Understanding electromagnetism

[colubridae]

It's spacewarp travelling through itself.

[ChildInAZoo]

Farsight, since I seem to be the friendliest person to you in this thread, you may wish to take my requests for clarification and my helpful suggestions seriously.

The evidence isn't in Minkowski's mathematics. It's in electromagnetic phenomena.

This is just another way to dodge a substantive question: the question is whether or not you are correct in saying that Minkowski's work is a precursor to your own theory. Rather than show that Minkowski's work does support your theory, you are avoiding the question. You were the one saying that Minkowski supported your theory, not anyone else.

Minkowski was quite clear when he referred to the single field produced by the electron and the analogy with the wrench as in mechanics.

But he didn't make this analogy. His analogy was about the two separate fields. You still have to defend your interpretation with some facts about Minkowski's paper, not the constant repetition of your position.

You have to learn to look beyond the mathematics and consider the evidence afresh.

If I was asking a question about the theory, then surely. But I am asking a question about your (mis)use of Minkowski's mathematics paper, not about the theory. So you can either defend your use, apologize and retract, or abandon your principles and attempt to dodge the question.

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.

If you could lay down your actual principles, then we should be able to apply them to any situation. So let's see the principles.

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.

So, despite citing a mathematics paper, you refuse to defend your interpretation of the paper on its own merits. To me, this seems like you are playing some kind of shell game just as you accuse others of doing.

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.

You were giving evidence in the form of mathematical descriptions from a poor authority, so in this case the mathematical descriptions matter. In any case, the subject that you are discussing is little more than accurate mathematical descriptions, so you cannot avoid mathematics.

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.

It is not an ad-hominem to point out that you are not discussing an obvious contradiction. It is not an ad-hominem to ask you why you won't address the contradiction. It seems that you are using "ad-hominem" to avoid discussing the contradiction that has come up. This is, according to you, something that should not be done in science.

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.

I don't understand. Are you merely making an analogy? If so, then why cite LIGO, the source that clearly contradicts your own theory? This is an example of the confusion of your presentation, confusion you could avoid if you would lay out things clearly.

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.

You must get rejected quite a bit, since you seem to not be able to coherently put together a proposal or converse politely with someone trying to help you and understand your work. You leave everyone no choice but to reject your work, especially when you follow those same tactics you decry in others.

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

And I reiterate again, supporting evidence for what?

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.

I am not fighting anything, I merely want to see your starting assumptions and the principles that you are using to explain pair production and its relevant details. You aren't going to do this in interpretive dance, are you? If not, then like all scientists or philosophers (well, analytic philosophers) you have some clear assumptions and principles. As newolder points out, your ideas seem to make no sense to proper physics descriptions, but this may just be because your presentation is confused.

[newolder]

 Would you like the full-blown essay?

About as much as I would like to have all of my skin removed by a Potato Peeler.

[lpetrich]

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.

Farsight, hasn't it ever occurred to you that there might be something wrong with your theories?

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. ...

All of which fits into mainstream quantum field theory quite well, numbers and all.

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.

Farsight, that's not my problem or CIAZ's problem.

I've pointed out to you a successful theory of the electron: the Dirac equation. What do you think is wrong with the Dirac equation?

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.

That's already well-understood. It's even well-understood what its rate and angular distribution is -- that has been part of looking for new particles at electron-positron colliders. Farsight, your theory is unable to predict any of that, as far as I can tell.

[Twiglet]

Farsight, your theory is unable to predict any of that, as far as I can tell.

That's a little unfair.

Farsight's theory predicts that all conventional physics is wrong, and he is right.

Oh..oh..you mean predict "experimentally"?

Mea culpa.

[lpetrich]

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.

Farsight, quote-mining is no substitute for working out solutions to equations.

[Brain Man]

I find that child in a moo is the one thats hard to follow.

Farsight starts out by offering a simple easy access introduction to electromagnetism. Nice and easy.

he then offers his own theory that the electron itself contains a vortice like a soliton.

All very simple.

Child in a moo comes along and starts nitpicking, farsight replies, child in a moo then breaks up farsights replies..with further nitpicking..in effect creating a vortice of his own.

to do what, just waste time and suck the obvious complete understanding out the original post. I mean you can sit all day and do that with anything...but whats the point ?

Child in a moo...you are the proof that electromagnetism is a vortice. You sit with your electromagnetic brain and create vortices everytime you post.

[Brain Man]

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.

Farsight, quote-mining is no substitute for working out solutions to equations.

Have you seen the intellectual wasteland that is todays physics journals. Pages after pages of useless maths that few read, even few understand and serve only to give the aspergers afflicted some kudos to keep them in their uni or other jobs and contribute nothing to further our understanding of fundamental questions.

[Brain Man]

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

if i had my way all those useless but highly skilled nerds wasting their lives writing pages of arse licking maths to prep up their CV would be listening to farsights every word and transcribing it in detail.

[JimC]

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

if i had my way all those useless but highly skilled nerds wasting their lives writing pages of arse licking maths to prep up their CV would be listening to farsights every word and transcribing it in detail.

Problem is, the maths is needed to make predictions that can be experimentally tested...

In the case of aspects of quantum theory, the answers pan out to 10 decimal places...

I'm not saying that there should not be a physical model we can grasp in our minds if at all possible. Nor am I saying that maverick ideas in science are a waste of time, although the majority do fall by the wayside.

However, a mathematical model of any physics theory is a vital component, and without it, predictions of real world phenomena are only vague generalisations...

[lpetrich]

Farsight, quote-mining is no substitute for working out solutions to equations.

Have you seen the intellectual wasteland that is todays physics journals. Pages after pages of useless maths that few read, even few understand and serve only to give the aspergers afflicted some kudos to keep them in their uni or other jobs and contribute nothing to further our understanding of fundamental questions.

Why do you think that that mathematics is "useless"? What would you prefer?

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

What does it make any kind of sense at all?

Let's see ...

* Dirac equation and quantum field theory: oodles of successful predictions, including lots of good numerical agreement. It works not only for electrons, but also for muons, tauons, up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks, charm quarks, bottom quarks, and top quarks, and even, more or less, for neutrinos.
* Farsight's doughnut-shaped electron: none.

if i had my way all those useless but highly skilled nerds wasting their lives writing pages of arse licking maths to prep up their CV would be listening to farsights every word and transcribing it in detail.

What are they supposed to get from Farsight's words?

[ChildInAZoo]

I find that child in a moo is the one thats hard to follow.

Farsight starts out by offering a simple easy access introduction to electromagnetism. Nice and easy.

he then offers his own theory that the electron itself contains a vortice like a soliton.

All very simple.

Child in a moo comes along and starts nitpicking, farsight replies, child in a moo then breaks up farsights replies..with further nitpicking..in effect creating a vortice of his own.

to do what, just waste time and suck the obvious complete understanding out the original post. I mean you can sit all day and do that with anything...but whats the point ?

Child in a moo...you are the proof that electromagnetism is a vortice. You sit with your electromagnetic brain and create vortices everytime you post.

If the electron is like a vortice, then there must be a detailed description governing this behavior. The difficulty with this is that the scientific evidence rules out the possibility that there is such a description. This is not a nitpick, this is a fundamental problem with Farsight's theory.

Farsight begins his presentation with what seems to be a very basic mistake in interpreting Hermann Minkowski's work. In an effort to see whether or not he was actually making that mistake, I asked him for clarification. As you can see for yourself, he has not attempted to answer my questions on this matter. He has made a claim about a mathematical paper, but he does not want to talk about any of the content of that paper; he wants us to take it on faith that he is correct. Having read that paper, I know from my experience and reasoning that Farsight is incorrect, so much so that I don't think that Farsight has read more than the passage that he cites.

Specifically, in Minkowski's paper, Minkowski demonstrates how to consider 4-dimensional distances in a geometrical construction of 3-dimensioanl space and 1-dimension of time. He shows how the 4D structure is the fundamental structure and that we can break down the 4D structure into 3D space + time in different ways, all of which are equivalent in some sense to the same 4D structure. This, he says at the end, is equivalent to the mathematical treatment of applying a wrench in mechanics. In mechanics, a wrench is the application of force at a single point. This causes an object to move in a particular way, however, since all the force is beng applied at a single point, the wrench can be a combination of a number of different forces and still produce the same effect. Thus there is a sense in which a number of different combinations of forces are equivalent similarly to the way that a number of differnt combinations of space and time can be equivalent. Nowhere in the paper does Minkowski discuss circular motion as Farsight describes.

I don't know if Farsight is purposefully misusing Minkowski. I suspect that he simply never read the entire paper because it is beyond him or because he got what he wanted to say from the bit at the end and never cared to read further. In either case, he is far too cavalier towards the real content of science.

I had hoped that, if he could admit that he was mistaken about Minkowski, or if he could produce a real defense at least, that there might be something else of value in his theory. But as it stands, all he seems to be doing it confusing those who don't know the basic science.

Have you seen the intellectual wasteland that is todays physics journals. Pages after pages of useless maths that few read, even few understand and serve only to give the aspergers afflicted some kudos to keep them in their uni or other jobs and contribute nothing to further our understanding of fundamental questions.

Do you call physics an intellectual wasteland because you cannot understand it? Does this seem like a reasonable position to you?

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

People have suggested similar things. But they more-or-less stopped in the 20C because it because apparent that this was impossible. Physicists have produced insights into fundamental questions and many of them have to do with the nature of the electron. An electron that acts like a vortice could not behave like an electron behaves.

if i had my way all those useless but highly skilled nerds wasting their lives writing pages of arse licking maths to prep up their CV would be listening to farsights every word and transcribing it in detail.

Then you would ask us to throw away all the decades of research that has been done in describing the electron in detail because you, and seemingly Farsight, cannot follow the mathematics in which our description of the electron is written?

[Brain Man]

Farsight begins his presentation with what seems to be a very basic mistake in interpreting Hermann Minkowski's work. In an effort to see whether or not he was actually making that mistake, I asked him for clarification. As you can see for yourself, he has not attempted to answer my questions on this matter. He has made a claim about a mathematical paper, but he does not want to talk about any of the content of that paper; he wants us to take it on faith that he is correct. Having read that paper, I know from my experience and reasoning that Farsight is incorrect, so much so that I don't think that Farsight has read more than the passage that he cites.

Specifically, in Minkowski's paper, Minkowski demonstrates how to consider 4-dimensional distances in a geometrical construction of 3-dimensioanl space and 1-dimension of time. He shows how the 4D structure is the fundamental structure and that we can break down the 4D structure into 3D space + time in different ways, all of which are equivalent in some sense to the same 4D structure. This, he says at the end, is equivalent to the mathematical treatment of applying a wrench in mechanics. In mechanics, a wrench is the application of force at a single point. This causes an object to move in a particular way, however, since all the force is beng applied at a single point, the wrench can be a combination of a number of different forces and still produce the same effect. Thus there is a sense in which a number of different combinations of forces are equivalent similarly to the way that a number of differnt combinations of space and time can be equivalent. Nowhere in the paper does Minkowski discuss circular motion as Farsight describes.

I don't know if Farsight is purposefully misusing Minkowski. I suspect that he simply never read the entire paper because it is beyond him or because he got what he wanted to say from the bit at the end and never cared to read further. In either case, he is far too cavalier towards the real content of science.

I had hoped that, if he could admit that he was mistaken about Minkowski, or if he could produce a real defense at least, that there might be something else of value in his theory. But as it stands, all he seems to be doing it confusing those who don't know the basic science.

Yeh but its still nitpicking. Farsight is clearly making an interpretation he chooses from Minkowski, then expanding it further in another direction. There is uniform force occuring which gives rise a single point in electron behaviour, because when they have the opportunity they will spin in concert to form poles and potential differences.

Do you call physics an intellectual wasteland because you cannot understand it? Does this seem like a reasonable position to you?

Its an intellectual wasteland because hardly any of it is read, referenced by other physicists or used. I wouldnt do away with it on just that basis, its not like its doing anybody any harm, and some good can only come from what does emerge. then you wonder whats going on in the community because you will have somebody like Garret Lisi produce a credible theory fully expounded with maths, and all he will get is crap at best from that community for producing something radical or insightful.

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

People have suggested similar things. But they more-or-less stopped in the 20C because it because apparent that this was impossible. Physicists have produced insights into fundamental questions and many of them have to do with the nature of the electron. An electron that acts like a vortice could not behave like an electron behaves.

So who proposed the electron was a vortice previously ?
Why can the electron as a vortice not work with current models ?

Then you would ask us to throw away all the decades of research that has been done in describing the electron in detail because you, and seemingly Farsight, cannot follow the mathematics in which our description of the electron is written?

Farsight proposes the electron is acting like the soliton creating a vortice in some cases, i.e. Like these ?



or explored in magnets here

http://www.springerlink.com/content/984m2226121v5501/

Abstract We discuss the dynamics of a magnetic soliton in a one-dimensional ferromagnet placed in a weakly nonuniform magnetic field. In the presence of a constant weak magnetic-field gradient the soliton quasimomentum is a linear function of time, which induces oscillatory motion of the soliton with a frequency determined by the magnetic-field gradient; the phenomenon is similar to Bloch oscillations of an electron in a weak electric field. An explicit description of soliton oscillations in the presence of a weak magnetic-field gradient is given in the adiabatic approximation. Two turning points are found in the motion of the soliton and the varieties of bounded and unbounded soliton motion are discussed. The Landau-Lifshitz equations are solved numerically for the case of a soliton moving in a weakly nonuniform magnetic field. The soliton is shown to emit a low-intensity spin wave near one of the turning points due to violation of the adiabatic approximation, and the necessary conditions for such an approximation to hold are established.

[Brain Man]

Farsight, quote-mining is no substitute for working out solutions to equations.

Have you seen the intellectual wasteland that is todays physics journals. Pages after pages of useless maths that few read, even few understand and serve only to give the aspergers afflicted some kudos to keep them in their uni or other jobs and contribute nothing to further our understanding of fundamental questions.

Why do you think that that mathematics is "useless"? What would you prefer?

it makes so much bloody sense...the electron is a vortice...WTF...why has nobody suggested this previously ?

What does it make any kind of sense at all?

Let's see ...

* Dirac equation and quantum field theory: oodles of successful predictions, including lots of good numerical agreement. It works not only for electrons, but also for muons, tauons, up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks, charm quarks, bottom quarks, and top quarks, and even, more or less, for neutrinos.
* Farsight's doughnut-shaped electron: none.

if i had my way all those useless but highly skilled nerds wasting their lives writing pages of arse licking maths to prep up their CV would be listening to farsights every word and transcribing it in detail.

What are they supposed to get from Farsight's words?

I would prefer, it they could use any of this to explain something that should be extremely simple you would think.. like magnetic fields, which so far nobody has been able to do. Only a handful of outsiders i.e. farsight and Harley Borgais attempt to put out models which tackle this.

[ChildInAZoo]

Yeh but its still nitpicking. Farsight is clearly making an interpretation he chooses from Minkowski, then expanding it further in another direction.

Really? Let's look at what he wrote: "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." But Minkowski doesn't refer to a wrench because of twisting. This is just one example of bad citation in the presentation of the thoery.

Its an intellectual wasteland because hardly any of it is read, referenced by other physicists or used.

Where do you get this information on the use of physics papers?

I wouldnt do away with it on just that basis, its not like its doing anybody any harm, and some good can only come from what does emerge. then you wonder whats going on in the community because you will have somebody like Garret Lisi produce a credible theory fully expounded with maths, and all he will get is crap at best from that community for producing something radical or insightful.

Why do you say this? If his work pans out, then he will be lauded by the physics community. So far he has received quite a bit of grant money, so he is hardly marginalized. Unlike Farsight, Lisi is doing what one should in science: attempting to address the important details and, yes, doing this with the proper mathematical representation of these details.

So who proposed the electron was a vortice previously ?
Why can the electron as a vortice not work with current models ?

In the interest of time, I'm only going to address the second question. Any model of the electron that has come kind of physical turning of the electron over some distance (as required by a vortice) cannot work because it cannot reproduce the quantum spin measurements of an electron. An electron behaves in a very particular way when going through a Stern-Gerlach device, a way that rules out that it is a spinning thing. If electrons spun like a vortice, then they would end up going in an angle after passing through a S-G device as determined by the relative orientation of the S-G device to the rotation. However, regardless of the orientation of a S-G device, an electron always ends up going either upwards at a set angle or downwards at a set angle. No theory of a spinning electron can recapture this behavior. If someone tells you that they have a theory of a spinning electron, they should be prepared to have a detailed explanation of the behavior of theS-G device, one that addresses the specifics of our observations with this device.

Then you would ask us to throw away all the decades of research that has been done in describing the electron in detail because you, and seemingly Farsight, cannot follow the mathematics in which our description of the electron is written?

Farsight proposes the electron is acting like the soliton creating a vortice in some cases, i.e. Like these ?

or explored in magnets here

http://www.springerlink.com/content/984m2226121v5501/

Abstract We discuss the dynamics of a magnetic soliton in a one-dimensional ferromagnet placed in a weakly nonuniform magnetic field. In the presence of a constant weak magnetic-field gradient the soliton quasimomentum is a linear function of time, which induces oscillatory motion of the soliton with a frequency determined by the magnetic-field gradient; the phenomenon is similar to Bloch oscillations of an electron in a weak electric field. An explicit description of soliton oscillations in the presence of a weak magnetic-field gradient is given in the adiabatic approximation. Two turning points are found in the motion of the soliton and the varieties of bounded and unbounded soliton motion are discussed. The Landau-Lifshitz equations are solved numerically for the case of a soliton moving in a weakly nonuniform magnetic field. The soliton is shown to emit a low-intensity spin wave near one of the turning points due to violation of the adiabatic approximation, and the necessary conditions for such an approximation to hold are established.

Just because some things in physics behave in one way does not mean that everything in physics behaves in the same way. What you are offering here is equivalent to saying that since water boils at 100 degrees Celcius, then everything voils at 100 degrees Celcius.

I would prefer, it they could use any of this to explain something that should be extremely simple you would think.. like magnetic fields, which so far nobody has been able to do. Only a handful of outsiders i.e. farsight and Harley Borgais attempt to put out models which tackle this.

If the electromagnetism that Farsight explains doesn't act like the electromagnetism we find in our experiments and applications, how much is his explanation worth?