Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Theories

[BenTheMan]

Farsight, it's hard to find any actual content in your post. You give a shitty argument, then spend four paragraphs talking about how well you explained things. Most interesting is this, from a previous post:

 

The result is photons, or leptons that can be annihilated to result in photons, or neutrinos (still leptons) that can also be annihilated to result in photons.

 

And, of course, here:

 

Remember I put neutrinos in a separate box. There was a reason for that.

 

I don't even think you know what you're talking about. You specifically said that neutrinos get annihilated into photons and I explicitly proved you wrong. Now it appears you have abandoned that position when I showed you how wrong you were.

 

Are neutrinos ``made of photons'' (God I get sick even THINKING this), or are they to be put in a separate box?

 

Where's the spin gone in an electron/positron annihilation?

 

Spin is conserved. The electron and positron add up to spin zero (one is left polarized, one in right polarized), and the resulting photons also add up to spin zero (two different transverse modes---one is right handed and one is left handed). But this depends on whether or not the electron-positron form a bound state (positronium). If this is the case, then there is added angular momentum, which gets radiated away as a photon, as the positronium decays into the ground state. Note that in THIS case, positronium to MANY electrons is possible:

http://www.int.washington.edu/talks/WorkShops/int_02_3/People/Vetter_P/pstalk.pdf

 

Even more rare processes have electron positron anihilating (via s or u channel reactions, I think) into 3 photons, as per here:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114283022/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

I wasn't aware of this untill I looked, but it seems that if the electron and positron don't have spins which are opposite, they can also anihilate directly (as opposed to forming a bound state) into three photons.

 

It's gone the same way as charge.

 

+1 + -1 = 0.

 

The geometrical configurations that we label as fermions are simply de-configured back into the things we label as bosons.

 

You completely ignored my point about pions, which was meant to address this. If this is the case, then why is it that we can see (in experiments) that pions decay into 2, 3, or 4 photons? Why is it that sometimes electron positron anihilation gives two photons, and sometimes it gives three photons? And sometimes it even gives more photons?

 

No I'm not wrong. And gluons don't prove me wrong. Show me a gluon. Perhaps you can point out an experiment that displays gluons. I can show you an experiment for proton/antiproton annihilation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations

 

total time: 12 seconds.

 

I'm explaining the deep reason for it.

 

How can you explain the reason for Lorentz Invariance if you don't even understand its consequences? The spinor and the vector are two different representations of the Lorentz Group. This means that the photon and the electron transform differently under the Lorentz Symmetry. (You will confuse this statement again, saying that I don't understand Lorentz Transformations. Aside from being far from true, it belies your ignorance about the group theoretical structure of space-time.)

 

It's quite simple: the real fundamental "particle" isn't a pion, or a gluon, or anything else that lasts a nanosecond or we can never observe. It isn't even the proton or the electron. It's the photon. Get used to it Ben. And stop making a fool of yourself.

 

But I've shown you so many times that this is wrong. (Now, I know the counter arguments that you COULD give, if you were intelligent enough---I know the faults with my own arguments. And if you happen to give one of those arguments, then I will have to find a stronger example.)

 

I'm not worried about making a fool of myself because I have done the calculations. You refuse to answer simple questions about your ideas, which tells me you know that I am right, or you don't fully understand your own ideas. If I show you gaps in your theories you should thank me, because I have shown you the things you need to explain.

 

Lockheed, are we seeing quarks and gluons?

 

I think you're seeing a shitpile of mesons, but I could be wrong. What usually happens in these things is you end up with something called jets---this is because the strong force is, well, strong. Think of a cut-open rubber band. You can stretch it back and forth pretty easily, no problem. But if you stretch it too much it breaks.

 

This is exactly what happens in the QGP. There is a quark soup that expands. As it expands, the strong force tries to pull it back together. But if the expansion is too fast, there is enough energy in the vacuum to create a quark anti-quark pair.

 

The relevant process is [math]G\rightarrow q \overline{q}[/math].

[Norman Albers]

You can combine two spin 1/2 particles to give you a net spin of 0 or 1. (larger integers if you add orbital values) What you can't do is combine spin 1 particles to give you a spin of 1/2. e⁺e^- annihilation is a combination of particles; you have to explain how each one independently is made up of a photon, and has spin 1/2 and charge.

.

 

Swansont, when I last communicated with Seb Doniach, Prof. of QM physics at Stanford, he described the dueling x-ray sources being set up at the accelerator storage rings, to, as he put it, "boil the vacuum" and yield pair production. Has this happened?

[BenTheMan]

There's a guy at OSU working on this, Lou DiMauro, I think is his name.

 

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~dimauro/

[swansont]

Swansont, when I last communicated with Seb Doniach, Prof. of QM physics at Stanford, he described the dueling x-ray sources being set up at the accelerator storage rings, to, as he put it, "boil the vacuum" and yield pair production. Has this happened?

 

I have no idea. Why would I know? I'm not at SLAC.

[YT2095]

+KER?

 

j/k

[Farsight]

I don't even think you know what you're talking about. You specifically said that neutrinos get annihilated into photons and I explicitly proved you wrong. Now it appears you have abandoned that position when I showed you how wrong you were. Are neutrinos ``made of photons'' (God I get sick even THINKING this), or are they to be put in a separate box?

 

Huh? Oh I get it. I said “The result is photons, or leptons that can be annihilated to result in photons, or neutrinos (still leptons) that can also be annihilated to result in photons”. Big deal, I missed out another “or leptons that can be annihilated to result in neutrinos. Gosh you’re really ladling it on thick there Ben. Clutching at straws.

 

http://www.acadjournal.com/2001/v4/part4/p1/

 

http://de.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608543v2.pdf

 

Spin is conserved. The electron and positron add up to spin zero (one is left polarized, one in right polarized), and the resulting photons also add up to spin zero (two different transverse modes---one is right handed and one is left handed). But this depends on whether or not the electron-positron form a bound state (positronium). If this is the case, then there is added angular momentum, which gets radiated away as a photon, as the positronium decays into the ground state. Note that in THIS case, positronium to MANY electrons is possible:

 

http://www.int.washington.edu/talks/WorkShops/int_02_3/People/Vetter_P/pstalk.pdf

 

Even more rare processes have electron positron annihilating (via s or u channel reactions, I think) into 3 photons, as per here:

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114283022/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

I wasn't aware of this untill I looked, but it seems that if the electron and positron don't have spins which are opposite, they can also annihilate directly (as opposed to forming a bound state) into three photons.

 

If you say so. Forgive me for not checking the above detail, I’ve got to go shortly. Yes, net charge and net spin are conserved. But the spin is gone. Like the charge is gone. It isn’t conserved. As you said, +1 + -1 = 0.

 

You completely ignored my point about pions, which was meant to address this. If this is the case, then why is it that we can see (in experiments) that pions decay into 2, 3, or 4 photons? Why is it that sometimes electron positron annihilation gives two photons, and sometimes it gives three photons? And sometimes it even gives more photons?

 

I wouldn’t answer because it’s not relevant to anything I’ve said in RELATIVITY+. All you’re doing is pushing me on knowledge of the Standard Model. But sigh, here you go: because a photon can be broken into two photons, as demonstrated by pair production, wherein each is reconfigured as a stable “moebius doughnut” soliton. You can’t similarly break an electron. It would take me a whole essay to describe the geometry of how this actually works, and you wouldn’t read it, so I won’t.

 

 

(re show me a gluon) total time: 12 seconds.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations

 

Er, no, that’s evidence of gluons. Try again. And try to do better than Lockheed.

 

How can you explain the reason for Lorentz Invariance if you don't even understand its consequences? The spinor and the vector are two different representations of the Lorentz Group. This means that the photon and the electron transform differently under the Lorentz Symmetry. (You will confuse this statement again, saying that I don't understand Lorentz Transformations. Aside from being far from true, it belies your ignorance about the group theoretical structure of space-time.)

 

Oh change the record. All you’re saying is that I can’t possibly understand something because look how complicated it is. It isn’t complicated Ben. Lorentz Invariance is simple. Sorry.

 

(re the real fundamental particle is the photon)But I've shown you so many times that this is wrong. (Now, I know the counter arguments that you COULD give, if you were intelligent enough---I know the faults with my own arguments. And if you happen to give one of those arguments, then I will have to find a stronger example.)

 

No you haven’t shown me so many times that this is wrong. We haven’t discussed this before.

 

I'm not worried about making a fool of myself because I have done the calculations. You refuse to answer simple questions about your ideas, which tells me you know that I am right, or you don't fully understand your own ideas. If I show you gaps in your theories you should thank me, because I have shown you the things you need to explain.

 

You aren’t asking simple questions about my ideas. You’re asking me to explain the Standard Model, or account for various phenomena that I have explicitly omitted from the RELATIVITY+ essays. You’re taking a scattergun approach, trying to impress your imagined readership with complexity, then casting aspersions and making unjustified claims. This thread isn’t a Science-based criticism of Farsight’s theories, and I’m losing patience with your blinkered refusal to examine or address the model I’ve presented. Why don’t you talk about time? Or mass? Or the variable speed of light? Or gravity? Something I have actually covered?

[BenTheMan]

Huh? Oh I get it. I said “The result is photons, or leptons that can be annihilated to result in photons, or neutrinos (still leptons) that can also be annihilated to result in photons”. Big deal, I missed out another “or leptons that can be annihilated to result in neutrinos. Gosh you’re really ladling it on thick there Ben. Clutching at straws.

 

Trust me---there are many straws to clutch at. I'm trying to clarify what you said, which I am still not sure of. You linked to two papers---the first was on a website called ``Academic Open Journal'', which I disregard as not peer-reviewed, and thus illegitimate. The second article was a theoretical estimate of neutrino anihilation along the horizon of a black hole. This still doesn't support your point.

 

I searched the particle data book for a measurement of neutrinos to photons. The problem is that the neutrinos only come in one helicity---left-handed. This means that they can't align in the way electrons and positrons can, so they can't anihilate. I showed you the SM lagrangian, and you can check for yourself that there is no neutrino anti-neutrino photon term in the Yukawa potential. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

If you say so. Forgive me for not checking the above detail, I’ve got to go shortly. Yes, net charge and net spin are conserved. But the spin is gone. Like the charge is gone. It isn’t conserved. As you said, +1 + -1 = 0.

 

Spin is not gone, it's still very much there. The correct equation is this:

 

[math]+ \frac{1}{2} + -\frac{1}{2} = +1 + -1[/math]

 

That is, two electrons of opposite hilicity annihilate and form two photons of opposite helicity. Spin isn't gone because the photons still have spin.

 

But sigh, here you go: because a photon can be broken into two photons, as demonstrated by pair production, wherein each is reconfigured as a stable “moebius doughnut” soliton. You can’t similarly break an electron.

 

Ah no. This cannot happen because a photon has only two helicities, +1 and -1. A photon absolutlely cannot emit another photon---that is, no photon can ``split'' into two other photons. Again I refer you to the standard model lagrangian, or just the QED lagrangian. In any case though, you are quite wrong.

 

Now, if you want to give photons a small (but non-zero) mass, they gain a longitudinal polarization, another degree of freedom, and thus a third polarization. Then what you said could be correct. But photon masses (of course) break Lorentz Invariance.

 

Er, no, that’s evidence of gluons. Try again. And try to do better than Lockheed.

 

Evidence? What do you mean evidence? That's all we can ever have in an experiment. Show me a single photon. You can't. You can show me a detector that records an event, which we interpret as a photon. The photon fits the calculation, so we call it a photon and close the book. This is how science works, but, of course, you already know this.

 

All you’re saying is that I can’t possibly understand something because look how complicated it is.

 

Did I ever, anywhere, say that Lorentz Invariance was complicated? I think not---I just told you how one who understands the mathematics behind the group structure would answer your question.

 

No you haven’t shown me so many times that this is wrong.

 

Apologies, my friend, of course. I've only showed everyone else here that you are wrong, if they didn't already know.

 

You aren’t asking simple questions about my ideas. You’re asking me to explain the Standard Model, or account for various phenomena that I have explicitly omitted from the RELATIVITY+ essays. You’re taking a scattergun approach, trying to impress your imagined readership with complexity, then casting aspersions and making unjustified claims. This thread isn’t a Science-based criticism of Farsight’s theories, and I’m losing patience with your blinkered refusal to examine or address the model I’ve presented. Why don’t you talk about time? Or mass? Or the variable speed of light? Or gravity? Something I have actually covered?

 

OOOOOH, I think I've angered the great Farsight, whose wrath knows no bounds.

 

Look, ass---I'm criticizing your ideas on my turf, specifically the standard model and quantum field theory. These are the things I understand best, and it is quite clear to me that your ideas fail here. You disagree with experiments and mathematical consistency on so many levels that you've torn the whole framework apart. I don't care what you say about mass because I know you're wrong---likewise for time.

 

It would be a shame if you huffed out of this discussion early. I quite enjoy these conversations because it gives me an ooportunity to shore up the physics that I already know. I like talking with crackpots for exactly this reason. For example, before this, I had never thought about neutrinos anihilating to photons. I know now why it is impossible, unless we are working at high enough energies where a very massive right handed neutrino (needed to generate small non-zero masses for neutrinos) could participate in the interractions.

[Norman Albers]

My photon model has a longitudinal-scalar mode, though I have not thought about its polarization. This comes by assuming the vacuum supplies inhomogeneous response, and is simply implied if you make the statement, "There exists a wave packet described by [math]A_y=A_0 cos(kX)e^{-a^2(X^2+y^2+z^2)},A_z=A_0sin(kX)e^{-a^2(X^2+y^2+z^2)},X=x-ct. [/math] The fact that the transverse components fall off in the transverse directions means the field has divergence. This is equated through the Lorentz gauge to [math] \nabla\cdot A=-c^{-2}\dot U [/math]. This scalar potential is an "accordian mode", and has to be integrated carefull by parts since t appears twice.

[BenTheMan]

We are picking on Farsight's theories (if they can be called that) here. But there probably should be some precision tests of Makwell's laws---you should look into it.

[CPL.Luke]

farsight you have to remember that in order for your theory to be right it would have to be able to agree with every verified prediction of the standard model. you can't chose experiments, also you haven't presented a model or a theory or anything else that could be use to explain anything, for instance if some unexpected result came out tommorrow that wasn't predicted by the SM I could go and toy with the SM until I could get a prediction that matched the experiment (or I could fail and show that the SM could never explain tha experiment). there is no math in your hypothesis, so I couldn't do any of that.

 

you also need to provide a mechanism for how the photons turn into particles, as bentheman has shown there is no known mechanism for how a photon could do this, the standard model just says that they are all completely different particles and thus no mechanism is required, however the standard model shows that all of the known laws of physics are protected in thee interactions and thus everything works out.

 

So how does a photon turn into a pion? or any other particle? you've alluded to special geometric configurations which result in these paricles, what are they? and why do they elicit these special properties?

[Reaper]

Er, no, that’s evidence of gluons. Try again. And try to do better than Lockheed.

 

Pay special attention to BenTheMan here, he puts it quite nicely. I already showed you evidence of such, it can't get any better than that.

 

Evidence? What do you mean evidence? That's all we can ever have in an experiment. Show me a single photon. You can't. You can show me a detector that records an event' date=' which we interpret as a photon. The photon fits the calculation, so we call it a photon and close the book. This is how science works, but, of course, you already know this.

[/quote']

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

No you haven’t shown me so many times that this is wrong. We haven’t discussed this before.

 

and

 

You aren’t asking simple questions about my ideas. You’re asking me to explain the Standard Model' date=' or account for various phenomena that I have explicitly omitted from the RELATIVITY+ essays. You’re taking a scattergun approach, trying to impress your imagined readership with complexity, then casting aspersions and making unjustified claims. This thread isn’t a [i']Science-based criticism of Farsight’s theories[/i], and I’m losing patience with your blinkered refusal to examine or address the model I’ve presented. Why don’t you talk about time? Or mass? Or the variable speed of light? Or gravity? Something I have actually covered?

 

 

 

I'm not aware of earlier confrontations between you and the members of this site, but I know that people on this thread have indeed addressed your points and showed you that you were wrong on a couple of recent threads that you conveniently ignore; here is one such example in this thread:

 

No. I'm not explaining decay channels. The decay modes are irrelevant. The result is photons' date=' or leptons that can be annihilated to result in photons, or neutrinos (still leptons) that can also be annihilated to result in photons.

[/quote']

 

To which BenTheMan addressed immediately:

 

Ah but neutrinos don't couple to photons, so it is impossible for them to annihilate into photons.

 

If you doubt me, check the Standard Model Lagrangian yourself:

http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml.pdf

 

Try again:)

 

And then you, Farsight, responded:

Oh LOL. A whole page of mathematics without a word of explanation. Now that's really a Science-based criticism of Farsight's theories. This is getting embarrassing. You're absurd. Do you really think nobody notices that your "criticism" is a facile pretence? No rational person can give criticism of a model without referring to it. Remember I put neutrinos in a separate box. There was a reason for that. But I'm not going to give you NEUTRINOS EXPLAINED. You wouldn't read it' date=' you'd just skip on to the next red herring and try to find something I can't explain, then prance about trumpeting that you've proven me wrong. Pathetic.

[/quote']

 

 

All you are doing, Farsight, is either ignoring or ducking the issues at hand with ad hominem attacks. We are showing you where you are wrong, and you are refusing to acknowledge this. I am beginning to suspect that you are nothing more than a troll.

 

 

If all matter is nothing more than photons, then show us convincing evidence, or even a thought experiment or a fully consistent mathematical equation that would detail how matter should behave, because all evidence that the scientific establishment has is against you. In addition, the model/theory/etc... should do better and be more accurate than all of the theories we have right now.

[elas]

Bentheman

 

Quick quotes from Wikipedia-

 

'According to the representation theory of the Lorentz group, these quantities are built out of scalars, four-vectors, four-tensors, and spinors.'

 

'spinors are certain kinds of auxiliary mathematical objects'

 

It seems you still do not know the difference between mathematical prediction and science.

You state that:

 

The Standard Model needs reinterpretation and repair, improving, not scrapping.

 

It cannot be reinterpreted because at present the Standard model does not have a complete interpretation; it needs one. To achieve this it needs a base theory that explains what particles and their entities really are; that is what Farsight and I are proposing (although we disagree on the solution). I will open a forum on my theory when I have done an analysis of the debate on this forum. I hope you will maintain control of your temper long enough to make a genuine criticism rather than descend into a vulgar slanging match.

[BenTheMan]

It seems you still do not know the difference between mathematical prediction and science.

 

Well, there you have it. It seems that you have learned as much from Wikipedia about spinors as I have in the two months or so it took me to understand them. You have just cut and paste something from Wikipedia that someone else has cut and paste from somewhere else. You haven't attempted to understand what a spinor is, and why we think spinors represent fermions. I really doubt that you read any more than the first paragraph of the article.

 

You state that:

 

The Standard Model needs reinterpretation and repair, improving, not scrapping.

 

And now you're putting words into my mouth. This is most certainly a farsight post, which I will link to to save you the trouble of looking for it:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=354386&postcount=2.

 

Nonetheless, almost every scentence in the following paragraph is wrong:

 

It cannot be reinterpreted because at present the Standard model does not have a complete interpretation; it needs one. To achieve this it needs a base theory that explains what particles and their entities really are; that is what Farsight and I are proposing (although we disagree on the solution).

 

The standard model has no UV completion. It has a perfectly happy interpretation as a low energy effective field theory---indeed, asking for anything more is expecting too much of it.

 

Farsight has not, as yet, proposed anything that has even a remote possibility of explaining the standard model. For one, the Standard Model itself says that photons are not fundamental... If you don't know this, then you should really go back and study physics, or back to driving a cab (or whatever day job you have). The photon is only an artifact of the electroweak symmetry breaking, and doesn't exist above energies of around 100GeV. This is another problem with Farsight's theories---namely, photons don't even EXIST in the very early universe.

 

I will open a forum on my theory when I have done an analysis of the debate on this forum.

 

And I will be there (God willing) to show you why it's wrong.

 

I hope you will maintain control of your temper long enough to make a genuine criticism rather than descend into a vulgar slanging match.

 

My temper is fine thanks---I KNOW I'm right because I've done the calculations. And I KNOW farsight is wrong because his ideas contradict direct observation, as well as common sense. I have presented MANY genuine criticisms here, NONE OF WHICH farsight has answered directly.

[Farsight]

Trust me---there are many straws to clutch at. I'm trying to clarify what you said, which I am still not sure of. You linked to two papers---the first was on a website called ``Academic Open Journal'', which I disregard as not peer-reviewed, and thus illegitimate. The second article was a theoretical estimate of neutrino anihilation along the horizon of a black hole. This still doesn't support your point...

 

I searched the particle data book for a measurement of neutrinos to photons. The problem is that the neutrinos only come in one helicity---left-handed. This means that they can't align in the way electrons and positrons can, so they can't anihilate. I showed you the SM lagrangian, and you can check for yourself that there is no neutrino anti-neutrino photon term in the Yukawa potential. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

You're wrong. Think how we detect neutrinos. What do we see? A flash of light. My point is that the photon is the fundamental "particle", and that explains Lorentz Invariance. All the other particles, most of which last for a fraction of a second, are configurations. Sigh. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the whole point of my RELATIVITY+ model is that I'm challenging the axioms of your mathematics. It simply isn't valid to use your own mathematical model, based on those axioms, to claim that I'm wrong. You won't even read TIME EXPLAINED, yet you insist that time travel is possible. It's absurd.

 

Spin is not gone, it's still very much there. The correct equation is this:

 

[math]+ \frac{1}{2} + -\frac{1}{2} = +1 + -1[/math]

 

That is, two electrons of opposite helicity annihilate and form two photons of opposite helicity. Spin isn't gone because the photons still have spin.

 

No, it's gone. The electrons have spin and charge. The photon has no charge. Whilst it has a spin, it isn't the spin that the electron had. The electron is a spinning photon, and that's why it has charge and mass.

 

Ah no. This cannot happen because a photon has only two helicities, +1 and -1. A photon absolutlely cannot emit another photon---that is, no photon can ``split'' into two other photons. Again I refer you to the standard model lagrangian, or just the QED lagrangian. In any case though, you are quite wrong.

 

Again, you're falling back to mathematics to try to "prove" me wrong. Your axioms are wrong. I'll show you you're wrong, via experiment. Take one photon. Use it to create an electron and a positron:

 

 

Then use other photons to bring the electron and positron back together. Result: two photons. We had one photon. Now we've got two.

 

 

Now, if you want to give photons a small (but non-zero) mass, they gain a longitudinal polarization, another degree of freedom, and thus a third polarization. Then what you said could be correct. But photon masses (of course) break Lorentz Invariance.

 

I don't want to give photons any mass. I've explained mass. A particle can only exhibit this property if it is travelling slower than the speed of light. The speed of photons. Photons do not.

 

Evidence? What do you mean evidence? That's all we can ever have in an experiment. Show me a single photon. You can't. You can show me a detector that records an event, which we interpret as a photon. The photon fits the calculation, so we call it a photon and close the book. This is how science works, but, of course, you already know this.

 

You can see a photon, with a detector, such as a CCD, or an eyeball. And you can't show me a gluon.

 

Did I ever, anywhere, say that Lorentz Invariance was complicated? I think not---I just told you how one who understands the mathematics behind the group structure would answer your question.

 

And I'm challenging your axioms.

 

Apologies, my friend, of course. I've only showed everyone else here that you are wrong, if they didn't already know.

 

Delusional.

 

OOOOOH, I think I've angered the great Farsight, whose wrath knows no bounds. Look, ass---I'm criticizing your ideas on my turf, specifically the standard model and quantum field theory. These are the things I understand best, and it is quite clear to me that your ideas fail here. You disagree with experiments and mathematical consistency on so many levels that you've torn the whole framework apart. I don't care what you say about mass because I know you're wrong---likewise for time.

 

That's the size of it. You don't care what I say about mass because you know I'm wrong. You're delusional. And to justify yourself you throw up a snowstorm of distraction trying to catch me out on something I haven't covered. And look at you, you have to resort to telling lies. I don't disagree with experiments. Where did that come from? I'm not even saying your mathematical consistency is wrong. I'm saying your axioms are wrong. Spot the difference. And you're still not criticizing my ideas. You won't respond to my ideas. And this absurd Kafkaesque show trial is simply you playing "burn the heretic" quoting from your mathematical bible as evidence. You don't have to even read MASS EXPLAINED because you know it's wrong? LOL. You are crazy.

 

It would be a shame if you huffed out of this discussion early. I quite enjoy these conversations because it gives me an ooportunity to shore up the physics that I already know. I like talking with crackpots for exactly this reason. For example, before this, I had never thought about neutrinos anihilating to photons. I know now why it is impossible, unless we are working at high enough energies where a very massive right handed neutrino (needed to generate small non-zero masses for neutrinos) could participate in the interractions.

 

I'm not the crackpot. You are. You believe in time travel. I don't. You are kidding yourself. This thread is just more of your absurdity, because it quite patently doesn't do what it says on the tin. Remember how this whole discussion came out of a thread on time travel and wormholes? If you really want to give a Science-based criticism of Farsight's Theories try giving a Science-based criticism of TIME EXPLAINED. Here it is.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28143

 

Or will you go squealing to the moderators to get it kicked into pseudoscience, and you do not even need to read it because you know it's wrong? LOL, you pseudoscientist string-theory quack.

 

Edit: the TIME EXPLAINED essay has been deleted.

[Klaynos]

Your time explained v3 thread has gone (OH NO!), my only sadness is that I didn't get a chance to post my reply. So before I reply more here...

 

Well that made my eyes bleed, and I stopped because frankly it was boring nonsence...

 

A couple of questions, find a quantity that you can't prove x=x, and do you have any idea WHY we relate things like the meter to a second? There is a very sensible reason why we do this I am just wondering as you are talking about "we could use any oscillation" (paraphrasing).

 

But back to the topic in hand, Farsight, could you please explain to me how you think science, and scientific theories work and become accepted?

[Farsight]

farsight you have to remember that in order for your theory to be right it would have to be able to agree with every verified prediction of the standard model. you can't chose experiments, also you haven't presented a model or a theory or anything else that could be use to explain anything, for instance if some unexpected result came out tommorrow that wasn't predicted by the SM I could go and toy with the SM until I could get a prediction that matched the experiment (or I could fail and show that the SM could never explain tha experiment). there is no math in your hypothesis, so I couldn't do any of that.

 

Noted Luke.

 

you also need to provide a mechanism for how the photons turn into particles, as bentheman has shown there is no known mechanism for how a photon could do this, the standard model just says that they are all completely different particles and thus no mechanism is required, however the standard model shows that all of the known laws of physics are protected in thee interactions and thus everything works out.

 

Again, noted.

 

So how does a photon turn into a pion? or any other particle? you've alluded to special geometric configurations which result in these paricles, what are they? and why do they elicit these special properties?

 

I can't tell you how a photon turns into a pion offhand. But I can say how it turns into an electron or positron. But what's the point? I could post up a detailed explanation, but like TIME EXPLAINED, it will be ignored and ridiculed or even deleted.

 

Klaynos: somebody comes up with an idea, a hypothesis, they talk about it, they develop it into a model or a theory, talk about it some more, maybe collaborate with somebody, they write a formal paper with rigor and predictions, et cetera. Other folk read the paper plus others and do experiments or make connections and develop new insights to develop the theory further. This is a discussion forum where I'd expect some genuine and sincere conversation about what I'm putting up instead of juvenile abuse like "boring nonsence".

 

Which reminds me. The situation here is ludicrous. This thread is supposed to be a Science-based criticism of Farsight's theories. But it simply isn't. BenTheMan believes in time travel but will not read TIME EXPLAINED. It's deleted, censored, not examined. He doesn't need to examine it because he knows I'm wrong. His conviction is so strong he doesn't need to counter the simple logic I present. It's ridiculous Kafkaesque absurdity. It is remarkably similar to a medieval theocratic court quoting evidence from the bible whilst dismissing evidence that isn't in the bible, and meanwhile judging the heretic on his ability to quote from the bible. Sigh. It's a pitiful, shameful, farce. If anybody wants to actually talk about some aspect of my model, fine. But otherwise, I think I've given you a fair crack of the whip. And I've got a paper to write.

 

PS: Somebody please explain ad hominem and irony to Lockheed.

[Reaper]

Alright, I skimmed down some of his "explained theories", and "Relativity +". His latest thread Time Explained v3.0 actually had 2 equations in it, though he did them incorrectly. Gross misconceptions aside, he also contradicted himself a number of times. But, I will admit that I like looking at the pictures.

 

But anyways,

 

No' date=' it's gone. The electrons have spin and charge. The photon has no charge. Whilst it has a spin, it isn't the spin that the electron had. The electron is a spinning photon, and that's why it has charge and mass.

[/quote']

 

Ok, first, charge is a fundamental property of a particle. An electron has charge -1. Second, photons are massless; they have zero rest mass. That is how and why it can travel at c, and other particles with mass can't. Photons have no charge. A particle's spin does NOT mean that it is literally spinning. It's spin is a property of a subatomic particle, describing angular momentum and its quantum state.

 

You're wrong. Think how we detect neutrinos. What do we see? A flash of light. My point is that the photon is the fundamental "particle", and that explains Lorentz Invariance.....

 

Well, a burst of radiation is how we see all subatomic particles, but it does not mean that they are made of photons. Typically what we are seeing is a release in energy as subatomic particles interact, and we know which particles they are because we can measure their properties through their interaction. We detect neutrinos in a huge tank of heavy water. The heavy water is important because it has an extra neutron. The neutrinos interact with it to produce electrons, which give off Cherenkov radiation.

 

Again, you're falling back to mathematics to try to "prove" me wrong. Your axioms are wrong. I'll show you you're wrong, via experiment. Take one photon. Use it to create an electron and a positron:

 

You just got that picture off of wikipedia without even trying to understand what it meant. If you read the beginning carefully, you would have caught:

 

Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle' date=' usually from a photon (or another neutral boson). This is allowed, [b']provided there is enough energy available to create the pair – at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles[/b] – and that the situation allows both energy and momentum to be conserved (though not necessarily on shell).

 

And yes, matter can be created from pure energy via E=mc^2.

 

Then use other photons to bring the electron and positron back together. Result: two photons. We had one photon. Now we've got two.

 

 

Do you even understand the mechanism behind this? Try looking at a Feynman diagram. They annihilate with each other and release 2 gamma ray photons because they are converted into energy.

 

If they are only made of photons, and in your specific example an electron is one photon, then explain how electrons give off or exchange photons when they leap from specific energy states in atomic orbitals, or when they interact with each other. As you can already see, an electron is not a photon.

[YT2095]

 

Edit: the TIME EXPLAINED essay has been deleted.

 

no it hasn`t, it`s just been moved to here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28145

[Reaper]

Which reminds me. The situation here is ludicrous. This thread is supposed to be a Science-based criticism of Farsight's theories........ He doesn't need to examine it because he knows I'm wrong. His conviction is so strong he doesn't need to counter the simple logic I present..........

 

 

 

PS: Somebody please explain ad hominem and irony to Lockheed.

 

Talk about irony to me will you .

[YT2095]

this is Not my area of Science but I find this interesting

 

I can't tell you how a photon turns into a pion offhand. But I can say how it turns into an electron or positron. But what's the point?

 

now the little bit I DO know is that is not Possible.

a photon wont turn into either an electron or a positron.

a photon can Liberate them like in a PV cell for instance, and unless you invoke E=Mc^2 where energy forms mass, I`m pretty sure that a photon will never turn into an electron.

 

so I would indeed like you to show me How this can be so. as I said this isn`t my area of Science, and I could be wrong and will stand corrected if shown I`m wrong.

[Farsight]

YT: maybe this might help.

 

 

In pair production' date=' a gamma photon of slightly more than 1022KeV is effectively broken over a nucleus to create an electron and a positron of 511KeV apiece. They’re like two half-wavelength “eddies” spinning off in opposite directions. Apart from a little wastage on the motion of the particles, most of the energy/momentum is stopped down from c and re-presented as inertia. We converted travelling kinetic energy or "relativistic mass" into non-travelling energy or "rest mass". If we simplify matters by discarding the positron and considering the electron to be at rest, we can look at those equations again and say:

 

E = hc/λ → mc² therefore m ≡ h/λc

 

That seems to be saying the photon has mass. That sounds wrong, because nowadays we define mass to be rest mass. But we know that both matter and energy cause gravity. Einstein told us that with his mass/energy stress tensor. Energy has what’s called “active” gravitational mass. And since a photon has energy, it has gravitational mass too. A 511KeV photon contributes the same amount of gravitational attraction as an electron. What’s important is that energy causes gravity, not mass. Whilst a mass does cause gravity, that’s because of its energy content.

 

It can get a little confusing because there are lots of different ways of talking about mass. Whilst the accepted definition is rest mass, this is also called “invariant mass” or “intrinsic mass” or “proper mass”. The term “relativistic mass” is really a measure of energy, which is why it applies to a massless photon. When you apply it to a cannonball travelling at 1000m/s, it’s a measure that combines the rest mass and the kinetic energy into total energy. There’s also “inertial mass”, which is a measure of how much force you need to apply to accelerate an object according to the equation F=ma. If you think of decelerating the cannonball using sheets of cardboard, it’s clear that this is the same thing as relativistic mass. There’s also “passive gravitational mass”, which is a a measure of how much an object is attracted by gravity. But it’s best not to get hung up on all these terms, because what’s important is this:

 

[i']A photon has no rest mass, because rest mass is just rest energy, and the photon is never at rest. Because when it is at rest, it’s not a photon any more[/i].

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 

When I followed the TIME EXPLAINED link in my previous post, it said no thread specified. TIME EXPLAINED is science, time travel is pseduoscience and speculation. Anybody want to talk about the speed of light? Why time dilation shows us quite patently that gravity is a gradient in c rather than "spacetime curvature"? Anybody actually read this?

 

http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0305457

 

"Seen from another angle [16, 15], even in a world where all seems to vary and nothing

is constant, it is always possible to define units such that c remains a constant. Consider

for instance the current official definition of the meter: one takes the period of light from

a certain atomic transition as the unit of time, then states that the meter is the distance

travelled by light in a certain number of such periods. With these definitions it is clear that c

will always be a constant, a statement akin to saying that the speed of light is one light-year

per year. One then does not need to perform any experiment to prove the constancy of the

speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and has become a tautology".

[YT2095]

so I was right then, a photon does Not turn into an electron etc.. you`re simply "Liberating" (word used cautiously) one from already existing Mass.

 

you`re in no way Making Mass from something that Has non (the Photon in this instance).

[Farsight]

Yes you are. The photon has no mass but does have energy/momentum...

 

 

When a photon collides with a free electron, the electron gets a bump and goes recoiling off at an angle. Now remember your Relativity. There is no absolute motion. Imagine you’re the target electron, but it’s you moving instead of the photon. Bump, and you’re sent flying off at an angle. It would feel like the photon was a bump. It would feel like the photon had inertia instead of momentum. It would feel like the photon had mass. It would feel like the photon was solid.

 

All you do to create mass is "stop" the photon by knocking it into a half-wavelength moebius loop. And then you call it an electron.

 

All this is in MASS EXPLAINED, and it's brilliant groundbreaking science. The Higgs Boson is the pseudoscience.

 

CHARGE EXPLAINED is even better. I'll put it up and then we can all talk about it a calm, friendly, open minded, rational fashion. Here: CHARGE EXPLAINED. You will appreciate that if I put it into pseudoscience, some will claim that I'm admitting I'm a crank, so I can't.

[Norman Albers]

There is no frame of reference where the photon is stopped. One cannot speak of a "center of mass" frame of reference, but rather a "center of momentum" frame.

[Klaynos]

Yes you are. The photon has no mass but does have energy/momentum...

 

 

When a photon collides with a free electron, the electron gets a bump and goes recoiling off at an angle. Now remember your Relativity. There is no absolute motion. Imagine you’re the target electron, but it’s you moving instead of the photon. Bump, and you’re sent flying off at an angle. It would feel like the photon was a bump. It would feel like the photon had inertia instead of momentum. It would feel like the photon had mass. It would feel like the photon was solid.

 

All you do to create mass is "stop" the photon by knocking it into a half-wavelength moebius loop. And then you call it an electron.

 

All this is in MASS EXPLAINED, and it's brilliant groundbreaking science. The Higgs Boson is the pseudoscience.

 

CHARGE EXPLAINED is even better. I'll put it up and then we can all talk about it a calm, friendly, open minded, rational fashion. Here: CHARGE EXPLAINED. You will appreciate that if I put it into pseudoscience, some will claim that I'm admitting I'm a crank, so I can't.

 

In this example of a photon scattering off of an electron surely you need to invoke perturbation theory?