Speaking of "doing a runner", you do a runner every time someone asks you to do a gravitation example using inhomogeneous space. It's almost as if you are lying about it...
do the particles ever collide in QED
- Thread starter Arlich Vomalites
- Start date
Farsight to me
1. Believe it or not I have a life outside of Sciforums.com
2. It is a waste of my precious time to argue with Farsight, when all I get back are the same tired quotes from reputable scientists/mathematicians in their popularizations, but very badly interpreted.
Plus the same images over and over and over, without any form of logical development.
I say, in other words, my life is too short to waste anymore time on one who could hold logic in a bucket
Yes, I have "done a runner" and have "legged it" for 2 reasons
1. Believe it or not I have a life outside of Sciforums.com
2. It is a waste of my precious time to argue with Farsight, when all I get back are the same tired quotes from reputable scientists/mathematicians in their popularizations, but very badly interpreted.
Plus the same images over and over and over, without any form of logical development.
I say, in other words, my life is too short to waste anymore time on one who could hold logic in a bucket
You've done a runner because I've caught you out yet again, with the logical development that now has you painted into a corner. LOL, the best bit though, was you saying my image was stupid when it was Maxwell's. Oh priceless. I'm still chuckling about that. Doubtless I'll still be chuckling when you've licked your wounds and feel strong enough to take me on again. Only I won't hold my breath. Because when somebody has had a whupping, they don't come back for more.
Arlich Vomalites
Registered Member
It it easy to see why Farsight is wrong with his vortices. There are two types of electrons: one with a spin +1/2 and one with a spin -1/2
http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/83/electron-spin.PNG
These two electrons repel although they are counter-rotating.
According to Farsight, rotation is the difference between the positron and the electron. If that were true, then
the picture above in my link would show an electron and a positron. But it does not, they are both electrons. Therefore Farsight is simply wrong
with his "vorticial attraction and repulsion".
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This is incorrect, Arlich. There is only one type of electron and it has a spin of 1/2.
The "up" and "down" designations only have meaning in the presence of an external field of some kind, felt by the electron, in which case its spin takes up one of only two possible orientations, because there are the only orientations permitted by quantum mechanics. This is an example of what is known as "space quantization". If you have two electrons sharing an atomic or molecular orbital, each feels the field created by the other, resulting in small energy differences, depending on whether the two spins are aligned or opposed. But this is still a space quantization phenomenon - take either electron away into free space and it just has a spin of 1/2, not oriented in any particular way.
Arlich Vomalites
Registered Member
I think you and Farsight should both have understood what was my meaning.
I meant the two values: Ms= +1/2 and Ms= -1/2 whose meaning can be clearly seen in the picture,
these electrons rotate into opposite directions.
Anyway, that does not change what I said. Farsight is wrong with his with his "vorticial attraction and repulsion". Because the two electrons with Ms= +1/2 and Ms= -1/2 repel, but according to Farsight they should attract because they are counter-rotating.
I think that the important thing is that Farsight's continuously rotating whatevers cannot possibly account for the specific behavior of spin 1/2 particles. Specifically, he cannot show that continuous rotation can produce only two possible directions when passed through a Stern-Gerlach device.
Have I just missed some historical context, or does Farsight seem to have been sliding further down his rabbit hole lately?... While also gaining greater unchallengeable expertise in a wider range of theoretical physics?
I ask this here because you seem to have a better historical recollection of positions and discussion than I do.
Farsight has always addressed the range of gravitational physics and quantum theory. He used to be a bit more humble. By the time he was banned from the JREF forums, he was claiming that he was a physics expert, however.
If anything, Farsight is now beginning to show more cracks in his position.
Farsight has, over the years, developed a number of techniques. For example, he always returns to the "inhomogeneous space" claim, his limited interpretation of the speed of light, and to pair production. Pair production was his first love. He has had to abandon some things over the years, for example his use of Compton scattering to calculate the size of the universe, so he has a developing stable of things that he can try to use to shout people down.
You can look at his posts at different times and at different forums (and comments) and see the same cut and paste responses. After some of his posts, I do a google search for certain phrases to see if there is an origin for the claim and usually find that he has put the same content up at different places. Sometimes you can find a crank recommending a certain approach to him, though, and that's funny.
Recently, he has been going to science reporting comment sections using what he has learned from message boards, starting with things that he doesn't think will get too much push back and then he gets further and further towards towards his own personal theories. Most of the time, this leads to either a clear rebuke of his position, everyone in the comments ignoring him, or both.
For example, recently he has tried the whole "the speed of light isn't constant" thing, which is true only in a limited sense that Farsight does not understand. Then he goes to something like "tying light in knots" or some other thing that doesn't have anything to do with GR or something more esoteric. I do feel kind of sorry for the scientists that he tries to drag in as citations; that they are identified with crank thinking in many places in the internet isn't great. However, physicists and philosophers of physics have gotten crank letters for decades, so it's probably not too bad. (Martin Gardner has an article on this, IIRC.)
But, on to the cracks! The concerted effort by James R has finally got him to admit that he cannot do the relevant mathematics. Now he is forced to defend his pictures on their own merits. He has been forced to give up the pictures of spirals, since he is now claiming that they aren't accurate and that the 3D gifs that he is posting are relevant. Fednis48 has also got Farsight to clearly denounce the Schrodinger Equation, which is nice to point to that Farsight is a crank, but not good for changing Farsight's mind, since Farsight doesn't care for comparing scientific theory to the details of theory, Farsight only cares about comparing specific claims of scientists to an intuitive idea of the world, his intuitive idea of the world.
As Farsight has claimed that he is on this crusade to make physics more understandable because of his own children's failure to understand science, I fear that this is a deep seated drive in him to be right about this regardless of the evidence. It may be that it is more important for him to be the sort of person who is right than to be someone who wants to investigate the world regardless if this shows himself to have been wrong at some time. He may identify a failure to be right about physics with a failure with his family, thus he may be taking his dogmatic position so that he can feel like he hasn't failed his family. I don't know the details or even if Farsight was telling the truth about his initial motivation for pursuing a study, for lack of a better word, of physics.
It is somewhat sad, even when Farsight is extremely insulting to others.
If anything, Farsight is now beginning to show more cracks in his position.
Farsight has, over the years, developed a number of techniques. For example, he always returns to the "inhomogeneous space" claim, his limited interpretation of the speed of light, and to pair production. Pair production was his first love. He has had to abandon some things over the years, for example his use of Compton scattering to calculate the size of the universe, so he has a developing stable of things that he can try to use to shout people down.
You can look at his posts at different times and at different forums (and comments) and see the same cut and paste responses. After some of his posts, I do a google search for certain phrases to see if there is an origin for the claim and usually find that he has put the same content up at different places. Sometimes you can find a crank recommending a certain approach to him, though, and that's funny.
Recently, he has been going to science reporting comment sections using what he has learned from message boards, starting with things that he doesn't think will get too much push back and then he gets further and further towards towards his own personal theories. Most of the time, this leads to either a clear rebuke of his position, everyone in the comments ignoring him, or both.
For example, recently he has tried the whole "the speed of light isn't constant" thing, which is true only in a limited sense that Farsight does not understand. Then he goes to something like "tying light in knots" or some other thing that doesn't have anything to do with GR or something more esoteric. I do feel kind of sorry for the scientists that he tries to drag in as citations; that they are identified with crank thinking in many places in the internet isn't great. However, physicists and philosophers of physics have gotten crank letters for decades, so it's probably not too bad. (Martin Gardner has an article on this, IIRC.)
But, on to the cracks! The concerted effort by James R has finally got him to admit that he cannot do the relevant mathematics. Now he is forced to defend his pictures on their own merits. He has been forced to give up the pictures of spirals, since he is now claiming that they aren't accurate and that the 3D gifs that he is posting are relevant. Fednis48 has also got Farsight to clearly denounce the Schrodinger Equation, which is nice to point to that Farsight is a crank, but not good for changing Farsight's mind, since Farsight doesn't care for comparing scientific theory to the details of theory, Farsight only cares about comparing specific claims of scientists to an intuitive idea of the world, his intuitive idea of the world.
As Farsight has claimed that he is on this crusade to make physics more understandable because of his own children's failure to understand science, I fear that this is a deep seated drive in him to be right about this regardless of the evidence. It may be that it is more important for him to be the sort of person who is right than to be someone who wants to investigate the world regardless if this shows himself to have been wrong at some time. He may identify a failure to be right about physics with a failure with his family, thus he may be taking his dogmatic position so that he can feel like he hasn't failed his family. I don't know the details or even if Farsight was telling the truth about his initial motivation for pursuing a study, for lack of a better word, of physics.
It is somewhat sad, even when Farsight is extremely insulting to others.
So my impression that he has been sliding down the rabbit hole, is a ground hod day impression of my own. Likely due to the fact, that I don't follow any other discussion groups he has participated in... I take it he has reached the bottom and it sounds like.., is not even trying to climb out.
P.S. On my own I tend to do some speculating.., hope I never slide that far down the rabbit hole myself! So far at least, I think I know when I am speculating.
And yet here you are....The giant Intellect that has laid claim to having a TOE, to rewriting 20th/21st century physics, still spending time with all us common folk, instead of using the tried and tested scientific methodology and have his stuff peer reviewed.
Yep, the smell of delusional grandeur is strong with this one.
I speculate on things too. I don't like inflation, but I realize that it has some legs; still I feel that it's speculation either way. I don't like multiple worlds theory, but I realize that it has overcome some hard challenges against it, but I feel that it's speculation either way. OK, not good examples. But speculation is not bad.
Speculation based on models that are supportable within the realm of established science is the crux of the biscuit. We wouldn't have some amazing and serendipitous discoveries if not not for someone testing the math in a physical experiment that found something else.
No. I'm telling Arlich about spin ½. Take a look at Dirac's belt: "An object must be translated around the loop twice in order to be restored to its original position and chirality. In this sense a Mobius strip is reminiscent of spin-1/2 particles in quantum mechanics, since such particles must be rotated through two complete rotations in order to be restored to their original state." Or take a look at the illustration on the Wikipedia spinor article. The torus animations offer a visualization that hopefully Arlich can understand.
Of course this is correct - the fact that the Moebius and the electron are described by the same symmetry (Lie) group SU(2) has no fundamental significance.
But I have question
But I never heard the term "space quantization". Does this mean that space i.e. the "space" of an atomic nucleus and all its orbits, can be quantized?
Is it also the case that the Pauli principle applies only to bound electrons? Would this imply (or not) that space in general - i.e. far away from an atomic nucleus - is not quantized? If so, does this in turn imply that space is quantized only in the presence of the electroweak force?
As you see, at this level I am out of my comfort zone. This is a genuine question to exchemist (or anyone else) who can remind of the course I have largely forgotten
But I have question
In my university Phys Chem course I think this was ascribed to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Whereby close analysis of spectral lines of an atom's electrons reveals that each is a doublet, and therefore by this principle they must have different quantum numbers - spin up and spin down, say.
But I never heard the term "space quantization". Does this mean that space i.e. the "space" of an atomic nucleus and all its orbits, can be quantized?
Is it also the case that the Pauli principle applies only to bound electrons? Would this imply (or not) that space in general - i.e. far away from an atomic nucleus - is not quantized? If so, does this in turn imply that space is quantized only in the presence of the electroweak force?
As you see, at this level I am out of my comfort zone. This is a genuine question to exchemist (or anyone else) who can remind of the course I have largely forgotten