the reamer analogy, and is in addition compatible with Maxwell's reference to a screw mechanism. You have to learn to look beyond the mathematics and consider the evidence afresh.

I can offer no better description. And if you feel I'm ruling out a whole class of electromagnetic phenomena, please lets discuss some examples.

Well, then, it seems like you don't have any understanding of electromagnetism at all.

Let's discuss some examples of electromagnetic phenomena to see how they fit with the description I've given. Then we'll be better able to assess who understands electromagnetism.[/quote]

If you are honest, show us exactly some of Minkowski's mathematics and how you intend to re-interpret it. On the face of it, this mathematics is inconsistent with your theory.

I am honest. The Minkowski quote and the Maxwell quote are factual. They fit the evidence provided by the motion of the test electron described above, and your demand for mathematical analysis is red herring that will obscures this evidence. Hence I politely refuse.

That is not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem requires that I be saying something irrelevant. In this case, you are offering us information that we should accept because it is from an authority. However, the authority you offer is a poor authority. The information I offer about the Physics Essays journal is relevant and it is sticking to the evidence because we should all be able to recognize that we cannot accept it as a source of evidence. wikipedia is probably a better source of information, ironically. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to abandon Physics Essays and look to a better source.

The evidence is in observed phenomena, it is not in mathematics or in any paper. I reiterate, let's discuss some examples of electromagnetic phenomena to see how they fit with the description I've given.

Wait a minute. This is exactly the sort of shill behavior that you were complaining about. You were asked about a direct contradiction and you refuse to address the contradiction. Are you dishonest in that thread and this one? If you take your theory seriously, why don't you address the contradiction? I was not even taking the contradiction as a point against your theory, I was merely offering helpful advice on proper citation, and you used what you call unscientific tactics in order to avoid the relevant point.

Again an ad-hominem.

Now perhaps this is not an attempt to dodge the issue, but it does seem like one. You are referring to a public web-page about LIGO, not a scientific paper. The papers on LIGO have a much greater scientific depth. But more importantly, in this thread you promised to talk about electromagnetism, so what else are we supposed to think you are talking about with LIGO? Given the context you introduced, we have to assume that you are talking about LIGO in order to talk about length change due to electromagnetism. Why are you talking about LIGO?

No, you merely have to read what I said. Here it is again:

"And that's why it can be created along with a positron from a +1022keV photon. Via pair production. You have to conserve angular momentum, that's why you can't make an electron on its own. And when you do, there's this "frame dragging" effect around it. It alters the surrounding space, creating an electromagnetic field. Can you see what the field is? It's curved space. Not curved spacetime, like a gravitational field, curved space, with a chirality. It tells you the photon is not far away from a gravitational wave. Check out LIGO to read about the length change. An electromagnetic wave is depicted as a sinusoidal electromagnetic field variation. If the electromagnetic field is curved space, that waveform is giving a slope, describing a partial curve followed by another opposite partial curve. There's a displacement going on, like the length-change of the gravitational wave. The photon... is a spacewarp."

I'm talking about LIGO to demonstrate that length-change really is expected in a gravitational wave. I describe the electromagnetic field as a twist/turn field, and depict its spatial disposition. This of necessity demands curved space. It isn't the same thing as curved spacetime. A photon isn't the same thing as a gravitational wave. But it's not so different that if we expect length change in a gravitational wave, we can also expect a length change an electromagnetic wave.

this just seems petulant. It is another excuse to avoid being clear and direct. If you are serious, let us see your proposal in a clear and direct fashion. That is all that was asked for.

It's no excuse. This is how it is. Your reluctance to consider this new information and the tone of your response is reflected by referee reports associated with rejection. This proposal is clear enough.

Of course I've offered no counter-evidence or counter-argument, because there is nothing to provide evidence for either way. As a writer, you do not get to decide whether you have been clear or not. As a reader, I assure you that you are being confusing. Try to present your theory ins a straightforward manner and perhaps I will be able to give you more evidence in favor of your theory.

I reiterate again: please let's discuss some electromagnetic phenomena. These supply the supporting evidence.

This passage definitely gives the impression of someone doing some kind of post-modern performance art. You can't really mean that, "There are no details of pair production." What about all the references on the wikipedia page you cited? Pair production happens only in certain circumstances and produces only certain results. There is a great deal of study of the details of pair production. Are you saying that we should ignore these details? Why should we follow you and ignore these details rather than research the details for ourselves and believe in scientific theories contradictory to your own?

There are no details that describe how it works. Can you explain it? No. You asked me to explain it. So pay attention, and I will. It's simple. Stop fighting it.

[Farsight]

...You still have yet to answer why this rotating “stress-energy” does not radiate and where (by what mechanism) the rest mass of an electron appears...

Come on newolder, it doesn't radiate because it's in curved space. It's spacewarp travelling through itself. And I've already explained mass. See http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 04#p438572. Would you like the full-blown essay?