Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by joigus

  1. I'm afraid that wouldn't work in keeping with what we know about electromagnetism. If the ratio of magnetic to electric charge is the same in all particles in the universe, you can then rotate every (electric, magnetic) pair to a new definition, \[ \left(\textrm{new electric quantity}\right)=\cos\alpha\left(\textrm{electric quantity}\right)-\sin\alpha\left(\textrm{magnetic quantity}\right) \] \[ \left(\textrm{new magnetic quantity}\right)=\sin\alpha\left(\textrm{electric quantity}\right)+\cos\alpha\left(\textrm{magnetic quantity}\right) \] And the new magnetic charge can be defined to be zero, with all the physics being the same. The Lorentz force law that @Mordred mentioned would have to be re-defined to be, \[ \boldsymbol{F}=q_{e}\left(\boldsymbol{E}+\boldsymbol{v}\times\boldsymbol{B}\right)+q_{m}\left(\boldsymbol{B}+\boldsymbol{v}\times\boldsymbol{E}\right) \] These are called duality transformations for the electromagnetic field. Unfortunately, neither the Wikipedia article, nor the Scholarpedia one, do a very good job of explaining what it is. If you're interested, I can do more, or suggest more material as an exercise. It's not hard.
  2. Ok. Thank you. I couldn't believe your statement. 😅
  3. I see. I don't think much that is essential has changed since the time it was written though. Ok. In that case the Amazon description could be misleading. It's only concenced with the postulates, and their logical consequences. IOW, whether or not the postulational basis of QM can be seen to describe the picture of a mathematical reality. Whether the logical implications correspond to empirical truths is taken for granted --it does-- and not a main point --or even a relevant point, AFAICR-- of the book. I see.
  4. @Eise is the local expert, if I'm allowed to say so. Eg, I'd heard about this David Z. Albert that he mentioned, but I'm not familiar with his work. The only book I can recommend is Michael Redhead's wonderful, Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism, which I liked quite a bit. Carl Popper and Russell etc, are of course classics, but I assume you've got that covered. Bohm was very philosophy-inclined, but his philosophy is sometimes perceived as impregnated with mysticism. Really --and Eise's and others' recommendations pending--, Michael Redhead's book is a very good and very serious read. I assume you meant physics, of course.
  5. Maybe it's just an impression on my part, but I think many scientists are unaware of changes in philosophy having taken place in past decades, plus the relatively recent coming of age of a new breed of philosopher scientists.
  6. Does that same ratio hold for every charged particle in the universe? According to your theory, that is. I'll be working on other members' queries, btw. And I'm just curious. How did we come out in your tolerance test?
  7. You're denying the possibility of intrinsic growth. 'Intrinsic' as in 'intrinsic geometry'. Things you can find out about without necessarily embedding them into a bigger, wider, more comprehensive ambient reality. 'Intrinsic' characterisation of geometric properties was a fundamental concern for Bernhard Riemann. Isn't it possible to define intrinsic growth? This is a question that I pose to you.
  8. Are you positing the existence of magnetic monopoles as a cause of anomalous quantum Hall effect in different ferromagnetic materials? Are you aware that magnetic monopoles have never been detected?
  9. It seems to me that you don't really have a theory. It's a non-falsifiable vague answer to a vague question: Things 'seem' fresh. Why? Do they, really? In what sense? Rocks age, but neutrons don't. You take a thousand of them and, after a quarter of an hour, half of them have decayed on average. And we're pretty sure that's what happened in the time of the pharaohs. So in a sense neutrons get old, but in another sense they don't. But rocks do get old. The amount of different radioactive materials decreases with time precisely due to beta decay, which helps geologists in the dating of rocks. So what do you even mean? Science concerns itself with things that can be measured, not with fancy notions that take place only in the eyes of the beholder.
  10. It was, because otherwise one rocket's relative speed to the other one is equal and opposite to the converse, no matter what relativity principle you use (Galilean or Einsteinian). It's exactly as Swansont said with 0.5, 0.5, giving 0.8 (in units of c) It's perhaps an illuminating exercise to do it with 0.99999 and 0.99999. It gives (0.99999+0.99999)/(1+0.99999*0.99999) = 0.9999999999 (in units of c) which is practically just c. But, and here's what interesting, with small velocities as compared to c. 0.00001, 0.00001, it gives (0.00001+0.00001)/(1+0.00001*0.00001)=0.00002000000000 which is so close to the simple addition of velocities that nobody could tell the difference. That's why our intuition tells us velocities are additive.
  11. Fantastic indeed. Thank you. The Suite muffled by the voices was great for setting the mood. I've long felt that all music gravitates towards Bach... or emanates from it. Or something like that. I feel that music before Bach is a preamble to Bach. And music after Bach is a corollary to Bach. Even atonal music seems like an attempt to break the shackles of Bach while still doing music. Like 'how little Bach can one get without making just noise?' I'm very partial about Bach, you see. I'm very Bach-centred. So thank you.
  12. If you don't summon any other observer, then it's 0.99999c relative to each other, as Swansont and others said or implied, and/or/thus I'm missing the point. / / 🤷‍♂️
  13. Moon, I think you're trying to think of an "impartial" observer who's sitting on some dock of the aeronautical bay, so to speak, and watches both approaching each other at 0.99999c. Then they would see each other approaching at higher than that, but never c or higher. You must run the Einstein velocity transformation formulas that to see how much. The relative speed from their POV would indeed be closer to c than that 0.9999c (or however many pieces of c she/he sees them from the dock. If you actually run the calculations, you'd find, I don't know, something like 0.999999999999999999999999999999c relative to each other (you actually must run the calculation if you want to know how many 9 digits closer to c). I think you're implicitly thinking of this "impartial observer" but failing to say so, and causing some amount of understandable confusion. Is that so? Does that help?
  14. (My emphasis). I think the importance of this comment cannot be overstated. How can there be a discrepancy between an energy density and an energy? It's like stating that there is a discrepancy between the speed of light and the radius of the proton.
  15. Your title confounds me. What delusion? You seem to be of the opinion that Dawkins is deluded. Could you elaborate?
  16. I tend to forget biologists are sooo carbon-centered...
  17. joigus


    Of course. Watch out for things like, \use_package amsmath 1 \use_package amssymb 1 \use_package cancel 1 \use_package esint 1 \use_package mathdots 0 \use_package mathtools 1 \use_package mhchem 1 \use_package stackrel 1 \use_package stmaryrd 1 \use_package undertilde 1 etc on your headers, that some of these editors automatically generate but doesn't 'tell' you about. Good point.
  18. joigus


    An interesting option is to get hold of a good WYSIWYG editor --there are many--, and generate the LateX code to copy and paste. You only have to worry about the code-wrapping symbols.
  19. Thanks. You're right. I also said "produce" when I meant to say "consume".
  20. Plants do cellular respiration too. It's only that they are nowhere nearly as energy-demanding as animals are. Plants have mitochondria, not just plastids. They do 'produce'. Google for: "animals have many more mitochondria than plants"...
  21. This is a point I've been meaning to bring up too. If you insist on saving the aether, you can, by introducing cumbersome hypotheses that clocks in motion slow down somehow and certain 'tensions' shorten the moving lengths somehow. Hendrik Lorentz did try something like that for a while from what I know. Old quantum theory was derived with the idea that particle positions were well defined. Later developments showed they aren't. Early relativistic ideas (Lorentz, Poincaré, etc) were developed with the idea of aether/absolute space. Later developments showed you can drop it and nobody would be any the wiser. You should read what other members are telling you: It's invariant, not constant. It produces the same reading in all inertial frames. You should also do the exercise that @Eise suggests. Just a pure mathematical exercise, with no appeal to any ether. It produces what's observed. You missed the point, I'm afraid. I didn't say that. Unless you're willing to admit that moving is a matter of perspective. Then I did say that. But then, staying where you are (not moving at all) is but a particular way of moving. And moving in general, is tilting an angle along a hyperbola.
  22. The 'change' in simultaneity is 'real'? Simultaneity is a frame-dependent concept, rather. The Earth 'suddenly ages' for real? The accelerating twin finds a path in ST for which proper time is less, rather. Time dilation/length contraction are real. As much as anything else that you see. They're very much like foreshortening. Is foreshortening just a matter of 'perspective', and therefore 'not real'? If you think that's the case, try to get a 4m-long pole inside a garage through a 3m-wide door with the pole's length parallel to the door. A clever person --who knows the laws of foreshortening-- manages to get the pole inside the garage by rotating it, and then rotating it back once inside (the close equivalent of the twin's U-turn). Don't get me wrong. You seem to be trying to make sense in an honest way, but you're trapped in an early-20th-century illusion. That's why you express yourself in such an obscure --and incorrect-- way. Some of the things you've said, though, sound like you're groping towards Mach's principle. But with the wrong toolkit taken from the junkyard of discarded ideas. And with the wrong outlook. Your 'ether' or 'absolute space' is (if anything) the distribution of energy in the universe.* That's why most of us look at you in disbelief, like the proverbial Earth-bound twin, wondering, "where have you been all these years? Your ideas haven't changed at all since the early 20th Century!" ----------------------------------- * Unfortunately (or not) Mach's principle is not a very useful constructive starting point in order to reach the right theory of gravitation. Although GR is definitely Machian in spirit: The distribution of stuff tells you how much you must deviate from locally inertiall in order to be aware that you're moving.
  23. This is only true on a field that is of characteristic > 2. In discrete arithmetics it's not true that 1+1=2. In binary arithmetics 1+1=0 or 2=0 (mod2). The moral of my silly little story: Don't take anything for granted. Not even aether theory. Yes, I know what acceleration is. I wonder whether you do. As to your last statement, it went badly wrong the moment you wrote 'so if'. Because nothing you said after that follows from the antecedent. But don't mind me. Carry on with your enthralling conversation.
  24. Will you just read what's answered to you??? Otherwise it's a monumental waste of time for everyone involved. (my emphasis.) The returning twin is subject to accelerations. Is it not? This is the major bone of contention with people who don't understand the twin's paradox. (Or should I say it just goes over their heads?) It is practically a socio-physical theorem that there will always be people who don't understand it. You are living proof of it.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.