Understanding electromagnetism

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I like the way that, no matter how positive farsight is about his theories, and no matter how negatively others see them, they somehow seem attracted to each other in thread after thread after thread.

I would like it even more, however , if that attraction showed a little less force at times. I know that sometimes people can be repulsed by others ideas but there is no need to shock. A little resistance to this potential for interference would increase everyone's capacity for potential differences to be introduced to the flux.

So can we please grasp hands (left or right) and let the current disagreements be the last?

[Twiglet]

I like the way that, no matter how positive farsight is about his theories, and no matter how negatively others see them, they somehow seem attracted to each other in thread after thread after thread.

I would like it even more, however , if that attraction showed a little less force at times. I know that sometimes people can be repulsed by others ideas but there is no need to shock. A little resistance to this potential for interference would increase everyone's capacity for potential differences to be introduced to the flux.

So can we please grasp hands (left or right) and let the current disagreements be the last?

You had a dictionary of e-m terms open when you wrote that, didn't you.....

force, attraction, negative, positive flux, resistance, repulsion, interference, potential difference, even capacity........

hrmph.

You could always change the title of the thread to "Understanding Cheese", at least the descent into bathos being provoked would look more comical.

[JimC]

I like the way that, no matter how positive farsight is about his theories, and no matter how negatively others see them, they somehow seem attracted to each other in thread after thread after thread.

I would like it even more, however , if that attraction showed a little less force at times. I know that sometimes people can be repulsed by others ideas but there is no need to shock. A little resistance to this potential for interference would increase everyone's capacity for potential differences to be introduced to the flux.

So can we please grasp hands (left or right) and let the current disagreements be the last?

Just wait till DP sees this!

He will be in a spin, and I'm not sure whether it will be classical or quantized...

(DP is to puns as antimatter is to matter...)

[normal]

(DP is to puns as antimatter is to matter...)

I don't think it matters

[lpetrich]

Thin gruel, lpetrich. You know full well that a charged pion typically decays in a nanosecond into a muon and a muon-antineutrino, and the muon typically decays a microsecond later into an electron, an electron-antineutrino, and a muon-neutrino.

So what about their decays?

Decays happen because they are energetically favored and permitted by consiervation laws. Thus, an electron does not decay because there is no lighter charged particle. However, a muon decays into an electron, a neutrino, and an antineutrino because it is energetically permitted; muons are much more massive than electrons. Neutrons decay slowly by strong-interaction standards, because the only possible strong-interaction decays are not energetically favored. A proton and a pion together are more massive than a neutron, keeping a neutron from decaying into a proton and a negative pion.

We've already talked about neutrino properties as compared with photon and electron properties. They have scant mass and charge, and they're fast, like photons.

However, they have spin 1/2 instead of spin 1, and their interactions are different. Details like that count, and you ignore them at your peril.

Set aside photons and neutrinos and you're left with electrons and protons and their antiparticles. The free neutron undergoes beta decay in circa 15 minutes.

So what? Is a neutron really some box with a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino all waiting to get out of it?

That would not be apparent in high-energy scattering experiments -- neutrons' internal structure is much like protons'.

Other particles are either ephemera or they're hypothetical. Quarks are merely "partons", parts of a configuration which do not persist when the configuration is destroyed - that's why we've never seen a free quark.

Ignoring asymptotic freedom, of course. At very small distances, the effective QCD coupling constant goes down, making it possible for quarks and gluons to act like almost-free particles.

[Farsight]

Do you have this prediction worked out, or is it another hunch? A broken clock can be right twice a day, but that doesn't make it valuable.

It's no hunch. It falls into you lap once you grasp the topology. See http://www.knotplot.com/zoo/. The electron is top left, next is the proton, then 51 is the next symmetrical configuration. That means it will be stable. It's a 5-loop star, a stable pentaquark.

[Farsight]

Tigger: your post noted. Thanks.

The speed of light constitutes an absolute limit because we're essentially made of light. Pair production and annihilation along with low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons is the evidence, along with electron spin angular momentum, magnetic dipole moment, the Einstein-de Haas effect. And I say in the OP that relative motion through an electromagnetic field results in what we call a magnetic field.

The above quote is perhaps the single most perfect illustration provided that you have no concept of why c is a limit in special relativity. The most fundamental and elementary cornerstone of relativity is why the speed of light is an absolute limit. And it sure as heck isn't for the reason you cite.

Then what is the reason? Start a thread and explain it scientifically and rationally, without relying on a "it just is" justification. Explain why The Other meaning of Special relativity is incorrect. When you struggle, read The Psychology of Belief and appreciate that conviction applies to you too. You should also read On Physical Lines of Force where Maxwell worked out that electromagnetic waves propagate at the speed of light, and note that he's talking about vortices and a screw mechanism. And don't forget that "Maxwell's Equations" are actually the Heaviside recast into vector form. I'm not giving you some new theory here, it really does have pedigree, and it really is backed by scientific evidence.

I maintain my point that you don't even understand the basics. Of relativity, electromagnetism or quantum theory. Metaphorically asking the rest of us to accompany you to the deep end of the pool in the hope we might lose our footing is just a convenient way of trying to avoid the very obvious - which is that you can't even get your feet to the ground in the shallow end, farsight.

I'm afraid you're wrong about this Twiglet. I do understand the basics, and they're in accord with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and others. If you feel I don't, explain those basics, and show where my explanations are wrong. When you find you can't, take note of a tendency to give an emotional response.

Never mind being published papers, I doubt you would even be admitted as an undergraduate to a physics course.

I'm giving the course here twiglet, and we're way past undergraduate level. Now please pay attention and make a rational contribution to the discussion.

[Twiglet]

Then what is the reason? Start a thread and explain it scientifically and rationally, without relying on a "it just is" justification.

I already have explained farsight. My explanation was obviously wasted on you, together with all the others provided by newolder, ipetrich, colbridea and others.

Put simply, the speed of light constitutes a limit because it would require infinite energy to accelerate matter to the speed of light. The speed of light is defined as that limit.

. And don't forget that "Maxwell's Equations" are actually the Heaviside recast into vector form. I'm not giving you some new theory here, it really does have pedigree, and it really is backed by scientific evidence.

And so what? Neither Maxwells equations nor methods of solving them have the remotest iota to say about your ideas. Heavyside functions allow Maxwells equations to be solved easily where there are step-changes at boundary conditions.

I'm afraid you're wrong about this Twiglet. I do understand the basics, and they're in accord with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and others. If you feel I don't, explain those basics, and show where my explanations are wrong. When you find you can't, take note of a tendency to give an emotional response.

ROFL@"show me where my explanations are wrong" - you don't explain anything. You speculate that time isn't a dimension then randomly namedrop ideas and bits of maths you show no hint of understanding as if they somehow validate your idea.

Once again, please clarify as others have requested before... what exactly IS your idea, beyond "time isn't a dimension"? That's it, isn't it, in a nutshell. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

You are the one with big new idea. You prove it. All I'm doing is pointing out your extremely fundamental and obvious misunderstanding of established theory, which is relevant to your explanations because your explanations rely on those misunderstandings to create the house of cards which lend a veneer or credibility to the uninitiated because of the jargon you dress them up in.

You seem to treat requests for information as objections, and you remind more of a salesman, not a scientist. Scientific enquiries are answered in a lab farsight. Without an understanding of how science works, you are a salesman with an idea. Your idea is just that time isn't a dimesnion. The rest is a sales pitch, not science.

I'm giving the course here twiglet, and we're way past undergraduate level. Now please pay attention and make a rational contribution to the discussion.

Really?

Where.

[Farsight]

So what about their decays? Decays happen because they are energetically favored and permitted by conservation laws. Thus, an electron does not decay because there is no lighter charged particle. However, a muon decays into an electron, a neutrino, and an antineutrino because it is energetically permitted; muons are much more massive than electrons. Neutrons decay slowly by strong-interaction standards, because the only possible strong-interaction decays are not energetically favored. A proton and a pion together are more massive than a neutron, keeping a neutron from decaying into a proton and a negative pion.

This really doesn't tackle the issue at all. A proton is more massive than a positron, but it doesn't decay into a positron plus other particles. It can be converted into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino via Beta-plus "decay", but this isn't actually a decay because we have to add energy to make it happen. To address the issue you have to view the massive particles as stress-energy configurations, some of which are stable because they're in the form of knots. Most however are not.

However, they have spin 1/2 instead of spin 1, and their interactions are different. Details like that count, and you ignore them at your peril.

I certainly don't ignore them Loren, it's just a matter of weighing some properties off against others.

So what? Is a neutron really some box with a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino all waiting to get out of it?

No. it's a loop configuration. Try it out with paper and scissors. Take a twisted three-loop trefoil where the total loop length is half a wavelength, cut and paste to add a twisted single loop, then cut and paste some more to add an untwisted single loop.

That would not be apparent in high-energy scattering experiments -- neutrons' internal structure is much like protons'.

There is however some additional structure at the root of the residual strong force, otherwise neutrons wouldn't link protons together to form nuclei.

Ignoring asymptotic freedom, of course. At very small distances, the effective QCD coupling constant goes down, making it possible for quarks and gluons to act like almost-free particles.

At very small distances the loops in a configuration can act as if they're free too.

[Farsight]

I already have explained farsight. My explanation was obviously wasted on you, together with all the others provided by newolder, ipetrich, colbridea and others. Put simply, the speed of light constitutes a limit because it would require infinite energy to accelerate matter to the speed of light. The speed of light is defined as that limit.

This is a simplistic gloss-over that ignores pair production, electron spin, Einstein-de Haas, etc, and it doesn't address why we always measure the speed of light to be the same. It just isn't good enough.

And so what? Neither Maxwells equations nor methods of solving them have the remotest iota to say about your ideas. Heavyside functions allow Maxwells equations to be solved easily where there are step-changes at boundary conditions...

ROFL@"show me where my explanations are wrong" - you don't explain anything. You speculate that time isn't a dimension then randomly namedrop ideas and bits of maths you show no hint of understanding as if they somehow validate your idea...

The shutters are down and there's nobody home.

[Twiglet]

is a simplistic gloss-over that ignores pair production, electron spin, Einstein-de Haas, etc, and it doesn't address why we always measure the speed of light to be the same. It just isn't good enough.

It's what relativity states and experiment validates. Period.

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. But even though you claim not to agree with it, it is patently obvious you don't understand the reasoning behind it. Stop throwing in random questions about pair production it doesn't help your arguments. Lets at least confirm first whether you understand the basic tenets of relativity. I don't think you do.

If you do, then you can explain to me in coherent terms why it requires infinite energy to accelerate any body with mass to the speed of light. If you can't provide that explanation (and I don't mean a wiki link) then you have NO credibility with me at all.

So please, go ahead and explain.

The shutters are down and there's nobody home.

Indeed. Pitch and Miss farsight.

[Farsight]

OK, no problem. I'll start by explaining energy, then I'll explain mass. Then the rest.

[Twiglet]

OK, no problem. I'll start by explaining energy, then I'll explain mass. Then the rest.

Good, you can start by producing the general classical solution for projectile motion under gravity, without friction, of an object fired at a speed v, angle x to the horizontal, from a level surface. Assume g=10m/s^2. Having obtained the general solution, specify the angle which provides the greatest range, and justify your answer.

That problem would constitute around 10% of an A level physics exam, and could be answered within around 8 minutes by someone even vaguely competent. So farsight, as I know you are online, and I'm looking at the timestamp of this post, I await your solution.

I have no confidence that you understand time, mass or gravity in classical terms. Let's see if you do. If you can, you will be able to answer this mathematically now, with maths a competent 16 year old has at their disposal.

Tick tock farsight.

[Twiglet]

t+30 minutes.

Why am I not surprised.

[colubridae]

t+30 minutes.

Why am I not surprised.

bravo twiglet.

Does anyone now have any doubt as to farsight's capabilities...

I had a nice little test worked out but, No need. It was slightly more wordy but harder.

Does everyone now understand just how flawed farsight's ideas and thinking is?.


Just for the record. An expert in these subjects would know the angle part of the question, without even thinking.


edit just added the smiley to keep it lighthearted.