Speed of Light and Energy...?

[Twiglet]

The shame in this is that the philosophical question of what time is - is quite fascinating, one of the great overlaps between science and philosophy.

A very sound philosophical argument can be made that time is only measurable by change. Farsights ideas track that philosophical point closely, but it is a philosophical point which is outside the scope of special relativity.

The core mistake in farsights logic is not philosophical, but centres around his understanding of why, in relativity, the speed of light constitutes an absolute limit. I want to be clear here that whatever that "absolute truth" might be, I am talking purely here about special relativity. In special relativity, the limit is absolute because any particle that has mass would require infinite energy to reach the speed of light. If that point is not understood, and farsight doesn't understand it- then he doesn't understand relativity, and any argument he subsequently makes using relativity as a bedrock is built on a house of cards.

I also ought to stress that the above concept isn't in the rarefied realms of theoretical physics, or QED - it is a solid, basic point, which is taught to first year undergraduates. Subsequent misunderstandings of the photo-electric effect, compton scattering et al are similarly misinterpretations. Easy mistakes based on conceptual errors about how the photelectric effect and pair production happen. Again, I'm not talking "absolute truth" here - I am saying there are clear misunderstandings of established theory.

If you are going to think "outside the box" - it helps to understand what's inside it first. If you teach a child to add, and it insists 2+2=5, you can give it as much airtime as you like, or be polite to the repeated insistence, but as I say, this debate isn't being held in rarefied air. If you understand my above points, then you understand the core of the debate. I'm not trying to bamboozle anyone with wonder, just explain how existing theory describes things without delving into philosophical questions about whether it's flawed.

Unfortunately, farsight is misrepresenting and misunderstanding both Quantum thoery and Relativity in order to push his own speculation. There is, to be fair to him, some philosophical justification for the points he is trying to make, but those are not well served by deliberate (or otherwise) misrepresentation of ideas. That is why I keep returning to intelligent design as an analogy, because those who push ID have a strong philosophical motivation for doing so, but in the process, they misrepresent science to twist it to their agenda, despite that fact that most all credible scientists in the field will tell you "it doesn't fit".

[mistermack]

Just to repeat my 'two pence worth', everyone has the option of not responding, if they think a post has no value, and you can of course complain about trolling to the mods.
There's no black and white here, because there are tiresome people out there, like the ID crowd. It's hard not to take the bait there. But likening someone to IDers doesn't make him the same. I'm not convinced by farsight, but I'm certainly not convinced he's a troller, though he does a wee bit of pasting, it's true.
It would be a real shame if anyone with any non-standard ideas was put off trying them out on people by the fear of ridicule. In a climate of ridicule, there's a real danger of that happening. That's a shame, because bad ideas can actually spawn good ones.
So I say, if you think it's silly, say why politely, or ignore it, or report excessive trolling. But let's try and keep a climate where people aren't scared to open their mouths.

[Twiglet]

Just to repeat my 'two pence worth', everyone has the option of not responding, if they think a post has no value, and you can of course complain about trolling to the mods.
There's no black and white here, because there are tiresome people out there, like the ID crowd. It's hard not to take the bait there. But likening someone to IDers doesn't make him the same. I'm not convinced by farsight, but I'm certainly not convinced he's a troller, though he does a wee bit of pasting, it's true.
It would be a real shame if anyone with any non-standard ideas was put off trying them out on people by the fear of ridicule. In a climate of ridicule, there's a real danger of that happening. That's a shame, because bad ideas can actually spawn good ones.
So I say, if you think it's silly, say why politely, or ignore it, or report excessive trolling. But let's try and keep a climate where people aren't scared to open their mouths.

Xamonas has been very clear that moderation is about courtesy and not content, so while farsight remains polite, there is no recourse to moderation.

People here take the ID bait because they are familiar with the ideas. The few of us who took farsights bait are also familiar with the ideas. The only difference is that the debate is much less accessible to the wider forum.

One of the mods said earlier that science evolves through challenges to established ideas, and that is very true. Those challenges tend to demand a paradigm shift in our understanding, or a rejection of an existing theory. That's not what is happening here. What's happening here *is exactly on the ID level*. I can only really explain by analogy, because as both you and the various mods have conceded, you don't understand the science. Ipetrich understands it. I understand it. Colbridea understands it, and conceptually so does hackenslash, though by his own description he is an informed layman.

If someone wants to open their minds, then thats fantastic. It should go in philosophy as a question like "how does the scientific understanding of time contrast to philosophical interpretations" That's respectful, open and genuine.

Pretending that modern science supports your philosophical ideas when it doesn't - that's manipulative and disingenuous. Just like Intelligent design is.

I appreciate that people may not understand the science, but I expect they will understand that point.

I started posting in this thread to provide a simple explanation of relativity to someone who was curious about it, not to enter into a fuckwit argument with someone wanting to push a pet theory.

[mistermack]

I started posting in this thread to provide a simple explanation of relativity to someone who was curious about it, not to enter into a fuckwit argument with someone wanting to push a pet theory.

You always have the option of not replying, nobody made you enter any fuckwit argument. You conveniently ignore that point.
As far as who really knows what they are talking about, you seem to have convinced yourself, but certainly not me. Farsight makes a better case.
Perhaps that's down to communication skills.

[Twiglet]

I started posting in this thread to provide a simple explanation of relativity to someone who was curious about it, not to enter into a fuckwit argument with someone wanting to push a pet theory.

You always have the option of not replying, nobody made you enter any fuckwit argument. You conveniently ignore that point.
As far as who really knows what they are talking about, you seem to have convinced yourself, but certainly not me. Farsight makes a better case.
Perhaps that's down to communication skills.

By your own admission you don't have the will or interest to study the subject. It's generally easier to believe simplistic arguments. It requires less thought. Please don't mistake my explanations of existing theory for an attempt to convince you. That's not what I'm trying to do at all. If you don't understand existing theory, that's your problem.

[mistermack]

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.

[JimC]

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'm not saying this is a personal attack, and this is nothing like an official warning, just a plea...

Can we all forget about imputing motives to others, and scoring points? I'm certainly not sure of the validity of the arguments, but I'm interested in the physics.

Just some background on me. I did a degree in science, mainly zoology, many years ago, with only one year of physics. Ironically, I now teach Year 11 Physics (in Victoria, Year 12 is the last year of school)

Lots of Newtonian mechanics, basic models of radioactivity, nature of waves, various models of light, standard intros to electric circuits etc. I enjoy maths to a senior secondary level, but not much beyond that. Love hearing about new ideas in science, usually from NewScientist, religiously bought every week (and claimed as a legit tax deduction... )

Threads like this could be lots of fun, and very educational for all, if we can stop being cranky hominids long enough...

[Twiglet]

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.

You're right. I'm repeating what I've been taught. Special relativity and quantum physics.

I'm repeating what I've been taught in order to explain it to people who don't understand it. Because this section of the board is about science.

I don't tend to debate 2 year olds on why 2+2=4, though I'm capable of conducting the debate on a philosphical level.

Anyone can dispute a scientific theory, but for that dispute to get anywhere, it generally has to be more involved than stomping feet and saying "I have a right to my opinion".

If you are willing to be convinced by the debates of a few people on an online forum, then go to philosophy. The validity of scientific theory is demonstrated through experimentation. If the experiments evidence a flaw, then the science changes to accomodate it. That's the scientific method.

I have no more interest in "convincing" you than I have in convincing an infant that 2+2=4 when it squeals the right answer is 5. I'd rather teach an infant how to count on it's fingers. A lazy infant that won't bother to learn counting will be left screeching into space that 2+2=5 into adulthood. It, like you, has a right to its opinion.

[mistermack]

Now you're not fooling anyone. Except maybe one person.
Twiglet, you've been 'twigged'.
BYE

[Twiglet]

Now you're not fooling anyone. Except maybe one person.
Twiglet, you've been 'twigged'.
BYE

Good I never intended to fool anyone, or to win a scientific argument on the basis of a cult of personality. I intend my posts to be "twigged". That's why I make them comprehensible. Enjoy your delusions. I hope you find a more accomodating home for them.

[Farsight]

(Re: The electron is electromagnetic) No, it isn't.

I'm afraid it is.

(Re: it's literally "made from light" in pair production) How and from where does the rest mass of the electron and positron emerge?

From the symmetry between momentum and inertia, which is distinguished by who you say is moving. A photon is travelling at c, you can't make it travel faster or slower, and it isn't at rest. Hence "rest mass" does not apply. Mass is a measure of a system's energy content, a measure of how much energy is notionally "at rest" within that system. It isn't truly at rest of course, a photon in a mirror-box adds mass to that system, and it's still moving at c. But it isn't getting out of the system, so from the outside, ignoring what's going on inside, the energy is at rest. Hence the system mass is increased. The photon has no mass, but it adds mass. Read Einstein's 1905 paper on how a body that emits radiation loses mass. Let that photon out of that mirror-box, and the system loses mass. So what happens in electron/positron annihilation? You've let two photons out of their boxes, only there's no boxes left. And the electron and the positron have angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. Something's going round and round in there. Now what could it be? A little billiard-ball point particle? A wave of probability? No. It's just light. The electron is just a photon going round and round. That's why it has mass, because the energy/momentum isn't going anywhere. Because those photons were trapped in a box of their own making when you performed pair production. It really is down to that symmetry between momentum and inertia. All you have to do to see it, is to look at Compton scattering:



The photon has no mass, just energy/momentum. It delivers a "bump" to the electron, which recoils. Now remind yourself that motion is relative, and turn things around. Imagine it's the electron moving, and now the photon doesn't deliver a bump, it is a bump, the electron bounces off it, and the momentum now looks like inertia.

There's a parallel here with an ocean wave. If you're in a boat, the wave passes through and you bob up and down. Then you say it's an action, with a frequency, and E=hf because it's a wave. But pace that wave in a helicopter, and you don't see action, just a bump in the ocean. There is no frequency, because in this frame it isn't a wave, it's a bump, it's a particle, hence E=mc². This is the secret of wave-particle duality. Yes, you can't travel at c, but when you split the incoming +1022keV photon in pair production into two counter-rotating 511keV photons, you don't have to.

(Re: the spin-flip is an electromagnetic phenomenum) Phenomenology never was your strong point.

It is an electromagnetic phenomenum.

[Farsight]

A nucleus or photon is required to 'stop' the photon, otherwise it obviously just continues on it's path at the speed of light. There is no mass removed from the nucleus.

A nucleus kind of splits it, and makes the two portions counter-rotate. In my mind's eye it's rather like throwing an ocean wave at a buoy, with two resultant eddies. Some of the energy/momentum is lost to the motion of the nucleus, and some goes into the motion of the electron and the positron, but most goes into their mass. Hence you need a little more than 1022keV to start with.

If a photon will do it, then that proves conclusively that the mass of the electron and positron is derived from either one photon, or two. Take your pick. It still proves the point and answers your original question, where did the mass come from?

It's so cut and dried that I just don't know why anybody could have a problem with it. 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.

[Farsight]

I appreciate the problem here, but unfortunately, if this forum lacks the academic background to moderate science topics, then you are left in the unenviable position of moderating on a "be nice" basis rather than calling out fantasy and fabrication or wilful misinformation. In this thread, farsights ideas were given substantial time and analysis by at least 4 people who know what they're talking about.

No, they don't, and they dismissed the evidence I presented.

The playground stuff was borne of exasperation in the face of perpetual repetitions and farsights demands that we re-explain ourselves everytime a new page started. That is a trolling behaviour. Repition, misquoting, posting huge tracts of wikipedia which did not support the points he was making. If you want a "serious" science discussion, then get scientists to moderate the forum.

That's simply not true, I haven't made such demands. You can't give the answers, all you've said is "learn physics". And now you're so outraged by somebody else giving the answers that you demand censorship. It's a discussion forum. Discuss the subject. Be rational. Deal with the scientific evidence and the argument via counter-evidence and counter-argument, not with outrage.

[Farsight]

Now, there's nothing wrong with speculating. Countless advances in science and other fields have been inspired by speculation. However, if your speculative model violates well-founded and widely-accepted theories, you need to first resolve those conflicts before speculating even further. (Sorry if this has been said elsewhere.)

Yes, there's nothing wrong with speculation. Where else would our ideas come from? But I don't speculate as much as you might think. I'm very empirical and ontological, always looking hard at the experimental facts that support a case. Sometimes I draw conclusions which challenge an accepted view, and then we see disagreement. But it will revolve around something like pair production or the NIST fountain clock rather than something esoteric.

For example, if you think the Lorentz Transformations and Bell's Theorum are flawed, please explain exactly how they are flawed.

I don't think the Lorentz transformations are flawed. We measure distance and time using the motion of light, and when we're in motion our measurements change. The Lorentz transformation gives rigor to this, and isn't an issue. There are however some issues with Bell's Theorem. These were highlighted in a New Scientist article [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... hreat.html]Quantum untanglement: Is spookiness under threat?[/quote] back in 2007. It featured Joy Christian (Oxford) saying that rotations do not commute, and that this was overlooked by Bell. See his papers on arXiv at http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au: ... /0/all/0/1 and note "Disproof of Bell's Theorem". I can't give you an explanation that says Christian is right, because I haven't looked into this subject adequately.

[newolder]

I'm afraid it is. 

Does an electromagnetic field quantum have rest mass? Does that quantum have the same spin value as an electron? Do they both have the same Coulomb electric charge? How is an electron electromagnetic? Since an electron interacts with gravitational fields is it okay to write that electrons are gravitational?

From the symmetry between momentum and inertia, which is distinguished by who you say is moving. … snip wibble ...

How, exactly, does this inane paragraph answer my questions? How does this 'symmetry' yield the rest mass of an electron?

... who rather like to make things difficult and mysterious.

Do you count yourself as one like this?

Now remind yourself that motion is relative, and turn things around. Imagine it's the electron moving,

In order to imagine an electron moving at c I also have to imagine that it has infinite energy, don't I?

It is an electromagnetic phenomenum.

You choose to repeat your mistakes? Heigh ho.