Speed of Light and Energy...?

[ChildInAZoo]

That's exactly what I thought you'd say. Exactly.
To be honest, I think you are repeating what you've been taught here, rather than thinking for yourself. I'm not convinced you are actually understanding farsight's argument, you're just regurgitating stuff. That's why you didn't reply directly to his points. You're posting more 'front' than substance. I'm not convinced.

I think part of the problem here is that Farsight is posting things that are not simply demonstrably false, but that are works of fiction such that they have a certain kind of internal consistency and plausibility that appeal to intuition in a way that the actual science lacks. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics are messy theories because the world is messy. Farsight, on the other hand, has apparently spent four or more years shopping his theory around to message board after message board, honing his ability to convince only those who are ignorant of the relevant physics.

For example, take this quote from Farsight, "It's real experimental science that's totally in line with E=mc², and the photon is boson enough. Sadly there are some people in physics who rather like to make things difficult and mysterious." I think that you will find that Farsight doesn't bring up any actual experimental evidence. He provides a picture of pair production and he discusses some superficial aspects of it, but he has not, and likely never will, provide any way to experimentally verify his claim that electrons are made of light. He simply provides assertions that this is the case and sets up anybody who might ask for some way to verify his assertions as people who "like to make things difficult and mysterious." Of course, the actual physics of pair production is difficult--it requires a great deal of detailed experimental evidence and a set of detailed underlying physics theories. Farsight seems to be the one trading on "mystery", since he seems to duck around the details.

Now, I may be wrong. I suspect not, because if Farsight could provide the details he would be published. He could surprise everyone by actually providing details. That would be a happy surprise.

[mistermack]

childinazoo, I wasn't going to post again, but by choosing such an inspired name, you've got the better of me.
I'm not here to support or champion anyone, I would be more of a liablility than help anyway. I'm interested, that's all.
If farsight is claiming that electrons are made of light, I suppose you first have to define light rigorously, and define exactly when it stops being light.
When I looked up pair production, practically the first thing I read was that two photons can interact and produce an electron and positron, so it seems undeniable that an electron 'CAN be made FROM light'. I haven't as yet seen anybody refute that. So the claim that an electron IS made OF light may be right or wrong, but it's not miles away from being right.
It's almost a semantic question, the difference between 'of' and 'from'.
To prove it, farsight would I suppose have to show that ALL electrons are the result of pair production, and that the energy they contain is still behaving internally in a manner that a reasonable person would call light.

And newolder, your entire last post was questions. It's almost like you're afraid to make a statement, because a question is always safer.
.

[newolder]

If farsight is claiming that electrons are made of light, I suppose you first have to define light rigorously, and define exactly when it stops being light.

Of course. Do you think physicists have not been working on this? Do you think the Standard Model of particle physics does not achieve this parsimoniously? Light, γ= hν, spin 1 = boson, massless, chargeless. Electron, e-, spin ½ = fermion, rest mass =0.511 MeV/c2, Coulomb electric charge=-1.

The mechanism to convert chargeless, massless, bosonic energy to charged fermionic mass (see previously posted diagram) is yet to be observed to significant statistical measure but the data required is being poured into grid technology as I write.

To prove it, farsight would I suppose have to show that ALL electrons are the result of pair production,

Farsight needs to show very much more than that.
[/statement]

[Twiglet]

The mechanism to convert massless, bosonic energy to fermionic mass (see previously posted diagram) is yet to be observed to significant statistical measure but the data required is being poured into grid technology as I write.

There's a useful looking paper on the topic here: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/g ... b-7869.pdf which has had some experimental validation, probably more now as it was published back in '98.

In a broader way, Britannica explains pair production in very simple terms:

in physics, formation or materialization of two electrons, one negative and the other positive (positron), from a pulse of electromagnetic energy traveling through matter, usually in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus. Pair production is a direct conversion of radiant energy to matter. It is one of the principal ways in which high-energy gamma rays are absorbed in matter. For pair production to occur, the electromagnetic energy, in a discrete quantity called a photon, must be at least equivalent to the mass of two electrons.

___

In general, physics has no issue with energy changing form. The energy for photons being converted into mass is as regular as chemical energy tranforming into heat (fires, for example) or kinetic energy being exchanged for gravitational potential energy (like throwing a ball). Mass is just another forum of energy which can change it's form. It's nothing "special". It's not a different case.

The scientific test of these ideas coincidentally takes place in a lab, rather than a debate.

[newolder]

The mechanism to convert massless, bosonic energy to fermionic mass (see previously posted diagram) is yet to be observed to significant statistical measure but the data required is being poured into grid technology as I write.

There's a useful looking paper on the topic here: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/g ... b-7869.pdf which has had some experimental validation, probably more now as it was published back in '98.

In a broader way, Britannica explains pair production in very simple terms:

in physics, formation or materialization of two electrons, one negative and the other positive (positron), from a pulse of electromagnetic energy traveling through matter, usually in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus. Pair production is a direct conversion of radiant energy to matter. It is one of the principal ways in which high-energy gamma rays are absorbed in matter. For pair production to occur, the electromagnetic energy, in a discrete quantity called a photon, must be at least equivalent to the mass of two electrons.

___

In general, physics has no issue with energy changing form. The energy for photons being converted into mass is as regular as chemical energy tranforming into heat (fires, for example) or kinetic energy being exchanged for gravitational potential energy (like throwing a ball). Mass is just another forum of energy which can change it's form. It's nothing "special". It's not a different case.

The scientific test of these ideas coincidentally takes place in a lab, rather than a debate.

Steerable discombobulators?

Another possible issue, which we have addressed elsewhere, is whether there are a signicant number of trident pairs with sufficiently low energy that the pair particle with the same sign as the oncoming beam can be deflected to large angles in the beam-beam field. Our conclusion [2] is that there is much less than one trident pair per bunch crossing that would reach an outgoing angle of a radian or more, assuming very high energy (several TeV) linear collider parameters similar to those proposed in Ref. [3].

[mistermack]

The mechanism to convert massless, bosonic energy to fermionic mass (see previously posted diagram) is yet to be observed to significant statistical measure but the data required is being poured into grid technology as I write.

I wasn't gonna post again, but I have to point out I didn't write that. Something must have gone wrong with the 'quote' button.

And while I'm on, on April 15th,

Exactly, the reason nobody has published it is because experimental evidence shows electrons have mass.

Today,

In general, physics has no issue with energy changing form. The energy for photons being converted into mass is as regular as chemical energy tranforming into heat (fires, for example) or kinetic energy being exchanged for gravitational potential energy (like throwing a ball). Mass is just another forum of energy which can change it's form. It's nothing "special". It's not a different case.

My work here is done!
.

[newolder]

The mechanism to convert massless, bosonic energy to fermionic mass (see previously posted diagram) is yet to be observed to significant statistical measure but the data required is being poured into grid technology as I write.

I wasn't gonna post again, but I have to point out I didn't write that. Something must have gone wrong with the 'quote' button.

And while I'm on, on April 15th,

Exactly, the reason nobody has published it is because experimental evidence shows electrons have mass.

Today,

In general, physics has no issue with energy changing form. The energy for photons being converted into mass is as regular as chemical energy tranforming into heat (fires, for example) or kinetic energy being exchanged for gravitational potential energy (like throwing a ball). Mass is just another forum of energy which can change it's form. It's nothing "special". It's not a different case.

My work here is done!
.

Work? On an intertubez forum?

Fundamental questions, which have bothered human beigns, are going to be addressed and examined critically – Why there is matter and not antimatter?; Is it possible for all the forces to be grandly unified?; What is the origin of mass? …

“Over 2,000 graduate students are eagerly awaiting data from the LHC experiments,”  ...

There are some perspectives from which, “Time is money.”, or so I read.

[colubridae]

Sorry for delay, I’ve had house guests.
I have been warned for not taking this thread seriously.

I apologise for my crack about baby jesus. It was uncalled for.
(as an aside it is my belief that telling a lie does not make baby jesus cry, what happens is a slavering rotweiler takes a big bite out of the little bastard)


It is my belief that hubius helix is a relative of Piltdown man.
Qui gon jin postulate is flawed in several respects and contains deliberate mis-representations.
This is a perfectly reasonable comment to make. I am making the same kind of argument that farsight uses for his belief in the ‘postulate’.
Just because he posts it in the ‘serious’ section is no guarantee of its validity.

I also apologise for the hyperopia cracks. Unfortunately a name like ‘farsight’ presses my ‘What an arrogant fucker button!’ and I do react shamefully.






So far my arguments against the ‘postulate’ have been sidestepped.

Qui gon jin’s non-sense postulate absolutely requires every electron be matched by a positron.
Where are the missing ‘matched’ positrons?
The fact that I can’t explain this cosmological imbalance is irrelevant.
It is the same destructive argument as olber’s paradox to steady-state.

No mechanism is proposed for the hubius helix geodesic.
This is just one of the wildly absurd parts of the ‘postulate’
It’s just stated. If it was claimed as fundamental assertion maybe then the postulate could be viewed as such ‘A postulate with a whopping gap’ – but it isn’t, it’s just fudged.

No mechanism is proposed for the charge generation/quantization.
It’s just fudged with vague references to historical QM and QEM.

Having said all that, it is a fairly frequent occurrence for me to be completely wrong.

In which case my hat, salt and pepper are ready for 10 December.


Just out of interest hubius helix has now disappeared from wiki and I don’t understand why.





I also fail to understand why…

Twiglet, don't waste your time. I know nothing about farsight, and not much past A level phyics. My real interest is human evolution, but I enjoy the concepts of physics.

Yet mistermack strangely understands ‘huge-gap’ physics proposed by farsight, and chooses happily to disagree with basic physics as proposed by twiglet, hack, and several others.



I also repeat my question ‘Why is this statement funny?’

Imagine a swimming pool. Every morning you swim from one end to the other in a straight line. In the dead of night I truck in a load of gelatine powder and tip it all down the left hand side. This starts diffusing across the breadth of the pool, imparting a viscosity gradient from left to right. The next morning when you go for your swim, something's not right, and you find that you're veering to the left. If you could see your wake, you'd notice it was curved. That's your curved spacetime, because the pool is like the space round a planet, the viscosity gradient is like Einstein's non-constant gμν, and you're a photon. As to how the gradient attracts matter, consider a single electron. We can make an electron along with a positron from light, via pair production. Since the electron also has spin, think of it as light trapped in a circular path. So if you're swimming round and round in circles, whenever you're swimming up or down the pool you're veering left. Hence you find yourself working over to the left. That's why things fall down.

This is a genuine question, figuring out the answer you will help you understand the flaws in farsight’s reasoning.
And the clue is ‘How do you steer a magic carpet around a tight curve?’


Mistermack I would be interested on your view of this post (since your main interest is human evolution)

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... in#p422951





I also support twiglet’s view of what constitutes ‘serious’ posting.
Here is some science of my own:-

My postulate is that there is a fifth fundamental force (in addition to the strong, weak, EM and gravity). This force I call the dark force. It acts on dark matter only and its gauge transmission particle is the darkon. Darkons are responsible for dark energy and carry the dark force in the way that photons carry the electromagnetic force. Darkons are bradions, they travel at a speed of –c. This speed is orthogonal to normal c, and is called the speed of dark.

I trust there are enough science words in there to guarantee immunity from scorn and derision. If not let me know, I daresay I can come up with some more and an equation or two.




Mistermacks post here:-
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 50#p441103
Ridicules another member in exactly the same way that generated a reprimand for me. And is completely against his own claim to be ‘A seeker after knowledge, simply posting questions’. And is definitely not taking twiglet’s efforts seriously.

[mistermack]

Mistermacks post here:-
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10940&start=350#p441103
Ridicules another member in exactly the same way that generated a reprimand for me. And is completely against his own claim to be ‘A seeker after knowledge, simply posting questions’. And is definitely not taking twiglet’s efforts seriously.

Well firstly no ridicule was intended. Secondly, I've read it through several times and can find none. But I still apologise for any ridicule that I didn't intend and still can't find.
I pointed out what I saw as a change in position, and flippantly claimed the credit. How is that ridicule?

Here is my first post ever, on this site, and Twiglet's reply :

''evidence shows electrons have mass''
My little gyroscope has apparent extra mass when it rotates very quickly.
Why should a photon not do the same? Surely it's electromagnetic waves rotating at light speed that produce the effect we know as '' mass '' ?

Why not go the whole hog - it's invisible fairies on a pin gossiping... oh wait! There's no experimental evidence to support that theory. Which is what distinguishes science from fantasy.

And um - let me be the first to welcome you to Rationalia

I would say firstly, Twiglet's latest post was much closer to my original statement, and secondly, he clearly doesn't mind if you 'take the mick'.
.

[colubridae]

Apologies

I felt raw for being gently reprimanded for not taking things seriously.

Have you any more thoughts on the insulin and meiotic drive questions?

The insulin problem bugs the fuck out of me. I keep going round in circles.

[FBM]

Scientists ‘freeze’ light for an entire minute

In case anybody wants/needs that info for future discussions.

[mistermack]

Scientists ‘freeze’ light for an entire minute

In case anybody wants/needs that info for future discussions.

Is freezing the right word?
In theory, you could "freeze" light on the spot, if you had two perfect mirrors, and got the light bouncing between the two.
Maybe the structure of the crystals just acts like a near-perfect mirror, and the light is just bouncing around inside, until the crystal becomes translucent again.

[FBM]

The use of scare quotes indicates...

[mistermack]

The use of scare quotes indicates...

In the article, they mention that light has been actually frozen, using ultra-cold atomic gas, for about 16 seconds.
So they put the word "freeze" in quotes, but don't say what's actually happening to the light in this case, in the minute that it was held inside the crystal.
If it's being reflected, it would be pretty amazing, if it came out after a minute, with information intact.
If light travels 11 million miles in one minute, the number of times that it's been internally reflected in that time would be unbelievably gigantic. It would have to be virtually perfect reflection for the light not to lose it's information.

[dj357]

From my vague understanding of the physics behind this and the phrasing of the article, it appears that the light was not reflected inside the crystal but was instead suspended inside the crystal. The effect mentioned induces transparency, this being the ability for light to pass through an object. If you make it so that all the atoms in the object turn from being transparent to being opaque, you don't get reflection necessarily, unless it is a reflective medium. If you shine a laser beam on a non-transparent medium the energy from the light doesn't simply vanish, the atoms of the medium react to this energy. It seems that the researchers have simply made a storage medium for light.