 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / March 2006Is the Electron Charge really infinite
Hello, Quantum electrodynamics says there is endless loop of virtual particles being created surrounding the electron and for calculations to be right, the charge of the electron has to be infinite. Is it true the charge of the bare electron is really infinite? The reason one measure a finite value is allegedly because of the loop of virtual particles surrounding it that shield the infinite charge thru polarization. But how can a bare charge be infinite? Thanks. Daryl > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > how > can a bare charge be infinite? This is how QED is presented in most textbooks. However, there is a better way to formulate QED in terms of "dressed" particles with finite observable masses and charges. Take a look at E. V. Stefanovich, Quantum field theory without infinities, Ann. Phys. (NY) 292 (2001), 139. E. V. Stefanovich, Renormalization and dressing in quantum field theory, www.arxiv.org/hep-th/0503076 E. V. Stefanovich, Relativistic quantum dynamics, www.arxiv.org/physics/0504062 Eugene. > > Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > However, there is a better way to formulate QED in terms of "dressed" > particles with finite observable masses and charges. Take a look at But do you really believe a bare undressed electron charge is infinite? How can this fantantic notion be consistent with logic and considering the fact the entire quantum electrodynamics is based on this assumption. Is the bare electron charge really infinite or not? This bugs me a lot. Daryl > E. V. Stefanovich, Quantum field theory without infinities, Ann. Phys. > (NY) 292 (2001), 139. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Eugene. > But do you really believe a bare undressed electron charge is > infinite? How can this fantantic notion be consistent with logic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is the bare electron charge really infinite or not? This bugs > me a lot. I don't think in reality there is such a thing as "bare electron" with infinite electric charge. The "bare electrons" are just unfortunate artifacts of the sloppy formulation of QED in most textbooks. QED can be succesfully formulated without using the notion of bare particles with infinite masses and charges. Real physical particles (electrons) have finite experimentally measurable masses and charges. The "dressed particle" approach to QED operates only with such physical particles not with "bare" ones. Eugene. Daryl a écrit : >>>Hello, >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Is the bare electron charge really infinite or not? This bugs > me a lot. Presently, the QED virtual particle crowd surrounding a charge maps the gaussian representation of the pherically decreasing electrostatic force centered on the charge and decreasing to infinity according to the inverse square rule. Just like the gaussian representation is virtual (not real, just a mathematical means of representing the force that would act on another charge anywhere in space if a second charge was present) the virtual particle crowd is just that, virtual. So very badly explained in so many textbooks that even some physicists believe in their real existence. The charge of the electron is very precisely known and absolutely invariant. It is 1.602176462E-18 Coulombs in the MKS system. Except for a very special case of fractional charges within protons and neutrons and some fleeting unstable other composite particles, all larger charges in existance are multiples of this unit charge. André Michaud Oops! 1.602176462E-19 Coulombs André Michaud > Daryl a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > explained in so many textbooks that even some physicists believe > in their real existence. What? Virtual particles are not real? They explained how vritual particles surrounding electron can cause polarization effect and this was proven by experiments such as lamb shift, casimer effect, the electron gyromagnetic ratio (without virtual particles, the measured value doesn't match the calculated value). So how can you say virtual particles are not real? How do you define "real"? Do you also imply point particles are not real but also mathematical constructions (but point particle is observed again from experiments). I hope you define what is "real" and what is not or list what part of an atom is real and what is not. Tnx. Daryl > The charge of the electron is very precisely known and absolutely > invariant. It is 1.602176462E-18 Coulombs in the MKS system. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > André Michaud Daryl wrote: > > srp wrote: > > Daryl a écrit : > > > Eugene Stefanovich wrote: > > > > > >>Daryl wrote: > > >> > > >>>Hello, > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > Is the bare electron charge really infinite or not? This > > > bugs me a lot. $$ NEVER was YET even ONE infinity, AND there NEVER EVER will be.!! > > Presently, the QED virtual particle crowd surrounding a charge > > maps the gaussian representation of the pherically decreasing [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > The charge of the electron is very precisely known and absolutely > > invariant. It is 1.602176462E-19 Coulombs in the MKS system. > > $$ {eV} jOULE & {e} Amp*sec, NUMBER duality. $$ GUESS iSS {e} is 1.603810891*10^-19 Amp*sec, in GiORGi's MKSA SI. $$ 1*electronvolt = 1.603810891*10^-19 Joules {eV} GiORGi's MKSA SI. $$ =eV}J={e}V*A*sec=1.603810891*10^-19 Joules {eV} GiORGi's MKSA SI. $$ $$ Note, {e}*Volt electronvolt energy; {e} has SI units of, Amp*sec. $$ Note, {e}*Volt electronvolt energy eV; SAME NUMBER as {e}->A*sec. $$ Note, {e}*Volt = Hartree eH / 10*("e") = 1*electronvolt -> joule. $$ Note, {e} -> Amp*sec = eH/Vu = eH/10*("e")*Volt -> {e} -> charge. $$ Note Vu is Voltage POTENTiAL @ UNiT distance fron QUANTUM charge. > > Except for a very special case of fractional charges within > > protons and neutrons and some fleeting unstable other composite > > particles, all larger charges in existance are multiples of this > > unit charge. [Not "UNiT charge" but rather "QUANTUM charge {e}"]. $$ Note the EXACT proper TERMs to use. $$ Exactly: UNiT charge is 1 Amp*sec; QUANTUM charge is {e} Amp*sec. $$ MKS=cgs=OBSOLETE. MKSA SI. ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity). > > André Michaud Re: Elementary CHARGE (+ OR -), {e}. Re: Is the Electron Charge really infinite Re: Heavyside vs Lorentz cgs Unit System(s) incoherence. Daryl a écrit : >>Daryl a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > experiments). I hope you define what is "real" and what is > not or list what part of an atom is real and what is not. Tnx. "Real" means being present in a verifiable manner. The only means at our disposal to confirm whether or not a particle physically exists is to confirm that it can be scattered against by some other particle. Real electromagnetic photons (like those that make up light) are real since you can scatter them against atoms (see Raman and Compton effects, see also the first confirmation of physical existence of individual photons, which is the photoelectric effect). The electron is confirmed to be "real" because it can be scattered against by other electrons, the same for protons and neutrons for example. QED Virtual photons are a metaphor for the energy that is induced between two particles at the distance considered. There is no know way to scatter anything against a "virtual photon". Look up the definition of virtual in a dictionary. I don't know what basics your teachers let you benefit from before introducing you to QED, but if they did not thoroughly introduce you to Gauss, Biot-Savart, Ampere and Coulomb and all more classical stuff before hand, shame on them. >>The charge of the electron is very precisely known and absolutely >>invariant. It is 1.602176462E-18 Coulombs in the MKS system. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>André Michaud André Michaud > Daryl a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > There is no know way to scatter anything against a "virtual > photon". Look up the definition of virtual in a dictionary. But from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Time-Energy conjugate is akin to Position-Momentum uncertainty such that you can't know both of them at the same time. So if there is certainty in time, there is uncertainty in energy. So at the small time allowed the energy of the field can give rise to particles or electron-positron pairs. Now it is called virtual because we can't see it due to our not having the time resolution to view it. We may as well call it flash particles. But it is there, and literal.. just like electrons! So how can you say they are not real?? Daryl > I don't know what basics your teachers let you benefit from > before introducing you to QED, but if they did not thoroughly [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > André Michaud > Now it is > called virtual because we can't see it due to our not > having the time resolution to view it. We may as well > call it flash particles. But it is there, and literal.. just like > electrons! Very short-lived particles are called resonances. Virtual particles are a different animal. They are not "there" at all in the way that (real) electrons are. Real particles show up in every Feynman diagram in a perturbative expansion, but virtual particles only show up in some of the diagrams. It doesn't make sense to say they'd be there if you looked, because you can't look at particular Feyman diagrams. -- Ben > > Now it is > > called virtual because we can't see it due to our not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -- Ben How about this. Shine two very energetic lights to each other. In one of the electron-positron pair (out of the zillions) created, a photon from the other source may hit one of the pair enough to make them split and turn them into real particles. I saw this interaction possibility in a Feynman diagram as well as experimental confirmation. So virtual particles are real such that using the right setup, you can separete the electron and positron to become permanent (except the positron as this can easily annihilate with any existing electron nearer it). Therefore virtual particles and their fluctuating conditions is literal! Isn't it that physics present theoretical challenge is resolving the smooth planck space of General Relativity with the fluctuating space of quantum mechanics producing quantum gravity. What part did I miss about my understanding of virtual particles? If you or srp has belief that is outside of the mainstream. Pls. emphasize it so I'd know you are just reinterpretating it different way. Or wait. Maybe we are talking of different terms. Isn't it that the vacuum fluctuations surrouding the electron is also called virtual particles. Well. We used the concept of virtual particles as the force carrier transacting the electric field attraction for example. But I also called the vacuum fluctuations (which you called resonances) as virtual particles. If I have used wrong term. Then the inquiry to srp is: Vacuum fluctuations are literal although the virtual particles exchanging the forces may be mathematical constructions, right? Whatever is the case, the electron charge being infinite is still literal to make renormalization work (dividing infinity by infinity to get a finite value). Daryl Daryl a écrit : >>>Now it is >>>called virtual because we can't see it due to our not [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and positron to become permanent (except the positron as > this can easily annihilate with any existing electron nearer it). Well, Feynman diagrams are a fine tool, but they are just a graphic representation of the interaction at any given moment of the interaction. Like a still "picture" of the interaction at that given moment. One flash second later or sooner, you would get a different picture. You also are bringing in QFT which is en entirely different beast than QED. QED is a mathematical tool to calculate energy, momentum and whatever, while QFT is a theory. The shining two "energetic lights to each other" to produce electron positron pairs has been done experimentally in 1997 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC). The team as led by Kirk McDonald, and they verified that it is possible to produce electron/positron pairs by simply converging towards a single point in space sufficiently concentrated streams of sufficiently energetic "real" photons. The mandatory requirement is that one of the beams be made up of photons of energy higher than 1.022 MeV. The conclusion was that it was some of these photons that "split" into give pairs of electron and positron (each having .511 MeV). When both beams have photons of energy lower than 1.022 MeV, no pairs can form. No need to look for hidden sources of pairs when the energy of the beams can provide it directly. But of course, QFT is very popular, interesting and even fascinating. But it is not required to explain pair formation. > Therefore virtual particles and their fluctuating conditions is > literal! Certainly, within the frame of the QFT theory. > Isn't it that physics present theoretical challenge is resolving > the smooth planck space of General Relativity with the fluctuating > space of quantum mechanics producing quantum gravity. > What part did I miss about my understanding of virtual particles? You seem to have gotten it right. But maybe you missed that although many physicists see them as physical reality, others see them as a mathematical representation of the real underlying physical reality. > If you or srp has belief that is outside of the mainstream. Pls. > emphasize it so I'd know you are just reinterpretating it different > way. I don't know about Ben, but if de Broglie, Einstein, Planck, and many others had beliefs that are outside the mainstream, then I sit with them on the causalist side of the table. > Or wait. Maybe we are talking of different terms. Isn't it > that the vacuum fluctuations surrouding the electron is > also called virtual particles. Yes, in QFT. > Well. We used the concept > of virtual particles as the force carrier transacting the > electric field attraction for example. You can also see virtual particles as only "mathematically representing" the electrical force and energy between particles. From my analysis, the mediation of the exchange by virtual photons as proposed by Feynman bundles together two fundamentally very different aspects of the relation between charged particles: The Coulombian interaction itself, or "Coulomb force", or "electrostatic force", whose nature and origin are still a mystery, that acts as a function of the inverse square of the distance between charged particles, and which is the cause of the acceleration of the particles towards, or away, from each other, and the quantity of energy of motion that is progressively induced between the particles as a function of the distance between them. > But I also called > the vacuum fluctuations (which you called resonances) > as virtual particles. If I have used wrong term. Then the > inquiry to srp is: Vacuum fluctuations are literal although > the virtual particles exchanging the forces may be > mathematical constructions, right? Well yes, in a manner of speaking. But the vacuum fluctuation concept is litteral within the QFT theory, a very popular theory, but one to which I do not subscribe on account of causality, to which I subscribe. > Whatever is the > case, the electron charge being infinite is still > literal to make renormalization work (dividing infinity > by infinity to get a finite value). From conventional and practical physics, the charge of the electron is considered invariant and a fundamental constant. High energy accelerators among other devices, would simply not work if the electron charge was not invariant. André Michaud > Daryl a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Certainly, within the frame of the QFT theory. What. I thought you said virtual particles are mathematical construction. Maybe you are saying that in QED they are math creation but in QFT they are real?? But QED is an application of QFT with regards to electromagnetism. So how can one be real and the other be not. Pls. elaborate. > > Isn't it that physics present theoretical challenge is resolving > > the smooth planck space of General Relativity with the fluctuating [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > many physicists see them as physical reality, others see them as a > mathematical representation of the real underlying physical reality. You mean physicists are divided on whether virtual particles are literal or not. Pls elaborate or supply some links as I'd like to know the point of view of each side (if this is what you mean). What's the rational for the belief of each side. > > If you or srp has belief that is outside of the mainstream. Pls. > > emphasize it so I'd know you are just reinterpretating it different [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes, in QFT. But in QED, the virtual photons are also called virtual particles, no? > > Well. We used the concept > > of virtual particles as the force carrier transacting the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > energy of motion that is progressively induced between the particles > as a function of the distance between them. But the virtual photons being exchanged can cause virtual electron-positron particles halfway. So I think Feynmann said that we must look at electron as not electrons but dressed with the those virtual photons being exchanged. Hmm... how many percentage of the electron dressed virtual particles are composed of their own electric field and the active field during a live interaction. Is this the context you mean when you said "From my analysis, the mediation of the exchange by virtual photons as proposed by Feynman bundles together two fundamentally very different aspects of the relation between charged particles" > > But I also called > > the vacuum fluctuations (which you called resonances) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but one to which I do not subscribe on account of causality, > to which I subscribe. What do you mean by causality. Pls. explain so I'd know where you are coming from when you said that virtual particles are just mathematical constructions. Why can't they be real like Gell-Mann quarks which he initiated attributed to mere mathematical device. Tnx. Daryl > > Whatever is the > > case, the electron charge being infinite is still [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > André Michaud Daryl a écrit : >>Daryl a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > What. I thought you said virtual particles are mathematical > construction. I was talking about QED virtual photons (each one representing the interaction between two charged particles at a given moment). > Maybe you are saying that in QED they are math > creation but in QFT they are real?? No. I said that their fluctuating conditions (the fluctuating conditions of QFT pairs of virtual particles) were literal in the frame of the QFT theory. > But QED is an > application of QFT with regards to electromagnetism. Not exactly. QFT represents both electric and magnetic aspects, yes, but this is not the case for QED. QED represents only the electric aspect of the electromagnetic relation. To confirm, if you are interested, I refer you to Feynman's original paper on the subject: "Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics", Richard Feynman, Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949) You will see that he built his QED virtual photon approach from the Coulomb equation, Not from QFT. > So how can one be real and the other be not. Pls. > elaborate. I never said that one type was real and the other not. I said that the Feynman QED virtual photon is a handy mathematical metaphor of the real underlying coulomb interaction between charged particles. And I said that QFT virtual pairs belong to the QFT theory. Since none of them can be scattered against, this is to me the proof that they all do not really physically exist. >>>Isn't it that physics present theoretical challenge is resolving >>>the smooth planck space of General Relativity with the fluctuating [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You mean physicists are divided on whether virtual particles > are literal or not. Yes. > Pls elaborate or supply some links as I'd > like to know the point of view of each side (if this is what > you mean). What's the rational for the belief of each side. As FrediFizzx mentionned in a post in this very thread, you just need to scan past threads on sci.physics.research or other moderated groups to eventually get both views, if you are patient. >>>If you or srp has belief that is outside of the mainstream. Pls. >>>emphasize it so I'd know you are just reinterpretating it different [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > But the virtual photons being exchanged can cause virtual > electron-positron particles halfway. In QED ? I don't think so. If some elaborated such an extension to QED, they forgot or never became aware that QED photons do not have the magnetic aspect by definition. Consequently they cannot become by any stretch of the imagination electron-positron pairs that do have both electric and magnetic aspects. > So I think Feynmann > said that we must look at electron as not electrons but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > very different aspects of the relation between charged > particles" Not really. Since I look at electrons as individual localized charged particles that interact with other charged particle by means of the Coulomb continuous force, which induces energy as a function of the inverse square of the distance, I simply do not subscribe to the virtual photon exchange idea except as a handy mathematical tool to calculate a momentary state of the relation. Feynman wrote in his 1949 paper: "In many problems, for example, the close collisions of particles, we are not interested in the precise temporal sequence of events. It is of no interest to be able to say how the situation would look at each instant of time during a collision and how it progresses from instant to instant." ([6], p.771) This was his justification for proposing the snap-shot momentary diagram technique, which is simple and fine for the purpose. I totally disagree with him on the issue of not caring for the temporal sequence of events (my causalist streak, no doubt :-). I think that it is critical for finally solving the remaining problems to pay close attention to "how the situation would look at each instant of time during a collision and how it progresses from instant to instant >>>But I also called >>>the vacuum fluctuations (which you called resonances) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > can't they be real like Gell-Mann quarks which he > initiated attributed to mere mathematical device. As I said, Gell-Mann became convinced of their real existence only after there were definitive proof from SLAC in 1968 that they could be scattered against. As for the causality issue, I tried to explain in my other answer. André Michaud > Daryl a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > you are interested, I refer you to Feynman's original paper > on the subject: Oh sheesh André, that is flat out wrong. What Daryl said is correct. > "Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics", Richard Feynman, > Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949) > > You will see that he built his QED virtual photon approach from > the Coulomb equation, Not from QFT. It doesn't matter because electric and magnetic are *always* linked together via the Maxwell equations. This was one of the first "unifications" and the principle reason why we strive for "other" unifications. > > So how can one be real and the other be not. Pls. > > elaborate. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > this is to me the proof that they all do not really physically > exist. What happens when two electrons are scattered against each other at low energies? In the virtual particle picture, would it not be the virtual pairs surrounding the electrons that physically bounce off one another? ;-) > >>>Isn't it that physics present theoretical challenge is resolving > >>>the smooth planck space of General Relativity with the fluctuating [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes. That is for sure. But I think most HEP experimentalists and many particle physics theorist do believe virtual pairs are real. > > Pls elaborate or supply some links as I'd > > like to know the point of view of each side (if this is what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > need to scan past threads on sci.physics.research or other > moderated groups to eventually get both views, if you are patient. It is weird to me that there is a high number of folks on s.p.r. that don't think virtual particles are real when there is pretty good experimental evidence that they are real. ;-) Even from the old cloud chamber stuff. > >>>If you or srp has belief that is outside of the mainstream. Pls. > >>>emphasize it so I'd know you are just reinterpretating it different [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > by any stretch of the imagination electron-positron pairs that do > have both electric and magnetic aspects. Again that is wrong. QED photons certainly do have a magnetic aspect by definition. See Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: an Introductin to QED". Of course in our Quantum Vacuum Charge picture, all photons are virtual and are necessarily composites of virtual fermion pairs at any instant or very short intervals of time. Well, that is just the consequence of a relativistic QFT medium. > > So I think Feynmann > > said that we must look at electron as not electrons but [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > look at each instant of time during a collision and how it > progresses from instant to instant This I agree with but as I think Feynman realized, very difficult to do with quantum objects. > >>>But I also called > >>>the vacuum fluctuations (which you called resonances) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > André Michaud Sorry I didn't get back to you yet on your other questions and comments. Family illness is taking its toll on my time. And other distractions. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com FrediFizzx a écrit : >>Daryl a écrit : [snipperoo] >>> But QED is an application of QFT with regards to electromagnetism. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "unifications" and the principle reason why we strive for "other" > unifications. Hi fred. I just followed my own advice to Daryl and re-read the 1949 paper. You are absolutely right and I see it quite clearly now! Last time I read it was a few years ago when I had not yet completely integrated Maxwell. To me, h always had been a mere kinetic constant (and it still is) and c just a velocity and separately did not cause me to see the link with Maxwell, this was why I did not light up at the time that it was not them separately, but the relation (h_bar c) that linked Planck's black body equation to full fledge electromagnetism. But now, the link is obvious to me. At the very first mention of e^2/(h_bar c) I instantly lit up. You see, I finally identified the transverse acceleration constant of electromagnetic energy from the energy equation I derived from the Marmet paper (in the small pdf I refered you to) as I was mathematizing the cyclic local motion of energy of an EM particle in my model, and surprise, deviding it by c directly restitutes Planck's constant. That stuff is not in this paper and won't be since it is model dependant, while the derivation from Marmet is not. So, you will easily relate to the fact that this transverse EM acceleration constant can easily be substituted in c_1 and c_2 in Planck's blackbody equation, directly linking it to transverse EM acceleration, and thus to Maxwell. I am now getting down into that equation to unravel all the remaining links. I still have some math ironing over to do before proceeding (not really my piece of cake as you know, but there is no alternative). Work in progress. >>>So how can one be real and the other be not. Pls. >>>elaborate. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > pairs surrounding the electrons that physically bounce off one another? > ;-) Mathematically, that certainly does the job :-), but in my view of physical reality, kinetic energy vectorially directed away from the other particle is simply induced in each particle as a function of the force between the particles, which causes them to elastically "collide" and move off away from each other on the resultant trajectory. Just plain kinetic energy to start with but that naturally quantizes as carrying EM energy. No need for virtual particles from this perspective. >>>>>Isn't it that physics present theoretical challenge is resolving >>>>>the smooth planck space of General Relativity with the fluctuating [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That is for sure. But I think most HEP experimentalists and many > particle physics theorist do believe virtual pairs are real. I fully agree. But this causes no problems at all, since whatever the interpretation, all agree that the maths does work. >> > Pls elaborate or supply some links as I'd >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > experimental evidence that they are real. ;-) Even from the old cloud > chamber stuff. I beg to differ on the interpretation, of course ;-) >>>>>If you or srp has belief that is outside of the mainstream. Pls. >>>>>emphasize it so I'd know you are just reinterpretating it different [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Again that is wrong. QED photons certainly do have a magnetic aspect by > definition. See Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: an Introductin to QED". Yes, I now agree on the EM issue for QED virtual photons, from my own explorations hinted at above. > Of course in our Quantum Vacuum Charge picture, all photons are virtual > and are necessarily composites of virtual fermion pairs at any instant > or very short intervals of time. Well, that is just the consequence of > a relativistic QFT medium. I see your view point (the QFT viewpoint). In it, in a manner of speaking, both negative and positive energy is "created" on either side of a point of zero energy in vacuum location (correct me if I am wrong). My perspective on energy is entirely different. In it, there is no negative versus positive "energy". Either there is energy (kinetic) or there is no energy (meaning that my zero point is the absence of energy, or the absence of motion if you will). If there is "presence", then there is motion in whatever direction local em equilibrium will allow. In my perspective, energy is always positive. I'll try to work on more clearly putting this in perspective for you eventually. >>>So I think Feynmann >>>said that we must look at electron as not electrons but [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > This I agree with but as I think Feynman realized, very difficult to do > with quantum objects. Absolute agreement. This is why I prefered trying to view the interaction from the "continuous force being applied between the particles" angle. I considered that this was the only way to actually address this particular problem. Seeing where I'm at right now, having almost finished mathematizing my model, I don't regret the move. >>>>>But I also called >>>>>the vacuum fluctuations (which you called resonances) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Sorry I didn't get back to you yet on your other questions and comments. It's ok. Time is not an issue as far as I am concerned. But I really appreciate your intake. Each time, it causes me to look closer and refine my description as I try to clarify aspects of my model for you to better see. > Family illness is taking its toll on my time. And other distractions. So sorry to hear that. I feel for you and your family. Regards André Michaud > FrediFizzx > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com > FrediFizzx a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > You are absolutely right and I see it quite clearly now! Andre, You don't believe in virtual particles mainly because you don't believe in the energy-time conjugate of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where at the very small time allowed, the particle can acquire any amount of energy in seeming contradiction to the law of energy conservation. right? In FrediFizzx case, he doesn't believe that photons can turn or morph into electrons and positrons. He asked where the charge came from. Well. In mainstream physics, when you made a very energetic photon (equal to twice the mass-energy of electron) interact with a nucleus. You can turn the photon into electron/positron pair with the momentum being transfered to the nucleus. Now do you believe that a photon can turn into electron/positron pair or do you believe like Fredi that the electron/positron pair is already there in his vacuum and the photon merely energizes it? We sure live in a world seemingly devoid of intuitive rule. But experiments support them that's why physicist just assume and believe in them. Causality is violated in many areas of our physics. Should we maintain causility or is probabilities, energy defying HUP stunts, etc. the name of the game? Well. For me. Physics doesn't have to obey causality. I think the none casuality based rules of our science is just the beginning and the tip of the iceberg. What if a stone would suddenly appear in front of you. What can you say about causality. It shows the world is not ruled by causality initated mechanism but by something far weirder and more complex. Our standard Model is just the beginning. What lies ahead in the future can bedazzle humanity. Hope they are ready. Daryl > Last time I read it was a few years ago when I had not yet completely > integrated Maxwell. To me, h always had been a mere kinetic constant [quoted text clipped - 252 lines] > > > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com Daryl a écrit : >>FrediFizzx a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > the particle can acquire any amount of energy in seeming > contradiction to the law of energy conservation. right? Not at all. For me the two issues are totally unrelated. Heisenberg's uncertainty specifically relates to the impossibility with quantum mechanics to at the same time precisely locate and define the momentum of the electron on atom's orbitals. Since the wave function can only represent the electron in motion which allows it to determine its momentum, it is by the same token impossible for it to define a specific location, since localizing the particle is the limit case of no energy for the wave function, at which point it is said to "collapse", meaning that it doesn't apply anymore. What happened after its initial introduction, it became popular to try retrofitting the HUP just about anywhere issues had not yet been clarified. Not necessarily a happy move, in my view. Mostly leading to stop searching for pertinent causes. > In FrediFizzx case, he doesn't believe that photons can > turn or morph into electrons and positrons. He asked where > the charge came from. You would have to discuss this issue with FrediFizzx. But as for the charge issue, I may have a nice surprise for him in this regard if our mutual exchanges eventually lead to it. > Well. In mainstream physics, when you made a very energetic > photon (equal to twice the mass-energy of electron) interact > with a nucleus. You can turn the photon into electron/positron > pair with the momentum being transfered to the nucleus. Yes. Well understood since the 1930's. > Now do you believe that a photon can turn into electron/positron > pair or do you believe like Fredi that the electron/positron pair > is already there in his vacuum and the photon merely energizes it? I don't believe that. It was physically demonstrated to my satisfaction at SLAC in 1997 that photons of energy 1.022 MeV could be split into e-p pairs by focussing two laser beams. At least one of which carried photons of at least 1.022 MeV. As I mentionned previously. The McDonald team, if you are curious. > We sure live in a world seemingly devoid of intuitive rule. This never was my impression. Quite the contrary, in fact. > But experiments support them that's why physicist just assume > and believe in them. And rightly so, in my opinion. > Causality is violated in many areas of our physics. Should > we maintain causility or is probabilities, energy > defying HUP stunts, etc. the name of the game? To me, apparent causality violations de facto imply mis- understanding foundations that would allow identifying the cause. > Well. For me. Physics doesn't have to obey causality. I > think the none casuality based rules of our science is just > the beginning and the tip of the iceberg. It is your option of course. > What if a stone would suddenly appear in front of you. What > can you say about causality. If you can make a stone suddenly appear in front of me, I would study the case until I understood what caused it to appear. I simply don't believe in magic. > It shows the world is not ruled by causality initated mechanism > but by something far weirder and more complex. You mean that your hypothetical stone appearing example shows that ? Well, It simply means that _you_ believe that it shows that. Real physical reality is not hypothetical at all to me. Through thermodynamics, I can mentally look right into the hydrogen atom and look at the electron jump from the ground state to the next orbital as a collision betwen its molecule and another causes its translational energy to be absorbed, after I have heated the gas by a very precise amount, and I can mentally see the 10.2 eV photon that will exit as the electron falls right back to its rest orbital. As I look at my keyboard I easily relate to the fact that at the ambiant temperature of about 293K the electrons of the outer shells of the plastic molecules jump up and down, shooting out in all directions the photons in the visible range that allow me to see them. In my view of things, there is no separation between the macro level and the particle level. > Our standard Model is just the beginning. A sizable portion of the physics community has doubts about the Standare Model, and rightly so in my view. > What lies ahead in the future can bedazzle humanity. Hope they > are ready. On that I agree. I must say that I am a little surprised that you would continue discussing with me after I told you I am not a physicist. André Michaud > > Andre, > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > with quantum mechanics to at the same time precisely locate > and define the momentum of the electron on atom's orbitals. But time-energy conjugate is related to position-momentum conjugate thru Fourier Transform. It comes directly from the math that's why physics believe it. It's like Dirac equation predicting anti-matter. The math can describe physical phenomenon. > Since the wave function can only represent the electron in > motion which allows it to determine its momentum, it is [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > of at least 1.022 MeV. As I mentionned previously. The McDonald > team, if you are curious. Well. What do you think happens right in the process where the photons turn into electron-positron pair. Do you believe it happens just like magic without mechanistic transformation or is there a classical causal interaction that we haven't known yet. Note many alternative modelers here present mechanics of how it occurs like Lockyer who describes the electron as made up of trapped photon in a certain configuration. I think the photons turning into electron-positron pair happens just like magic with no mechanistic transformation process. How about you. What do you think? > > We sure live in a world seemingly devoid of intuitive rule. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > understanding foundations that would allow identifying the > cause. Not misunderstanding foundations but consider it as subset. For example. Maybe there is some dynamics at play that can produce all the probabilities in quantum mechanics. The math is right. But the origin is not understood. Therefore you can't reject this seeming causality violation stunt because there is a hidden symmetry where it may occur. In the same way, energy appearing spontaneous at small time interval in virtual particles formation may occur because of hidden symmetry or dynamics. > > Well. For me. Physics doesn't have to obey causality. I > > think the none casuality based rules of our science is just [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Well, It simply means that _you_ believe that it shows that. I think Riemannian higher dimensional geometry is responsible. Think about GR metric tensor, maybe there is mini-wormholes that can connect each Riemannian surface. Tomorrow I'd get a thick GR book at the post office and begin reading it. Inside may lie the answer. Minkowski geometry is key to all. > Real physical reality is not hypothetical at all to me. Through > thermodynamics, I can mentally look right into the hydrogen atom [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 10.2 eV photon that will exit as the electron falls right back > to its rest orbital. You said you don't believe that electric charge can exchange force quanta. How about the weak force W, Z bosons, they were actually detected. So how can you deny the photons (or virtual particles) exchange transmitting the force in electric field interaction. >As I look at my keyboard I easily relate to the fact that at > the ambiant temperature of about 293K the electrons of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In my view of things, there is no separation between the macro > level and the particle level. Consider macro as just a collective effect of microscopic phenomenon in an approximate manner. In this world, everything boils down to quantum stuff. So you can't say the macroscopic world as primary but more like just blurring effect of a more definite quantum world. > > Our standard Model is just the beginning. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I must say that I am a little surprised that you would continue > discussing with me after I told you I am not a physicist. Well. Since I'm just a layman. And I'm not thoroughly familiar with the detailed principles in physics. If I discuss it with those novices, I'd end up in mutual confusions as they just muddy the water like those anti-relativity idiots here. Anyway. I consider you as much more advanced of course. You seem to be an electrodynamics master. I saw you mention Resnick Physics third edition is the best and better than the fourth edition so I searched for it and got it. But haven't time to look for it. What is your general impression of Resnick 3rd edition "Physics" with regards to electrodynamics. What kind of math is used there. Daryl > André Michaud Daryl a écrit : >>>Andre, >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But time-energy conjugate is related to position-momentum > conjugate thru Fourier Transform. I see what you mean. > It comes directly from the math that's why physics believe it. > It's like Dirac equation predicting anti-matter. Yes. Quite a good move. >The math can describe physical phenomenon. Of course, but math can in fact describe anything we can imagine. It does describe physical phenomena inasmuch as it is harnessed so as to take into account observed physical limits that the math itself does not propose. For example, it is physically impossible for a particle, any particle to have infinite energy or else the whole universe could simple not exist. However, it is easy to mathematically define a particle that will have infinite mass, infinite energy and so on. So math _can_ describe physical phenomena, yes, but it also allows, if we are not prudent, describing mathematical extensions that go way beyond what is physically possible. Another point, you spoke of the time-energy conjugate which relates the presence of energy to time elapsed. All of physics has been time based for centuries. But this is not the only way that energy can be mathematically dealt with. It is possible to deal with energy from the transverse amplitude/ transverse acceleration standpoint that does away with time altogether, which makes much more obvious that the energy of a particle is continuously present and continuously at maximum. For example, I personally find that formula E=(n+1/2)H lambda (where H=hc) much more obvious than standard harmonic oscillator formula E=(n+1/2)h nu >>Since the wave function can only represent the electron in >>motion which allows it to determine its momentum, it is [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Well. What do you think happens right in the process where > the photons turn into electron-positron pair. The million bucks question actually. You know, Fred was right on track with the question you said he asked : "Where does the charge came from?" I have a very clear view of how a 1.022 MeV photon would decouple into a pair of separately moving electron and positron, but you would need to become familiar with much more than the regular 4 dimensions that physics has accustomed us to to relate to the description I would have to give. I even described it here some time in the past (a couple of years ago maybe) during this or that discussion that brought the point up, if I recall. Since I am not a physicist, I have no access to peer reviewed formal paper publication (I am peerless, so to speak :-) ) so I cannot point you to a formal paper describing it. The best I could achieve in that direction was to present the required basic space geometry at a free access physics congress in St Petersburg Russia in 2000. But what I can tell you that may make minimal sense is that the model reveals that within a photon, any photon, there seems to be "something" that is cyclically transversally accelerated that mathematically could be seen as two identical unsigned "somethings" that seem to be charges (meaning that the sign is not intrinsic to that "something", but seems to be a relative opposite vectorial property that is a consequence of the only manner that the decoupling can occur), and that the two opposite acquired vectorial "signs" start accompanying the two separately moving "somethings" that we know as electron and positron. Well... reading it back, I can't fathom how this could make any sense to anyone not familiar with the 3 spaces geometry, but I guess it is the closest I can make it. Metaphorically speaking, how do you explain (I mean really explain) black holes to someone who still has not mastered GR and curving space-time ? > Do you believe it happens just like magic without mechanistic > transformation Absolutely no way. > or is there a classical causal interaction that we haven't known > yet. I'd say a perfectly understandable and surprisingly simple electromagnetic causal interaction that is not yet understood. > Note many alternative modelers here present mechanics of how > it occurs like Lockyer who describes the electron as made up > of trapped photon in a certain configuration. Yes. I read on most of them. > I think the photons turning into electron-positron pair happens > just like magic with no mechanistic transformation process. > How about you. What do you think? As I said, I think there is no magic at all, and that the process is rather simple, although not explainable in the confines of the currently accepted space geometry. See above. >>>We sure live in a world seemingly devoid of intuitive rule. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > For example. Maybe there is some dynamics at play that > can produce all the probabilities in quantum mechanics. QM covers all possible imaginable cases. Wouldn't it be conceivable that the really "physically possible" set be more restricted? See above my coments on math. Maybe the really physically possible set can possibly be one day be circumscribe ? > The math is right. But the origin is not understood. I would add a "yet" before your "understood". > Therefore > you can't reject this seeming causality violation stunt because > there is a hidden symmetry where it may occur. But I do. I did long ago and looked for causes. > In the same way, energy appearing spontaneous at small time > interval in virtual particles formation may occur because > of hidden symmetry or dynamics. Not in my model, and I think, not in physical reality. >>>Well. For me. Physics doesn't have to obey causality. I >>>think the none casuality based rules of our science is just [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I think Riemannian higher dimensional geometry is responsible. Well, you are looking in the right direction : more dimensions. > Think about GR metric tensor, maybe there is mini-wormholes > that can connect each Riemannian surface. Tomorrow I'd get a > thick GR book at the post office and begin reading it. Inside > may lie the answer. Minkowski geometry is key to all. Countless physicists have looked for that answer inside GR and they are still looking. I found that Minkowski's geometry is too restricted. >>Real physical reality is not hypothetical at all to me. Through >>thermodynamics, I can mentally look right into the hydrogen atom [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You said you don't believe that electric charge can exchange > force quanta. This is not exactly what I said. I said that the virtual particle representation was a mathematical artifact. I totally believe that electric charges can have energy induced in them as a result of the force that acts between them. > How about the weak force W, Z bosons, they > were actually detected. Quantized resonance energy "levels" have been detected and interpreted as being W and Z. > So how can you deny the photons (or virtual particles) exchange >transmitting the force in electric field interaction. To me, force between charges is permanently in action, it doesn't need to be transmited. That force induces energy as a function of the distance between the charges. This is precisely what I mentionned as being not discriminated between with the QED virtual photon concept, the force is not separated from the energy that it induces. I do not deny the usefullness of calculating the energy levels at such and such distance by means of Feynman's QED, but to me, this is just a straight edge ruler to measure the interaction. The staight edge ruler is not the interaction in my view of things. >>As I look at my keyboard I easily relate to the fact that at >>the ambiant temperature of about 293K the electrons of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > phenomenon in an approximate manner. In this world, > everything boils down to quantum stuff. To me it boils down to quantum interaction betwen elementary particles: real photons, electrons, quarks up and quarks down. > So you can't say the macroscopic world as primary but more > like just blurring effect of a more definite quantum world. I agree with that. >>>Our standard Model is just the beginning. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Anyway. I consider you as much more advanced of course. > You seem to be an electrodynamics master. Well, thank you for the appreciation! > I saw you mention > Resnick Physics third edition is the best and better than > the fourth edition so I searched for it and got it. I don't recall having said anything about the 4th edition. I recommended the third, that I have, if I recall correctly. I don't know about the 4th, but if it was updated by Halliday and/or Resnick themselves, if they were still around to do the job, I say go for it. If someone else did the update, then I have no opinion on it. > But haven't > time to look for it. What is your general impression of Resnick > 3rd edition "Physics" with regards to electrodynamics. What > kind of math is used there. What I like about their approach is that they start the student from the solid classical formulations and then introduce the student to quantum stuff, which is the right way to go. But other textbooks have been highly recommended also, like Griffits'. From there, you can go to more specialized works. There, I would personally recommend the Landau and Lifshitz collection, but no doubt many other series must be adequate) André Michaud > Daryl a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > allows, if we are not prudent, describing mathematical extensions > that go way beyond what is physically possible. Somehow reality seems to be written in mathematical language. It's connected with the mystery of Symmetry. Imagine a 3D vase that shatters and falls into Flatland, people there may not figure out what the fragments mean, but brilliant scientists there may model the fragments in higher dimension using mathematics and the symmetry or 3D vase outline may be realized. Likewise, our particles and forces may be fragments of a higher dimensional vase counterpart. This is what superstring theory is all about.. or other more exotic higher dimensional correlate. Bottom line is, mathematics and symmetry seem to be an effect of something higher dimensnional. > Another point, you spoke of the time-energy conjugate which > relates the presence of energy to time elapsed. All of physics [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > the two separately moving "somethings" that we know as electron > and positron. Well. Right now. I'm looking into this model about mass-free energy. It's like mass-free energy can self-interact forming mass particles and forces. So the photon may be result of some kind of mass-free energy configuration. When the photon turns into electron-positron pair, the mass-free energy may be in the right configuration for it to occur. I'm still awaiting the papers from the author for more thorough analysis of his model. > Well... reading it back, I can't fathom how this could make > any sense to anyone not familiar with the 3 spaces geometry, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > black holes to someone who still has not mastered GR and curving > space-time ? > > Do you believe it happens just like magic without mechanistic > > transformation [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > But I do. I did long ago and looked for causes. Looking for causes is good. But don't limit it to 3D. Encompass higher dimension. It'd be more flexible and more dynamics can be accomodated. > > In the same way, energy appearing spontaneous at small time > > interval in virtual particles formation may occur because [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > they are still looking. I found that Minkowski's geometry is > too restricted. I think spacetime is alive. So one has to upgrade Minkowski geometry to accomodate this. I have to study Riemannian geometry and wormholes first via GR. > >>Real physical reality is not hypothetical at all to me. Through > >>thermodynamics, I can mentally look right into the hydrogen atom [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > photon concept, the force is not separated from the energy that > it induces. Well. Think of the force carriers like W, Z bosons as something to carry away the charges, momentum or energy from the original particles and bestowing it to other particles. For example. When the down quark is converted to up quark in beta decay. The W force carries the charge away and converting it to electron and anti-neutrino. > I do not deny the usefullness of calculating the energy levels > at such and such distance by means of Feynman's QED, but to [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > student from the solid classical formulations and then introduce > the student to quantum stuff, which is the right way to go. What kind of math do you think is needed? My weakness is math, unfortunately. Is your major engineering? you know our physics is only like 30% of the meat. There are still 70% to go. Sometimes I think about going back to school and getting a physics degree, but it was more than a decade ago since I finished college. What part of math have you mastered already? Or maybe I'd get a tutor but a degree in physics is more cool. You can write a paper and be more accepted when you have physics degree. Daryl > But other textbooks have been highly recommended also, like > Griffits'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > André Michaud Daryl a écrit : >>Daryl a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > mathematics and symmetry seem to be an effect of > something higher dimensnional. You got it right. But superstring theory has been around for a while and obviously can't do the job, or it would have by now. >>Another point, you spoke of the time-energy conjugate which >>relates the presence of energy to time elapsed. All of physics [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > the papers from the author for more thorough analysis of > his model. I have no opinion on this. >>Well... reading it back, I can't fathom how this could make >>any sense to anyone not familiar with the 3 spaces geometry, [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Encompass higher dimension. It'd be more flexible > and more dynamics can be accomodated. That's exactly what I did. >>>In the same way, energy appearing spontaneous at small time >>>interval in virtual particles formation may occur because [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > geometry to accomodate this. I have to study Riemannian > geometry and wormholes first via GR. Interesting stuff, but a dead end. Based on the easily debunked notion that G is a constant and that it is universal. Only the underlying Kepler third law is universal. >>>>Real physical reality is not hypothetical at all to me. Through >>>>thermodynamics, I can mentally look right into the hydrogen atom [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > The W force carries the charge away and converting it to > electron and anti-neutrino. This may make some kind of sense in QCD, which can't even solve its own equations for a nucleon. Quote from an article on nucleon spin in Scientific American of July 1999:< "Even today, with the most sophisticated mathematical techniques and the most powerful parallel computers, physicists cannot exactly solve the equations for a nucleon." Dead end. >>I do not deny the usefullness of calculating the energy levels >>at such and such distance by means of Feynman's QED, but to [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > What kind of math do you think is needed? My weakness > is math, unfortunately. Not that much presently. You need to be able to integrate, derive, understand vectors, logs, exponentiation, matrices. That's about it for starters. Whatever special math you may need afterwards depends on what you will explore. You'll know what to look for when you get there. > Is your major engineering? No. Actually, I am just a Joe out of the street. No degrees whatsoever. I always shied away from the system to remain objective. > you know our physics is only like > 30% of the meat. There are still 70% to go. You'd be surprised at how little remains to be cornered. > Sometimes I > think about going back to school and getting a physics > degree, but it was more than a decade ago since I finished > college. What part of math have you mastered already? All of the above and then possibly some. > Or maybe I'd get a tutor but a degree in physics is more > cool. You can write a paper and be more accepted when > you have physics degree. You are absolutely right. But the tutor approach looks to me like the best course of action, if you want my take on it. You can discuss this with FrediFizzx for impressions, because it is the course of action that he chose (the tutor approach). Good luck. André Michaud > This may make some kind of sense in QCD, which can't even > solve its own equations for a nucleon. Quote from an article [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dead end. Dear André Michaud and others interested, A computer can not even completely solve equations for the weather systems of the Earth yet. (high and low and "neutral" fronts etc.) So... How are they going to be able to so such for the same basic thing happening in a much tinier scale with stuff that we can't even technically tell is there, until it does something. :) Understanding pressure differences is even harder when the pressure differences are occuring in stuff we can not even detect until it does actual work and even when it does such work, we still might not be detecting all of it. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Daryl a écrit : > Sometimes I > think about going back to school and getting a physics [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cool. You can write a paper and be more accepted when > you have physics degree. Thinking about it, seeing how you really want to explore physics, and if you went ahead to get an actual degree so can have a paper formally published, I must tell you that this is a risky proposition if you count on establishing a carreer on this. If you get a doctor's degree, your publications will be restricted like all of them to what does not stray beyond accepted paradigms, however restrictive and progress extinguishing they are. No really new ideas allowed. Reviewers are typically "chosen", so to speak amongst the most knowledgeable in orthodox theories and instantly spot and reject any "adventurous idea" however promising as too speculative for publication. I became aware of this very early on in the 1960's as I observed that no causalist paper was accepted for formal publication any more, and none has been accepted ever since. This is why I chose to stay completely out of the system, so no one could prevent my publishing my findings and spreading them out of the community's control. André Michaud > Daryl a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > André Michaud There are advantages in being a physics major: 1. You are taught everything which you couldn't have encountered by himself (esp. math) 2. You can publish articles in Sci-Am, Discover, etc. remember those article in sci-am that reality could really be 2-dimensional and the 3D is just illusion and also the cause of gravity? Magazines are more open-minded now these days. 3. You can, if lucky (1 in a million) win a Nobel Prize. 4. If you write a truly wonderful article with experimental basis, you can publish it in any peer reviewed paper. Note that physics decades ago is not the same as it is now. What we have now exceed any science fiction... time travel, wormholes, parallel universes, infinite parallel realities, baby universes, multiverses, inter-dimensional M-brane travel, etc. The physicists now are taking them seriously so they exceed already anything you've heard. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter how strange is the theory or model as long as it is experimentally friendly and sound. What they reject are things that have already been debunked before and experimentally disproven. Daryl Needs to be constructivistic, though. That kills most of what you talk about above. Makes "good movies", though. HAND Remeber that there are just 2 flavors of infinity - the potential, and the actualized. Daryl a écrit : >>Daryl a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > 1. You are taught everything which you couldn't have > encountered by himself (esp. math) Up to graduate level, I agree. But even then, this is all within reach of any individual working alone, If you think a minute, you will realize that they teach you nothing that is not already in publicly available textbooks. After grad level, if you really do want your masters and your doctor's degree, you will have to agree with orthodox theories that you amy already have rejected as invalid, or else, you simply will not get your further marks of recognition. Here again, there is nothing that they will teach you that cannot be found in publicly available textbooks and papers. No straying is allowed and you will be supervized closely by recognized players in the field that will simply not let you through if you persist in any out of the beaten path idea that could muddy the comfortably explored pool of orthodox ideas. Nobody enters the ivory tower without losing his freedom. Those that do with hidden agenda end up isolated and eventually leave the field. > 2. You can publish articles in Sci-Am, Discover, etc. > remember those article in sci-am that reality could really > be 2-dimensional and the 3D is just illusion and also > the cause of gravity? Magazines are more open-minded now > these days. Not as much as you may think. Reputations are at stake here. You will not be allowed to publish stuff that could potentially cause them to look like they disregard the community's opinions. > 3. You can, if lucky (1 in a million) win a Nobel Prize. Fat chance. > 4. If you write a truly wonderful article with experimental > basis, you can publish it in any peer reviewed paper. This is where your hopes are excessive. You will not be allowed if your paper is contrary to accepted paradigms, experimental basis or not. > Note that physics decades ago is not the same as it is now. I assure you that it is the same. I have been closely observing the scene since the early 1960's. > What we have now exceed any science fiction... time travel, > wormholes, parallel universes, infinite parallel realities, baby > universes, multiverses, inter-dimensional M-brane travel, etc. When you know more physics, you will realize that all of that is precisely science fiction. > The physicists now are taking them seriously so they exceed > already anything you've heard. Not all physicist share these delusions. Those that do have simply lost all common sense and don't know enough to bear coherent judgment. They bow in simply because these ideas have become all that is authorized to play with in the speculative domain, and that does not endanger the orthodox paradigms. > Bottom line is, it doesn't > matter how strange is the theory or model as long as it > is experimentally friendly and sound. What they reject > are things that have already been debunked before and > experimentally disproven. I wish you well, but I am positive that you will be sorely disappointed. André Michaud > Daryl a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > speculative domain, and that does not endanger the orthodox > paradigms. But if you study what's out there. There is clue that this sort of thing may be happening already.. that we already be visited by interdimensional visitors from out of space or out of time. What do you think are those "Greys" or "Reptoids" being reported. I sure wish they were all hoaxes. But what if a few percentage were indeed time travellers or inter-parallel universe visitors?? According to Michio Kaku. When you went time travelling to the past, you automatically split into a parallel universe, this means what you altered in the past won't change our present but the present of another parallel reality. So if you killed Hitler, our present won't be affected but the present of another world. Stephen Hawking "Wave Function of the Universe" speaks of such parallel realities much like the Everett Many World Interpretation of QM. Note time travel can be cooked up (allegedly) in the equations of General Relativity.. by some fiddling. I think I read Kaku mentioning about the Cosmological Constant and how some of the energy can be diverted to creating natural wormholes which people can take advantage of. I'm not sure of the details. I'll check again. I'm reading this latest book "Parallel Universe". But I'm not so interested in time travel anyway. However, there is one thing I'm interested in... that the past, present and future can be influenced as they all occur at the same time in higher reality. This means if I can send a tachyons clothed information back in time to decades ago when I was deciding what to take in college and my thought in the past was influenced to take up physics and I did it. When I wake up tomorrow. All the equations and math skills would suddenly appear in my mind like matrix download and I'd be discussing with the genius Hobba at his level. I'm I crazy? Well. If you read the time travelling research by Kaku and other serious scientists. It would just made you wonder... Daryl > > Bottom line is, it doesn't > > matter how strange is the theory or model as long as it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > André Michaud About the above. I got the idea from Michio Kaku book "Parallel Worlds". See the following for the details. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385509863/sr=8-1/qid=1141822959/ref=pd_bbs_1/1 02-6053627-5758521?%5Fencoding=UTF8 You think we are being had or fooled? But the contents came from other scientists and not Kaku's creation. Maybe they just don't have anything to do.. eh.. :) Daryl (srp) Seriously. I don't want to waste time in these thing either. I got Kaku book last year and was just reviewing it a while ago. I think so as not to be messed up. I'll just focus on electrodynamics based on your suggested Resnick book, QM and quantum chemistry or things that really matter in one's life. Time is gold. Let's not waste time on idle speculations on things that may be far off in the future or without relevance to present life or planck scale stuff which may need the accelerators of 40th century. BTW.. about the Resnick book, here's this review at amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0471401943/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/10 2-6053627-5758521?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n= 283155 "As a fourth year college student the price of the book, for its content, is outrageuos. There are no real explanations on how the problems are solved, or even how they were derived. It is like push the "I believe button". I borrowed their third edition( Physics Part2) from my college library and wondered why they ever changed it. The fourth edition is an extremely condensed version and is hard to follow. Though they cover a lot of required material this book is lacking if a student wishes to learn from the book without a professor's aid.." --- Well. I got the third edition. I thought you said it but remember it is the web site that mention it. So I guess we are lucky to have the more complete Third Edition which the 4th has condensed extremely. I spent weeks looking at the third edition in used bookstore. What other electrodynamics book do you have? Have you mastered the 8 differential equations. I heard when you put the relativistic part into it (the time part), the equation becomes 1 only from the 8. Daryl Daryl a écrit : > (srp) > Seriously. I don't want to waste time in these thing either. I > got Kaku book last year and was just reviewing it a while ago. I did think you were joking :-) > I think so as not to be messed up. I'll just focus on > electrodynamics based on your suggested Resnick book, > QM and quantum chemistry or things that really > matter in one's life. Time is gold. Absolute agreement. And life is short. Sound self-advice. > Let's not waste time > on idle speculations on things that may be far off > in the future or without relevance to present life or > planck scale stuff which may need the accelerators > of 40th century. Actually, Planck scale has meaning only in GR. Planck scale has absolutely no meaning in electromagnetism. As I said, it is based on the notion that G is a universal constant at all scales, which is easily debunked and proven wrong. > BTW.. about the Resnick book, here's this review > at amazon.com [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > required material this book is lacking if a student wishes to learn > from the book without a professor's aid.." Then the 4th is an absolute dud! Glad to know that. I sure won't recommend it. > --- > Well. I got the third edition. I thought you said it but remember it > is the web site that mention it. Which by the same token gives you second confirmation that the 3rd is the valuable version. > So I guess we are lucky to have the > more complete Third Edition which the 4th has condensed extremely. > I spent weeks looking at the third edition in used bookstore. > What other electrodynamics book do you have? Have you mastered the I have quite a few. Right here on my desk, I have "University Physics", 6th edition by Sears, Zemansky and Young, "Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration", by Stanley Humphries On my shelf, I see from here the college series by Harris Benson The Greiner series on quantum Stuff. Molecular Quantum Mechanics, 3rd edition by Atkins and Friedman. Many others in French, 2 in German. I know I have a few others out of sight somewhere. Most of them are out of print (I have been at it for 40 years). But I am more into electromagnetism really. My intro was "Electromagnetic Theory" by Julius Adams Stratton. A tough read, I tell you! But the finest of all in my view. Many other books on EM, some in French, German, even one in Russian. Then there is my own extension applying Maxwell to discrete EM particles, which is now my main reference to further research. > 8 differential equations. I heard when you put the > relativistic part into it (the time part), the equation becomes > 1 only from the 8. I understand what they all do. But I wouldn't say I master them all. I master the few that I do need. Math is not really my cup of tea. As you said, time is gold. I mastered what I needed. I'll look at the rest if I find time eventually. This will be meaningless to most, but relativistic considerations are better integrated if you do away with time as the main reference. My own extention is acceleration based. SR is timebased by structure while Maxwell is acceleration based by structure and is fundamentaly relativistic, and is more fundamental than SR. André Michaud > Daryl a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > André Michaud After following this strand for a bit, I'm compelled to object a little. You are mistaken if you think you can learn everything you would learn in graduate school from books. It is true that *most* (but not all) graduate courses still rely on books. Even in the case of courses, however, you will find that professors use these books as a resource rather than as a curriculum to work through. The course where I learned quantum field theory used four volumes and the homework assignment for the whole course was to find all the errors in all the books! The course where I learned functional analysis was taught by Halmos, who pulled all the textbooks on the subject out of the library so they would be inaccessible to us. Then in class he would spend ten minutes or so musing on conjectures and statements, which he would then number, and then in the following class we had to get up to the board and prove the statements that were correct and provide a counterexample for the statements that were incorrect. Thirty hours a week on that course alone. More importantly, graduate school is the transition from course-training to master-apprentice training. I can assure you that the latter is much more important than the former, and the latter can NOT be replicated by studying books. Finally, you say that professors and reviewers are motivated to suppress originality and deviation from the status quo. There is an element of truth here, but it needs to be expanded a little. For ideas that are in the mainstream, incremental work is easier to swallow and requires less justification, because there is so much other work going on in that arena that the community effort corrects small errors. On the other hand, incremental work, while safer, is also less interesting. What is true is that if you produce truly original thinking, then you *must* do the work to complete the thought, to produce real calculations, to produce accessible predictions of experimentally obtainable results, and to show consistency with previously observed results. It *is* harder to do the work for a truly original paper, and it is *not* enough to pose a cute idea and ask "What if...?". Fortunately, those with the crazy ideas --- Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Wheeler, Feynman --- who frequently were told that their ideas were crazy, also did all the work required and showed that, no matter how crazy it sounds, the ideas work. Underappreciation of that work is the price you pay for not submitting to the master-apprentice training, where the criticality of that work is the real lesson learned. I am guessing this is a lesson you have not yet absorbed. PD PD a écrit : >>Daryl a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > statements that were incorrect. Thirty hours a week on that course > alone. Must have been quite an ordeal. Not much time for enjoy even a beer during that session, it seems. But if you retrospect a little, you will see that besides confirmation of quarks up and down end of 60's, of the tau sometime in the 70's and of pair production form photons in 97' on the expermental side, nothing else has been discovered in the past 45 years. As for _working_ theories, the last on record is Feynman's QED, already 55 years old and explained in extenso in countless publicly available reference. Everything else is older and also completely explained in older refs. Of course, to get all of it, you have to correlate it from many sources, but even then... Anyone who _really_ wants to learn all of it on his own only has to start digging. What's more, once you have learned how to follow trails, you end up getting you hands of valuable stuff that is not referred because produced at a time when all was not translated to English. > More importantly, graduate school is the transition from > course-training to master-apprentice training. I can assure you that > the latter is much more important than the former, and the latter can > NOT be replicated by studying books. I don't deny that tutoring is a good thing and is the easiest course of action. > Finally, you say that professors and reviewers are motivated to > suppress originality and deviation from the status quo. Not exactly. I specifically was not thinking about professors. Not thinking at all about academic teaching at all. Specifically referring to post-doc. I have not a word of complaint about teachers work. > There is an > element of truth here, but it needs to be expanded a little. For ideas [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > experimentally obtainable results, and to show consistency with > previously observed results. Absolute requirement, yes. > It *is* harder to do the work for a truly > original paper, and it is *not* enough to pose a cute idea and ask > "What if...?". Fortunately, those with the crazy ideas --- Newton, > Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Wheeler, Feynman --- who frequently were > told that their ideas were crazy, also did all the work required and > showed that, no matter how crazy it sounds, the ideas work. The only way to go. > Underappreciation of that work is the price you pay for not submitting > to the master-apprentice training, where the criticality of that work > is the real lesson learned. I am guessing this is a lesson you have not > yet absorbed. Believe me, I have absorbed this lesson way back, and accepted all of the consequences. André Michaud > PD a écrit : [snip] > But if you retrospect a little, you will see that besides confirmation > of quarks up and down end of 60's, of the tau sometime in the 70's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reference. Everything else is older and also completely explained > in older refs. Uh, no. Let's go over just a few things that have been discovered in the last 45 years, just in HEP: 1. Quark-gluon plasma predicted and observed. 2. CP violation and KM mixing. 3. Neutrino-mixing and the resolution of the solar neutrino problem. 4. Strange, charm, bottom, and top quarks observed. 5. That SU(5) is not the super-group giving the symmetry of the next theory. 6. Quantum chromodyamics and jet cross-sections, including gluons in jets. 7. The Higgs mechanism, the origin of mass in QFT, and inflationary cosmology. 8. Running coupling constants and the establishment of the unification scale. Not to mention a bunch of things that are predicted by current theories which are due to be tested at LHC starting 2007, most notably supersymmetry. > I don't deny that tutoring is a good thing and is the easiest course > of action. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have not a word of complaint about teachers work. Professors take their teaching responsibilities to be divided equally among their coursework and the training they give to their apprentices, which includes a few exceptional undergraduates, their graduate students, and their post-docs. PD PD a écrit : >>PD a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 8. Running coupling constants and the establishment of the unification > scale. I was talking about physically verifiably stable scatterable particles which to my knowledge include real em photons, electrons, positrons, quark up and quark down. I mentioned the tau since it simply confirms an apparent metastable excited state of the free moving electron. The only subset I am interested in. Since the universe seems stable, it seems to me that only stable particles matter to explain it. The rest is QCD theory and standard model related rationalization of high energy resonance states that do not occur in stable matter. QCD and standard model have not demonstrated that they worked. I have had this conversation many times over and have already explored all nooks and cranies. > Not to mention a bunch of things that are predicted by current theories > which are due to be tested at LHC starting 2007, most notably > supersymmetry. Good luck. >>I don't deny that tutoring is a good thing and is the easiest course >>of action. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > which includes a few exceptional undergraduates, their graduate > students, and their post-docs. Of course. But this doesn't cause them to become able to have formally published anything not watertightly incrementally linked to orthodox paradigms. No exception observed on record since the end of the 1950's. Which was my point. André Michaud > PD a écrit : > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > quark up and quark down. I mentioned the tau since it simply confirms > an apparent metastable excited state of the free moving electron. Define "stable". The muon lives orders of magnitude longer than the neutral pion, which contains only up and down quarks. (And no, the tau is not an excited state of an electron. If it did, it would decay into a photon and an electron, which it does not.) And you'll notice you cannot explain the abundance of solar neutrinos unless you take into account oscillations into the 2nd-generation neutrino. Thus, the first generation neutrino is not as stable as you might think, though it is much more stable than a free neutron which in turn consists of up and down quarks. And gluons are just as stable as up and down quarks. Did I mention 9) W and Z bosons, the mediator of the weak interaction? > The only subset I am interested in. Since the universe seems stable, > it seems to me that only stable particles matter to explain it. That would be erroneous. The processes that explain the behavior of stable matter require the presence and participation of the unstable particles as well. > The rest is QCD theory and standard model related rationalization of > high energy resonance states that do not occur in stable matter. QCD > and standard model have not demonstrated that they worked. Gee, I dunno, there's lots of evidence that it works quite well. What evidence are you looking for? > I have had this conversation many times over and have already explored > all nooks and cranies. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > anything not watertightly incrementally linked to orthodox paradigms. > No exception observed on record since the end of the 1950's. Gee, I dunno about that either. See the citations above, plus supersymmetry, string theory, spin network theory, quantum loop gravity, holographic universe theory, black hole thermodyamics, none of which can be said to be "incrementally linked" to orthodox paradigms. What are you looking for? > Which was my point. > > André Michaud PD a écrit : >>PD a écrit : >> |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message