Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: talanum1 on 09/09/2020 19:22:37
-
Those that believe in point particles cannot naturally explain the magnetic moment of an electron. My finite model of the electron produces it naturally.
Point particles cannot be encoded with properties or names. How then does the QED vacuum recognize an electron?
-
Those that believe in point particles cannot naturally explain the magnetic moment of an electron.
Why not?
Point particles cannot be encoded with properties or names.
Properties are not "encoded" in particles as if they were some kind of computer program. They simply have properties.
Names are an invention by humans.
-
Those that believe in point particles cannot naturally explain the magnetic moment of an electron. My finite model of the electron produces it naturally.
Point particles cannot be encoded with properties or names. How then does the QED vacuum recognize an electron?
The problem is that you post stuff like this
In my model the Higgs is made of a Riemann sphere with left out events of spacetime - I can conceive of what ordinary physics cannot.
So it's going to be hard to get people to take you seriously.
-
Properties are not "encoded" in particles as if they were some kind of computer program. They simply have properties.
That is like saying "people simply have genetic properties". We happen to know that people's genetic properties are encoded in their DNA.
You both have ignored the issue of an Electron being recognizable by the QED vacuum.
-
That is like saying "people simply have genetic properties". We happen to know that people's genetic properties are encoded in their DNA.
We know that people have fingerprints (for example) which are not encoded in the DNA.
They may have natural names or numbers.
What would that even mean?
-
That is like saying "people simply have genetic properties". We happen to know that people's genetic properties are encoded in their DNA.
The word "genetic" automatically refers to genes (and therefore DNA). I'm not even sure that "genetic properties" even makes sense.
They may have natural names or numbers.
I'll second Bored Chemist on that one: what does that even mean?
-
I'll second Bored Chemist on that one: what does that even mean?
It means I'm stupid.
You two have not commented on the fact that the QED vacuum must be able to recognise charged particles.
-
I'll second Bored Chemist on that one: what does that even mean?
It means I'm stupid.
You two have not commented on the fact that the QED vacuum must be able to recognise charged particles.
It isn't a fact.
-
It isn't a fact.
It is a fact that the QED vacuum behaves differently for charged particles than for uncharged ones. If it didn't recognize charged particles, it would have acted the same for both types of particles.
-
That's not exactly "recognition", is it?
It acts the same way for a protonas for a positron.
-
You two have not commented on the fact that the QED vacuum must be able to recognise charged particles.
"Recognize" implies intelligence. The better phrase would probably be "interact with". It does so via the electromagnetic force, as the quantum vacuum contains virtual charged particles. I don't know what's so odd or unexplained about that.
-
Say we have a wave tank with two wave generators, one generator at each end of the tank. These two wave generators are 180 degrees out of phase. Since the waves will add and cancel by being 180 degrees out of phase, the center of the tank will appears still, even though wave energy is being inputted into the tank.
Say we add a partition in the middle of the tank, such as a wooden board. This will impact the wave addition and cause the hidden wave energy to appear as equal and opposite waves on each side of the board. The election is like a partition for the appearance of virtual particle/waves in the stillness of wave cancellation.
-
FORD:
Yeah, well, Forget that. I mean do you know how the universe began for a kick off?
ARTHUR:
Well probably not
FORD:
Alright imagine this: you get a large round bath made of ebony.
ARTHUR:
Where from? Harrod’s was destroyed by the Vogons.
FORD:
Well it doesn’t matter -
ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!
FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right? And it’s conical.
ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is -
FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole… but the thing is…
ARTHUR:
Why?
FORD:
No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.
ARTHUR:
Backwards?
FORD:
Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath… amazing.
ARTHUR:
And that’s how the universe began?
FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax.
-
It does so via the electromagnetic force, as the quantum vacuum contains virtual charged particles
You still need to encode (endow) the particles and virtual particles with charge otherwise, positrons and electrons will look identical for the QED vacuum.
FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax.
Is there a moral to the story?
-
You still need to encode (endow) the particles and virtual particles with charge otherwise, positrons and electrons will look identical for the QED vacuum.
Well, they do have charge. So that's not a problem.
-
They simply have properties.
How would you encode "They simply have ..." in physical (mathematical) terms?
Well, they do have charge. So that's not a problem.
Seems like you agree to encode them with charge. This leads away from point particles. Being able to state it in words is not enough: the statement has to be physically encodable.
-
Is there a moral to the story?
It's a bit like PuppyPower's post; but funnier.
-
They simply have properties.
How would you encode "They simply have ..." in physical (mathematical) terms?
Well, they do have charge. So that's not a problem.
Seems like you agree to encode them with charge. This leads away from point particles. Being able to state it in words is not enough: the statement has to be physically encodable.
Tosh.
Being a point particle tells you (encodes the data; if you like) that they have a radius of zero.
It does not tell you anything else.
It's not as if the charge has to be written on them
-
It's not as if the charge has to be written on them
You believe in Mysticism then.
-
You believe in Mysticism then.
No, a mystic would believe that writing something on a particle changes its nature.
That two statements contradict each other.
What?
Did you mean "those two..." In which case you are simply wrong.
-
How would you encode "They simply have ..." in physical (mathematical) terms?
"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming. You'd probably want to ask a computer expert. Not that it would be relevant to physics...
Seems like you agree to encode them with charge. This leads away from point particles. Being able to state it in words is not enough: the statement has to be physically encodable.
Assuming that we aren't in some kind of Matrix-style simulation, the Universe isn't a computer. So talking about "encoding" something into particles doesn't make sense.
-
"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming.
How do you translate: "They simply have properties." into mathematical language?
-
Me =9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms
-
"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming.
How do you translate: "They simply have properties." into mathematical language?
What "mathematical language" do you have to say (paraphrased) "point particles can't have properties"?
(To a certain extent, I do see where your argument from incredulity is coming from. My car is red. That seems to be possible only because my car is big enough to have some red paint on it. BUT sub atomic particles are not like my car, and the properties they have are not like the properties my car has.)
-
What "mathematical language" do you have to say (paraphrased) "point particles can't have properties"?
I don't support that argument.
Let me tell you this: if the particles are really points, then the only way to attach properties to them is in how their field behaves as the radius (r) tends to zero. Since both gravity and electric field go as 1/(r^2) this is out of the question (the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
Infinitesimal things should be a no-no in physics.
-
Infinitesimal things should be a no-no in physics.
So, what's the probability that they are infinitesimal?
I don't support that argument.
You have yet to support any argument.
That's the problem.
-
Why no comment about this:
Let me tell you this: if the particles are really points, then the only way to attach properties to them is in how their field behaves as the radius (r) tends to zero. Since both gravity and electric field go as 1/(r^2) this is out of the question (the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
-
(the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
There's no reason to believe it would, given that gravity acts on mass and the electromagnetic force acts on electric charge.
-
Why no comment about this:
Let me tell you this: if the particles are really points, then the only way to attach properties to them is in how their field behaves as the radius (r) tends to zero. Since both gravity and electric field go as 1/(r^2) this is out of the question (the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
Since GR came along, gravity is seen as warping of space-time, not a field. While you think the Newton-style formula shows up a "divide by zero error", I don't see how that's an issue.
-
There's no reason to believe it would, given that gravity acts on mass and the electromagnetic force acts on electric charge.
You don't follow the logic: if the properties are just specified by the force laws, there is no difference between charge and mass (since we may arrange: GMm = kQq).
Since GR came along, gravity is seen as warping of space-time, not a field. While you think the Newton-style formula shows up a "divide by zero error", I don't see how that's an issue.
The force law equation reduces to Newton's Law in the mild field limit. He who has eyes: let him see.
Particles can't be points since then they would need infinite density.
-
You don't follow the logic
Because it's wrong. Charge and mass are different things.
if the properties are just specified by the force laws
They're not.
Particles can't be points since then they would need infinite density.
And why is that a problem?
-
They're not.
How are they specified (implemented) then?
And why is that a problem?
It should be an axiom of physics that: anything infinite is unphysical.
-
How are they specified (implemented) then?
If you're asking why particles are the way they are, I don't think anything knows that.
It should be an axiom of physics that: anything infinite is unphysical.
Why?
-
If you're asking why particles are the way they are, I don't think anything knows that.
So it is me against an unknown?
Why?
Because infinity is a mathematical idealization, and nothing in physics is ideal.
-
there is no difference between charge and mass (since we may arrange: GMm = kQq).
There is a very obvious difference.
Like charges repel.
-
There is a very obvious difference.
Like charges repel.
How is that implemented into physical law?
The QED/QG vacuum must read the particle to create a relevant field around the particle. It cannot operate from the rule "Like charges repel." by testing if two particles repel, that would be circular. It must compute if two particles will repel or attract.
-
How is that implemented into physical law?
Did you miss this?
If you're asking why particles are the way they are, I don't think anything knows that.
-
Do you agree with this:
The QED/QG vacuum must read the particle to create a relevant field around the particle. It cannot operate from the rule "Like charges repel." by testing if two particles repel, that would be circular. It must compute if two particles will repel or attract.
-
So it is me against an unknown?
I don't know what you are try to ask here.
Because infinity is a mathematical idealization, and nothing in physics is ideal.
You could argue that zero is a mathematical idealization as well, but we know of quite a few things that are zero (like the net electric charge on the neutron, the electrical resistance of a superconductor, the friction of a superfluid, or the probability of an impossible event occurring).
It must compute
This, again, implies that the Universe is a computer. Do you have evidence that it is?
-
This, again, implies that the Universe is a computer. Do you have evidence that it is?
Every physics experiment assumes the universe is a mechanism, but any mechanism can be said to do a logical or mathematical computation.
-
There is a very obvious difference.
Like charges repel.
There is a sign difference in the force laws but we can arrange -GMm = kQ(-q).
-
My model predicts antimatter will have attractive gravity with matter.
It also gives a framework for introducing negative mass: the negative mass is just encoded with left-out points of space.
-
My model predicts antimatter will have attractive gravity with matter.
So does everyone else's model...
Were you expecting a medal?