JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 27th February 2014, 01:19 PM   #2481
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Nope, looks fine to me. You have quoted a wordy verbal description of the well-tested QED Lagrangian, cited later in the paper, which is the part that makes the testable predictions. If you have a problem with a QED, you have to have a problem with that Lagrangian. Which you don't. Because you don't understand it.
I understand it, you don't. And it's not fine. Now pay attention:

"Virtual electron-positron pairs, can in principle, be polarised by an external electromagnetic field, thus introducing non-linearities into Maxwell’s equations, which break the familiar principle of superposition of electromagnetic waves in vacuum. Photons from multiple, vacuum-polarising sources, can then become coupled on the common point of interaction of the polarised virtual pairs".

It's gamma-gamma pair production remember? But it's saying a photon interacts with a virtual electron-positron pair. It's saying pair production occurs because pair production has already occurred. It's a tautology. It's wrong. A photon does not spend its sad little life magically morphing into an electron-positron pair that magically manage to morph back into a single photon, which nevertheless manages to keep on going at c. QED does not model the photon-photon interaction.

Right, I'm off to bed. You've got until tomorrow to try and save some face.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2014, 01:25 PM   #2482
lpetrich
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
A photon does not spend its sad little life magically morphing into an electron-positron pair that magically manage to morph back into a single photon, which nevertheless manages to keep on going at c.
But that morphing is what one finds when one calculates the photon's propagator, a function which expresses the strength of creating one at one position and then removing it from another position.

Farsight's main argument here is how absurd it seems, which is not much of an argument.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2014, 01:35 PM   #2483
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,530
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
But it's saying a photon interacts with a virtual electron-positron pair.
Yep. About as good as a verbal description gets.

Quote:
It's saying pair production occurs because pair production has already occurred. It's a tautology. It's wrong.
Why didn't you say so before? Anyway, if you want a verbal description: this is quantum mechanics. Whether something "has already occurred" or not is an imprecise statement to begin with, and this formulation is reasonably clear. If you are looking at a Dirac-Equation-centric derivation (leading to Feynman diagrams) it is easiest to translate into words like "pair creation" and "annihilation operator". If you are looking at at Maxwell's-Equation-centric derivation, the exact same mathematical terms are easiest to describe as "polarizability" and "susceptibility". I suppose the latter language encourages you to think of the electron-positron pairs as "already there" in the vacuum (as would have been the case in polarizable solids) whereas the former encourages you to think of them as "created" during the interaction, but ... I mean, why would you try to mine all of this meaning out of a few words when the equation on the next page is very precise about what it means?

Oh, I know: because you're looking for an argument, and you don't know how to argue with an equation, because you don't do math.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2014, 01:46 PM   #2484
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,776
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It's gamma-gamma pair production remember?
That is a really odd statement, Farsight.
* I search Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF) and find no mention of "gamma" let alone "gamma-gamma pair production"
* What you quote is about virtual particles but pair production is usually real particles. The paper uses "pair-creation".
* What you quote is not about a photon "morphing into an electron-positron pair". It is about virtual particle pairs appearing out of the vacuum and then annihilating each other a short time later. This is standard quantum field theory.
* QED does model the photon-photon interaction. The paper is using QED to model the photon-photon interaction!

It is impossible to remember something in a paper that does not exist in that paper .

ETA: Perhaps an explanation from my perspective will help:
* Maxwell's equations say that electromagnetic fields just add up in a vacuum (are linear).
* Virtual electron-positron pairs are always popping in and out of existence in a vacuum.
* An external electromagnetic field should polarize these virtual electron-positron pairs.
* That polarization will add an extra component to the addition of electromagnetic fields thus they will not just add up as in Maxwell's equations.
* Photons are electromagnetic fields !
Thus take a couple of laser beams and let them cross. The EM field of each beam will polarize the virtual particles thus affecting the other beam. There will be a non-linear effect that could be detectable in intense laser beams.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th February 2014 at 02:05 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2014, 01:57 PM   #2485
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,530
Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Sorry, misposted
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2014, 03:51 PM   #2486
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,080
For the sake of accuracy, here is a summary of the exchange about protons and electrons are photons in "loops."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=129

The key being:
Quote:
I will repeat my challenge that there is no experimental or theoretical basis within QFT for the notion that electrons and protons are photons in some kind of "loops."
If you have evidence to the contrary this would be a good time to present it -- and please do include your "pointer."
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 27th February 2014 at 03:52 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 09:25 AM   #2487
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Yep. About as good as a verbal description gets.
It isn't good. It's badly wrong.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Why didn't you say so before? Anyway, if you want a verbal description: this is quantum mechanics. Whether something "has already occurred" or not is an imprecise statement to begin with, and this formulation is reasonably clear. If you are looking at a Dirac-Equation-centric derivation (leading to Feynman diagrams) it is easiest to translate into words like "pair creation" and "annihilation operator". If you are looking at at Maxwell's-Equation-centric derivation, the exact same mathematical terms are easiest to describe as "polarizability" and "susceptibility". I suppose the latter language encourages you to think of the electron-positron pairs as "already there" in the vacuum (as would have been the case in polarizable solids) whereas the former encourages you to think of them as "created" during the interaction, but ... I mean, why would you try to mine all of this meaning out of a few words when the equation on the next page is very precise about what it means? Oh, I know: because you're looking for an argument, and you don't know how to argue with an equation, because you don't do math.
Er, no. We're on the crackpot physics thread, I'm pointing some out, you're pretending you can't see it, and trying to hide behind math. Tsk. Watch and learn...



Originally Posted by Reality Check
That is a really odd statement, Farsight.
* I search Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF) and find no mention of "gamma" let alone "gamma-gamma pair production"
* What you quote is about virtual particles but pair production is usually real particles. The paper uses "pair-creation".
* What you quote is not about a photon "morphing into an electron-positron pair". It is about virtual particle pairs appearing out of the vacuum and then annihilating each other a short time later. This is standard quantum field theory.
Virtual particles are virtual. They aren't real particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later. See Matt Strassler's article. OK, now take a look at the wiki Two photon physics article. It says "A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion–antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple". Now watch my lips: no it can't. A 511keV photon does not hoppety-skip through space magically morphing into a 511keV electron and a 511kev positron, which magically turn back into a single 511keV photon which all the while manages to keep on travelling at the speed of light. And pair production does not occur because pair production occurred. Spontaneously. Like worms from mud. That's crackpot!

Originally Posted by Reality Check
* QED does model the photon-photon interaction. The paper is using QED to model the photon-photon interaction!
The paper gave you a photon-electron interaction. So does wiki. See this bit: "From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge". Somebody has inserted the next sentence since I've raised this issue. The front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. But the main point is that photons interact with photons, and QED doesn't cover it.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
...Virtual electron-positron pairs are always popping in and out of existence in a vacuum...
No they aren't. That's pop-science cargo-cult physics.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 09:33 AM   #2488
edd
Graduate Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. But the main point is that photons interact with photons, and QED doesn't cover it.
Wow. I expect some things from Farsight but I didn't expect anything like that.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 09:39 AM   #2489
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,328
I tell you edd, this is a big issue. And you heard it here first.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 09:41 AM   #2490
edd
Graduate Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,883
Yeah, all photons having a positive charge at the front and a negative one at the back, and you knowing where QED is wrong - that'd definitely count as big. And I definitely heard it hear first.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 10:51 AM   #2491
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,530
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Virtual particles are virtual. They aren't real particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later.
Yes, they're virtual particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later.

Quote:
It says "A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion–antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple".
Again, this is another reasonably good way to verbally describe the QED Lagrangian. Which has been extensively tested in experiments.

Quote:
Now watch my lips: no it can't. A 511keV photon does not hoppety-skip through space magically morphing into a 511keV electron and a 511kev positron, which magically turn back into a single 511keV photon which all the while manages to keep on travelling at the speed of light.
Of course it doesn't. Again, a better verbal description of the physics is that it morphs into a (virtual) massless electron and a massless positron---in the language of QED the word is "off-shell"---which annihilate and return to being a massless photon. There's nothing wrong with that, and the general effect being used ("the mass in a propagator is subject to quantum-mechanical uncertainty") has been observed directly in experiment.

I'm curious which QED books you've read such that you didn't learn this extremely basic fact about virtual particles.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 11:03 AM   #2492
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,530
All verbal descriptions of QED are "really wrong" and "pop science".

All mathematical descriptions of QED are "hiding behind math"

All experimental predictions/confirmations of QED are (*&#$!@&@^@@

(Numerical QED predictions and experimental confirmations do not register in this system. It was just swamp gas. Please look into the neuralyzer---ZAP. What were we talking about? Spring training has started, will Jeter's ankle hold up do you think?)
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 01:46 PM   #2493
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Yeah, all photons having a positive charge at the front and a negative one at the back, and you knowing where QED is wrong - that'd definitely count as big. And I definitely heard it hear first.
Maybe that's the big overdue "pointer" I've been promised.
Farsight, can you produce some experimental evidence and an alternative to the standard QED treatment of the photon to demonstrate this revelation?
Your Nobel prize is being polished as you read this.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 02:36 PM   #2494
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,530
I love that Farsight's photons violate charge-reversal and time-reversal invariance. It's not "some sort of charge form factor", it's specifically + at the front, - at the back. When did that start, Farsight? Before or after Ben Franklin decided on the arbitrary sign convention? Does a photon emitted by antimatter have the opposite electric dipole?

How large are these charges and how far apart are they? Are they approximately one wavelength apart, for example? Perhaps I can compare your predictions to an experimental result I have right in front of me which is relevant to this sort of hypothesis.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 02:50 PM   #2495
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,735
The better question is how does that charge separation occur at all?

I mean they would attract and cancel right away.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2014, 02:52 PM   #2496
edd
Graduate Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
The better question is how does that charge separation occur at all?

I mean they would attract and cancel right away.
Nah they both have to go at the speed of light remember?
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 08:11 AM   #2497
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Yeah, all photons having a positive charge at the front and a negative one at the back, and you knowing where QED is wrong - that'd definitely count as big. And I definitely heard it hear first.
They don't have a positive charge at the front and a negative charge at the back. That's not what I said. See two-photon physics and note that it does say this: but half wavelength is a positive charge and the next half wavelength is a negative charge. That's wrong, and I said the front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. Draw a positive field variation followed by a negative field variation.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 08:21 AM   #2498
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Yes, they're virtual particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later.
It's a popscience myth. It doesn't actually happen. Space is not a seething maelstrom of electrons and positrons popping in an out of existence. A virtual particle is not a real particle. Nor is it a short-lived real particle. As per Matt Strassler's article, it is not a particle at all. Pay attention now:

"The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle".

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Again, this is another reasonably good way to verbally describe the QED Lagrangian. Which has been extensively tested in experiments.
No it isn't. A 511keV photon does not hoppety-skip through space magically morphing into a 511keV electron and a 511kev positron, which magically turn back into a single 511keV photon which all the while manages to keep on travelling at the speed of light. And pair production does not occur because pair production occurred. That's a tautology. That's crackpot.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Of course it doesn't. Again, a better verbal description of the physics is that it morphs into a (virtual) massless electron and a massless positron---in the language of QED the word is "off-shell"---which annihilate and return to being a massless photon. There's nothing wrong with that, and the general effect being used ("the mass in a propagator is subject to quantum-mechanical uncertainty") has been observed directly in experiment.
There's plenty wrong with that. Virtual particles are not real particles. Electrons are not massless. An electron and a positron cannot annihilate to a single photon. It's a fairy tale, ben.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I'm curious which QED books you've read such that you didn't learn this extremely basic fact about virtual particles.
I "learned this basic fact" years ago. I can't remember where from. But I rejected it as a fairy tale when I learned more physics. You will too.

Originally Posted by ben m
I love that Farsight's photons violate charge-reversal and time-reversal invariance. It's not "some sort of charge form factor", it's specifically + at the front, - at the back. When did that start, Farsight? Before or after Ben Franklin decided on the arbitrary sign convention? Does a photon emitted by antimatter have the opposite electric dipole?
Don't look at me. Look at whoever edited that Wikipedia article.

Originally Posted by ben m
How large are these charges and how far apart are they? Are they approximately one wavelength apart, for example? Perhaps I can compare your predictions to an experimental result I have right in front of me which is relevant to this sort of hypothesis.
See my reply to edd above. I've never said a photon consists of two charged particles. That's would be getting things totally back to front.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 08:31 AM   #2499
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,530
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
They don't have a positive charge at the front and a negative charge at the back. That's not what I said. See two-photon physics and note that it does say this: but half wavelength is a positive charge and the next half wavelength is a negative charge. That's wrong,
It IS wrong. It was added by an anonymous user who also added gibberish to the "proton" article.

Quote:
and I said the front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. Draw a positive field variation followed by a negative field variation.
And that's wrong too. Please do not add it to Wikipedia. I can "draw a positive field variation followed by a negative field variation". The former is nothing like a positron, in whole or in part, whatever that means. The latter is nothing like a partial electron. The two together are nothing like a photon.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 10:13 AM   #2500
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
It IS wrong. It was added by an anonymous user who also added gibberish to the "proton" article.
I'm glad we agree about something.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
And that's wrong too. Please do not add it to Wikipedia.
I've never updated Wikipedia, and have no plans to do so.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I can "draw a positive field variation followed by a negative field variation". The former is nothing like a positron, in whole or in part, whatever that means. The latter is nothing like a partial electron. The two together are nothing like a photon.
Sorry ben, but you're wrong about this. Like I said, a 511kev photon doesn't spontaneously morph into an electron and a positron which you label as "off shell" so you can break all the rules of physics. Virtual particles are virtual, they don't pop in and out of existence like magic. But QED can handle photon-photon pair production, for a reason. Yes, the anonymous wiki editor got it wrong, but the "given reason" really is crackpot. Think about it. Think for yourself.

Gotta go.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 11:23 AM   #2501
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,530
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post

Sorry ben, but you're wrong about this. Like I said, a 511kev photon doesn't spontaneously morph into an electron and a positron which you label as "off shell" so you can break all the rules of physics. Virtual particles are virtual, they don't pop in and out of existence like magic. But QED can handle photon-photon pair production, for a reason. Yes, the anonymous wiki editor got it wrong, but the "given reason" really is crackpot. Think about it. Think for yourself.

Gotta go.
Just like all your other posts. Mainstream physics, as represented by pop-science-article quotes, sounds wrong to you. You can't point to an actual error in the math, calculations, or experiments, you just quote the words and declare that you see them as nonsense. You claim to know a better picture, but rather than laying it out you say "think about it".

Same old same old.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 11:47 AM   #2502
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,485
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Same old same old.
Indeed.

What's remarkable is this: after all this time, after thousands of posts, in dozens of forums, Farsight has not convinced even one person of the validity of his models. Nor the validity of his critiques of GR, QED, etc.

Not even one.

And how does Farsight react to this gigantic failure of his to communicate?

If he truly believed he was onto something that no one else in the world had - apparently - understood, you might expect him to try harder, wouldn't you? For example, to learn enough of the relevant mathematics so that he could re-phrase his deep insights in ways that those more familiar with the essentials of GR than he is could more readily grasp. Or write up a key part of his thesis in the form of a scientific paper, and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or ...
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 12:30 PM   #2503
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 10,260
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Farsight's main argument here is how absurd it seems, which is not much of an argument.
Exactly.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I love that Farsight's photons violate charge-reversal and time-reversal invariance. It's not "some sort of charge form factor", it's specifically + at the front, - at the back. When did that start, Farsight? Before or after Ben Franklin decided on the arbitrary sign convention? Does a photon emitted by antimatter have the opposite electric dipole?

How large are these charges and how far apart are they? Are they approximately one wavelength apart, for example? Perhaps I can compare your predictions to an experimental result I have right in front of me which is relevant to this sort of hypothesis.
I predict a lack of answers to these questions.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 02:37 PM   #2504
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,080
Back to the OP, crackpots invariably discuss physics with words, pictures, diagrams, analogies, etc. -- in other words -- anything but mathematics. How else could they maintain their delusional notions of physics?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 02:51 PM   #2505
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,530
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
If he truly believed he was onto something that no one else in the world had - apparently - understood, you might expect him to try harder, wouldn't you?
Maybe that gets to the crux of it---the difference between a crackpot and a non-crackpot-with-radical-ideas. Someone has some nifty and (they think) important and new idea. They get excited because they think it's right; they try to explain it to you. You tell them it's wrong.

A scientist responds by doing more science---adding more detail, more and clearer explanations, testing edge cases, etc. etc.. A crackpot responds by blaming the audience and staying in exactly the same place.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2014, 08:18 PM   #2506
lpetrich
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Back to the OP, crackpots invariably discuss physics with words, pictures, diagrams, analogies, etc. -- in other words -- anything but mathematics. How else could they maintain their delusional notions of physics?
Some of them go as far as claiming that they don't need math for this or that reason. Like how math cannot be a fundamental sort of language for describing physical theories.

Or else they want someone else to work out the math of their theories.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2014, 04:40 PM   #2507
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,776
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It Virtual particles are virtual.
Yes - virtual particles are virtual

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
They aren't real particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later.
Yes, virtual particles aren't real particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later .
ETA: They do have properties like real particles such as charge.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
...snipped Wikipedia irrelevance...
Now watch my lips, Farsight :
* I search Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF) and find no mention of "gamma" let alone "gamma-gamma pair production"
* What you quote is about virtual particles but pair production is usually real particles, e.g. real electron positron production in the presence of a nucleus. The paper uses "pair-creation".
* What you quote is not about a photon "morphing into an electron-positron pair". It is about virtual particle pairs appearing out of the vacuum and then annihilating each other a short time later. This is standard quantum field theory.
* The paper is about photon-photon scattering and uses QED to model it:
Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF).

ETA: My guess is that you are going on a semantic nitpicking derail. This is the scattering of real photons from real photons caused by the polarization of virtual electron/positron pairs. The real effects would be measured on the real photons. Thus "photon-photon scattering" rather than "photon-photon scattering caused by the polarization of virtual electron/positron pairs"!

The whole point is that photons interact with photons, and
* classical mechanics (Maxwell's equations) says it does not happen.
* QED says it is possible by interacting with virtual particles.

The paper gave you a photon-electron interaction. So does wiki. See this bit: "From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge". Somebody has inserted the next sentence since I've raised this issue. The front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. But the main point is that photons interact with photons, and QED doesn't cover it.

Virtual electron-positron pairs are always popping in and out of existence in a vacuum. That is basic quantum mechanics, Farsight.
Citing an irrelevant but interesting article (Cargo Cult Science) by Richard Feynman does not change this basic physics !
Citing one of the funders of Quantum Field Theory is especially ignorant since QFT is full of virtual particles!
Quote:
Most theories in standard particle physics are formulated as relativistic quantum field theories, such as QED, QCD, and the Standard Model. QED, the quantum field-theoretic description of the electromagnetic field, approximately reproduces Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics in the low-energy limit, with small non-linear corrections to the Maxwell equations required due to virtual electron–positron pairs.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd March 2014 at 04:55 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2014, 05:13 PM   #2508
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,776
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm glad we agree about something.
A bigger issue is why did you not recognize that this was nonsense added to that Wikipedia article, Farsight?
It looks obvious to me since I studied QFT (many years ago!):
Quantum electrodynamics never looks at "half-wavelengths" of photons. It is concerned with creation and annihilation operators on whole photons or electrons.
There is the minor fact that photons are treated as elementary particles with no extent (and a really small experimental upper limit to their size).
Also look at the Talk page.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2014, 07:10 PM   #2509
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,668
disenchantment with Electric Universe

Crackpottery is not a black hole from which there can be no escape. Here's the last paragraph of a long and thoughtful essay written by a layman who fell in with the Electric Universe folks, but got better:

Originally Posted by Hossein Turner
On the whole, the EU has some serious issues to resolve and questions to answer if it wishes to recover or even build-up its credibility within the global scientific community. For now, it gives me the impression that the majority of EU proponents spend most of their time selectively attacking or promoting pieces of other peoples' work, without doing enough analytical or problem-solving work of their own. It also seems to be a group that attracts the naivety of the layman who may be too easily persuaded by novel and original niche theories with little quantitative meat on the bones of the theory. In reality, astrophysics is a hard science that requires many hours of detailed study and an aptitude for interdisciplinary learning. This apparent (and often counterintuitive) difficulty however, should not put people off in their endeavours to further their understanding of our mysterious and complex universe.

The essay mentions our esteemed Tim Thompson and our departed Michael Mozina.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2014, 07:43 PM   #2510
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,776
A while since I looked at the EU woo.
Came across something interesting - even a creationist (maybe YEC) can see the problems with EU or at least Donald E. Scott’s book, The Electric Sky: An Evaluation of Plasma Astronomy
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2014, 08:33 AM   #2511
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 17,902
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Crackpottery is not a black hole from which there can be no escape. Here's the last paragraph of a long and thoughtful essay written by a layman who fell in with the Electric Universe folks, but got better:
Interesting read. I liked this part:
Quote:
In a weak attempt to counter-debunk Tom Bridgman's criticisms, TB website administrator Dave Smith insinuated that Hannes Alfven is the final authority on the behaviour of plasmas. Not only that, it seems Dave Smith fails to even understand the quotes that he is presenting from Alfven
Blind reliance on a dated authority figure without understanding what said authority actually said in the first place. Sound familiar to anyone?
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2014, 08:36 AM   #2512
Hellbound
Abiogenic Spongiform
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,814
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Blind reliance on a dated authority figure without understanding what said authority actually said in the first place. Sound familiar to anyone?
Not to mention that labelling anything as the "final authority" is pretty much an admission that one has abandoned the basic principles of scienctific endeavor.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2014, 06:25 AM   #2513
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 10,260
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Blind reliance on a dated authority figure without understanding what said authority actually said in the first place. Sound familiar to anyone?
Hell yes.
And not just in pseudo-science, it happens in JFK and 911 CTs and elsewhere.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2014, 08:53 AM   #2514
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,668
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Interesting read. I liked this part:
Quote:
In a weak attempt to counter-debunk Tom Bridgman's criticisms, TB website administrator Dave Smith insinuated that Hannes Alfven is the final authority on the behaviour of plasmas. Not only that, it seems Dave Smith fails to even understand the quotes that he is presenting from Alfven
I fixed that for you by restoring the link on "insinuated".

If you follow that link, you'll find Dave Smith, "independent researcher and Managing Editor of the Thunderblog", speaking with authority on a subject he understands quite well:
Originally Posted by Dave Smith
The recent explosion of blogs on the internet now gives a voice to many who would otherwise be 'nobodys'. A superficially impressive website can be built almost overnight and populated with some self-published papers and a few choice quotes, which can then be used in an attempt to gain notoriety or attention whilst attacking the views of others with whom the author, posing as a well-informed skeptic, disagrees.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2014, 02:57 PM   #2515
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,776
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
If you follow that link,
you will also find this Dave Smith essentially exposing EU as a religion, not science
Quote:
The EU states that the universe is of unknown age and size and that a big bang event is unnecessary and not supported by empirical evidence.
(my emphasis added)
It ignores that the Big Bang event is supported by empirical evidence and so EU stating the opposite is dogma not science.
He is confirming that "that EU theorists use the same tactics as creationists", e.g.
* start with the assertion that X is correct and thus all evidence that X is not correct is wrong.
* tend to believe in "holy" books (the EU obsession with the works of Anthony L. Peratt and Hannes Alfven while largely ignoring modern textbooks).
* tend to believe in authorities rather than the scientific consensus (Peratt and Alfven again appear a lot).
* tend to ignore actual science, e.g. the fact that plasma physics is a well established part of astronomy. No astronomer or cosmologists ignores plasma - they just know what it is capable of doing.

Dave Smith seems to be even ignorant about what plasma cosmology is !
Alfven's invalid Plasma Cosmology does not have anything to do with the EU "plasma cosmology" which is not even defined except as set of theories (even if mutually exclusive or invalid) that say that there was no Big Bang and have the word plasma in them.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th March 2014 at 02:58 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.