ukgazzer

I may be biased but I agree with everything you`ve said Owl (for what it`s worth).There is more to science than maths - That`s a bit radical !

I wish the 1% of people who are convinced that they understand physics would come out of the woodwork and supply us with a theory of everything! It is human nature for people who are accustomed to one thing finding it difficult to accept and adapt to another - I can`t see how scientists can be insulated from this. Scientists seem like politicians in that they often can`t say what they think in public because they might offend a lot of people. Unless you`re at the very top of your field like Einstein (There isn`t anybody like that on this forum is there?!!) I like the concept of people expressing ideas- I wish there were more of them- and preferably the stranger the ideas are the better- because that might make clever people think about things in a different way and maybe come up with a better version of the truth. GR and QM aren`t expressed in a consistent language. Even though the equations are revolutionary the interpretations seem inconsistent with each other (at least to me)- This is my most common gripe. Sorry I was being a little facetious- I think that newts becoming a moderator would really irritate quite a few people.

I thought that science was all about religion. ~99% of people wish that physics could be understood ~1% of people believe that expressing their suspicions and risking looking like a fool is worth it if it inspires somebody. Educated individuals don`t seem to believe that they can risk doing so-which is a pity really because then we`re stuck. I would like to believe that there was chronic 'Not being able to see the wood for the trees' syndrome in the academic community and that one revelation would make everything simple,predictable and understandable again- but that is a belief- probably one shared by a lot of people. I would like to believe that a theory will come along that will enable us to go to the stars,see the regions around black holes etc for ourselves because I don`t want people to be sitting in front of screens on the internet in 100 years time arguing about quarks and religion. The most knowledgeable individuals here are expressing an attitude that only theories that supply testable predictions and that can be verified are worth their time of day- What about new theories that agree with observation but with predictions that can`t be tested in the near future- Will they be forgotten? Is it unscientific to believe that theories should be expressed in a language that is consistent with other theories as well as providing solid maths? I wish that newts was one of the moderators in this forum.

Is the universe governed by forces or energy? Could the most fundamental particles have fixed negative potential energies so that they always exist in some kind of bound state? e=1/r1 - 1/r2 + 1/r3 - 1/r4... = constant (<0)(odd= 'attractive' even='repulsive') If this was so,there would be most probable configurations in which particles were separated by certain distances. For two 'attracting' particles moving further apart,other particles would have to compensate by moving closer to them into less probable configurations. Moving between states of differing probabilities would appear to us as a force and for human beings to reach lower probability states-say a rocket lifting off- would require a manipulation of matter which could be seen as an expenditure of chemical energy. This is PURE SPECULATION (this idea was just a daydream) but how close as a model of our universe could this get? (It would be nice if we could dispense with the Strong Nuclear Force,the Weak Nuclear Force etc etc !!!!) (I hope people aren`t getting fed up of my posts!) oops odd = repulsive even=attractive

Thanks for replying. ii/ I`m saying that EM should cause effects from moment to moment- tugging and budging fast moving particles etc- not just over longer periods of time.Reality must be considered a sequence of moments. All this tugging and budging will result in a net attraction as objects will naturally move towards attracting objects- increasing the attraction -and move away from repelling ones. iv/ OK-I`ve read at sometime a concern over the failure to discover monopoles. v/ The effects of EM should be consistent over all timescales. Without momentary tugging and budging we will not get pushing and pulling and EM would have no measurable effects. vi/ gravity is acting on us from every direction and it is very very weak in comparison to EM. Cosmologists talk about gravity waves. We`re talking about very small effects. (We`re also talking about a topic I brought up earlier on - Maybe more crazy logic but it`s consistent with this!) ix/ The probable magnitude of these effects can only be surmised from EM effects that we are familiar with. Magnetic effects we are familiar with are very small when compared to the EM field around a hypothetical monopole. As I said,I need help with the maths to express the precise range and magnitude of these effects as it is complicated-It involves many particles -The uncertainty principle and relativistic effects have to be considered - This maths is beyond me!

i/ I know that dipole - dipole interactions are 1/r4 - I actually did the maths for this many years ago and this is what textbooks say. A single dipoles field goes like 1/r3 and this is what my maths says and what your webpage says- this is intuitively logical. ii I`m not explaining my effect in terms of dipoles. The gist of my grievances is that if EM can act over measurable timeframes on static systems why can`t it act from instant to instant on dynamic ones? The world is full of examples of charge displacements in neutral substances caused by external influences- how can this not happen from instant to instant on fast moving particles? iii/ as i said in 2 and before I`m not describing this force simply in terms of dipoles-it`s just an illustration of the kind of behavior I`d expect to see from moment to moment at the subatomic level. iv/ Established theories predict magnetic monopoles-you can`t say that they`re all wrong(!) v/ I`m saying that the properties of electromagnetism should be consistent over any period of time not just a measurable amount of time sufficient to say,polarize a material. vi/ Faraday cages might shield against EM or they may only shield against most EM phenomena. A Faraday cage relies on the behavior of electrons in atoms to function,not on anything more fundamentally sub atomic. I can`t see how a materials conductivity would have an effect on swiftly changing fields caused by the motion of subatomic particles. vii/ I did not say QM and GR are useless.I said the interpretations of their perfect equations are contradictory and less than helpful-The equations are useful and have contributed to many technological advances. viii/ I haven't read the physics manual from cover to cover and studied chemistry at university because I thought that some of physics was wrong even 20 years ago. Apparently even the experts are starting to think so now too. gravity is about 10^34 times weaker than EM but I`m talking about very small effects and the strength of gravity is entirely consistent with the probable magnitude of these effects.

i/ The relationship between dipoles is a 1/r4 one. The effect on a dipole in a field is 1/r3 one. And anyway I repeat I didn`t say the effect had anything (or much) to do with dipoles-Its just an illustration of neutral substances having separable centres of charge. ii/ 2 dipoles interacting we can approximate mathematically as 4 charges-2 in each dipole. The observations I outline have to involve substantially more particles at a subatomic level and directly comparing the effect with a 1/r3 or 1/r4 relationship exhibited with dipoles would be incorrect. iii/ If this was gravity the equations would have to produce a 1/r2 result. I`m not sure if they would but on the other hand I can`t imagine the effects not being noticeable and if the reasoning is sound and they mimic gravity, they must be gravity so must be 1/r2 even if I can`t do the math. (Unless somebody can actually genuinely seriously give me a convincing argument why any of this is impossible-like somebody doing the math and proving this is wrong.) iv/ I wonder,with even the best equipment, whether people would see magnetic monopoles in isolation? Even conventional wisdom predicts them but nobody can find them - Isolated charges like that would surely not say isolated for very long. v/ how am I saying electromagnetism doesn`t behave like electromagnetism? I`m trying to find an explanation for gravity in terms of conventional EM effects that I believe must occur that mimic gravity. vi/ Faraday cages would have to shield against gravity and we would have to have a complete understanding of how they accomplished this for this argument to be relevant. vii/ I know that predicting the properties of the Higgs Boson would be a very great accomplishment but if it results in reasoning that is wrong - like (perhaps) General Relativity and quantum mechanics - and we were faced with the possibility of waiting many years to clear up the mess, it wouldn`t in my mind be as great an achievement as I would`ve hoped for. viii/ A scientific theory should match reality - both quantitatively and qualitatively. If it fails the first then it is invalid. If it fails the second - is inconsistent with other established theories - then either it or the other theories are at least partially invalid- Isn`t that or shouldn`t that be the case?

I figured out that dipole dipole interactions will follow a 1/r4 relationship but for the real world that is simplistic. The real world isn`t composed of 4 charges. This is I admit pure speculation but I would imagine that surrounding charges would oppose the deflection of any single charge by another and that this effect would increase with increasing deflections- Would this have any effect on a perceived 1/r4 relationship ? Could it in fact be reduced down to a 1/r2 relationship? I do not have sufficient knowledge of maths to express this as an equation. Nobody has found magnetic monopoles but it doesn`t mean that they don`t exist.It is tempting for successful theorists to get up on platforms and proclaim that they have finally solved the mysteries of science - history is littered with them - but will it ever be possible to say for certain that we have found the centre of the onion? Won`t there always be the possibility of other layers further down,and magnetic monopoles must be very elusive entities by their very nature. Faraday cages and electromagnetic shielding are themselves composed of matter and have mass and I doubt would have much effect on transient deflections in charges for elementary subatomic particles. Should we be in a situation in modern physics where reality is explained by two currently incompatible and inconsistent schools of thought, one of which explains things by modifying geometry and the other by using uncertainty and neither of which is suitable for explaining the whole thing even though both explain their areas of reality effectively? As an outsider I believe that there should be consistent logical reasoning behind the math. It's apples and oranges and currently, if somebody comes along and accurately predicts the properties of the Higgs boson to 10 decimal places in terms of bananas I have a nasty feeling that everybody will embrace it.

Electromagnetism is an 1/r2 force. Dipole interactions are higher powers but I only mention them here as an illustration of the fact that in our macroscopic world, neutral substances often have separable centers of charge. Whether the effects I describe would have a range of 1/r2 or even 1/r6 is irrelevant - For a large amount of material the effects would still be seen. If it was something like 1/r15 then maybe I`m barking up the wrong tree but I can`t see this being the case. If such phenomena are present and they are, and are attributed to gravity then in equations they must have a 1/r2 range. I`m not a mathematician and this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative argument but to ignore logic because you can`t find the right equation to give a mathematical explanation for it is folly. Should we really put maths ahead of logical reasoning?

In nature we see magnets attracting each other even though they`re neutrally charged,we see neutral atoms combining exothermically to from ionic lattices and covalently bound molecules,diamagnetism,paramegnetism..All this points to a conclusion that substances will tend to align themselves so that they will attract each another.It might be a minute effect in comparison with the electromagnetic force,but when considering large numbers of particles,we get something quite substantial as the effect doesn`t cancel out.Is this conclusion correct? In the everyday world where the particles are comparatively static we can see dipoles in common molecules like water and magnetism in iron,but what about the subatomic world?Here everything is moving so there are no obvious dipoles but shouldn`t there be transitory ones?If it is fair to assume that at any one instant the subatomic world will follow the same behavior as the one we`re more familiar with-like a single frame in a movie- then won`t there be more attractions than repulsions going on at any particular instant?Is it right to conclude that the microscopic world will behave similarly to our macroscopic world in this respect? If this logic is sound can`t we take it a step further?If a particle was influenced by its surroundings would this also affect the speed with which it could react to events in its immediate vicinity?Taking this influence to an extreme,couldn`t processes slow to a stop as particles would become fixed in certain patterns due to the influence of their neighbours?Wouldn`t time,in effect,slow to a stop from the particles perspective? For a large number of particles,if an EM field is applied,won`t they take time to react to it simply because the speed of light dictates that not only will individual particles get the message at different times,but that it will also take time to adjust to the reactions of their neighbors.Also surely this delay will only increase the more particles are considered?In effect shouldn`t it take time to move from a stationary state to one in motion even in a universe where electromagnetism and the speed of light are the only considerations? Have I not just described the behavior of gravity?Is all this totally contrived? I do know that some theorists have been trying to formulate equations to explain gravity in terms of dynamic processes without success but how can they not be right? (This was another thing that made me study chemistry at university.)

Thank you. This is one of the questions that made me study chemistry,rather than physics at university-Seriously! Maybe textbooks don`t give enough answers,or explain how conclusions were reached with sufficient clarity,or maybe there is genuinely room for an element of doubt in modern theories. To a chemist like me some of this QM wave-particle stuff sounds like magic,although maybe I simply don`t understand the maths!

Thanks for the replies. I`m not sure what to believe.The history of science has a lot of revolutions in it! What I mean by a medium is not the classical aether but merely ordinary matter.How can ordinary matter not be affected by,and alter the appearance of light,if light is an EM field? Charged elementary particles in an observer surely must be deflected if,say +ve charges in products are closer to the observer than they were in the reactants- The observer sees a sudden change in EM potential in that direction-That must do something!Surely?And thus ordinary matter must surely be considered as a medium-even if it did not lie directly in the path from the source to the observer it would have to have an effect on the light perceived by the observer. I`ve looked up the two experiments. Youngs Double Slit:I would be convinced if the material either side of the slits wasn`t susceptible to electromagnetic forces,wasn`t in a state of continuous motion at the atomic level,and thus didn`t have a potential to deflect electrons/photons by varying amounts(but perhaps maybe not to the extent or in the pattern we observe.)Surely atoms will defect electrons,and surely(classically at least) the positions of charges in an atom will vary over time and so the field an electron(or photon) has to pass through will also vary over time? Or has this been taken into account by the experimenters,and the effect discarded from the results? Photoelectric Effect:If light was neither a wave nor a particle but merely a signal then the intensity of light would merely represent the number of individual reactions that caused the light,each signal from each reaction would arrive almost together and with a strength proportional to the frequency of the light-the violence of the reaction.I can`t see how this signal would produce different results from photons.

Light is emitted from processes that (as far as I know) involve a rapid reorganization of charged particles and this light is emitted into an environment that is full of other charged particles that will adapt to any changes in EM fields and by adapting will also cause 2y adaptations etc etc. Taking into account the speed of light,a reaction that would`ve lasted perhaps a picosecond would take a lot longer to be registered by an observer as i/it would take time for the particles in any detector to move in response to the field ii/ it would be impossible to separate the effect of the surroundings from the localized effects from the actual reaction.As the rest of the universe is more substantial than the few participants in a reaction,wouldn`t any adaptation by the environment disguise the observed effects from the reactants?Wouldn`t the observed effects from reactants and environment appear as waves?I don`t know where the flaw is in this logic! Do (Could?) all processes that produce light involve a reorganization of charged particles? Would surrounding matter be affected by very rapid positional changes in charged particles? Light is an EM field and will effect charged fundamental particles,won`t it? Could environmental effects disguise the effects from the process itself? Does the concept of the speed of light allow alternative interpretations for the nature of light? Does the speed limit of c mean that any sudden process would appear as waves ,as 'seen' by groups of particles? Can any detector (since they are all made of matter and there is a speed limit of c)react instantly to a stimulus? Would environmental effects cause apparent wave/particle behavior? (Wouldn`t individual particles react differently depending on their positions relative to neighbors and collectively cause waves?) Are we trying to attribute wave particle effects to a carrier when it could just as easily be attributed to the medium in which the processes occur? If this is right(!!) why do we need photons and light waves?

My humble input(I hope I don`t sound too ignorant): 1/I`m not a mathematician,but it sounds a bit like induction maybe?Some underlying principle?It sounds attractive because it potentially leaves something for future theorists to figure out- And please leave them something! 2/To oppose a new idea because it violates some theorem or other,is bogus science.If the idea fits the facts more satisfactorily then it should be at least considered-That`s my religion anyway-Is it a totally crackpot one?I don`t know whether TEW fits the bill but to argue against it by saying that it violates Bells Theorem irritates me. 3/Determinism?Didn`t Einstein bring in the concept of the fundamental importance of the speed of light?If the sun exploded would we know about it for the next 8 minutes?That`s weirdly quantum mechanical isn`t it?

If you were given no knowledge of modern theories what would you guess black holes would be like from observations? -They seem to emit no light. -Massive amounts of material seem to be being shot out from areas in the vicinity of black holes- Do spiral bars come from there? Is that all we know?If so,what would be a best guess for the nature of black holes and how much does it agree with theory? What other observations agree with the conventional wisdom that they are singularities? (Sorry,another speculative BH topic)