Gravitational wave rumors ripple through science world

January 12, 2016
Arizona State University cosmologist Lawrence Krauss (R), pictured on January 14, 2010, sparked a firestorm of speculation and e
Arizona State University cosmologist Lawrence Krauss (R), pictured on January 14, 2010, sparked a firestorm of speculation and excitement by tweeting that gravitational waves may have been discovered

Rumors are rippling through the science world that physicists may have detected gravitational waves, a key element of Einstein's theory which if confirmed would be one of the biggest discoveries of our time.

There has been no announcement, no peer review or publication of the findings—all typically important steps in the process of releasing reliable and verifiable scientific research.

Instead, a message on Twitter from an Arizona State University cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss, has sparked a firestorm of speculation and excitement.

Krauss does not work with the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO, which is searching for ripples in the fabric of space and .

But he tweeted on Monday about the apparent shoring up of rumor he'd heard some months ago, that LIGO scientists were writing up a paper on gravitational waves they had discovered using US-based detectors.

"My earlier rumor about LIGO has been confirmed by independent sources. Stay tuned! Gravitational waves may have been discovered!! Exciting," Krauss tweeted.

His message has since between retweeted 1,800 times.

If gravitational waves have been spotted, it would confirm a final missing piece in what Albert Einstein predicted a century ago in his theory of general relativity.

The discovery would open a new window on the universe by showing scientists for the first time that exist, in places such as the edge of black holes at the beginning of time, filling in a major gap in our understanding of how the universe was born.

A team of scientists on a project called BICEP2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) announced in 2014 that they had discovered these very ripples in space time, but soon admitted that their findings may have been just galactic dust.

A spokeswoman for the LIGO collaboration, Gabriela Gonzalez, was quoted in The Guardian as saying there is no announcement for now.

"The LIGO instruments are still taking data today, and it takes us time to analyze, interpret and review results, so we don't have any results to share yet," said Gonzalez, professor of physics and astronomy at Louisiana State University.

"We take pride in reviewing our results carefully before submitting them for publication—and for important results, we plan to ask for our papers to be peer-reviewed before we announce the results—that takes time too!"

Other observers pointed out that any supposed detection may be a simple practice run for the science teams, not a real discovery.

"Caveat earlier mentioned: they have engineering runs with blind signals inserted that mimic discoveries. Am told this isn't one," Krauss tweeted.

But science enthusiasts may have to wait awhile longer to get all the details.

The LIGO team's first run of data ends Tuesday, January 12.

"We expect to have news on the run results in the next few months," Gonzalez was quoted as saying by New Scientist magazine.

Explore further: Video: The hunt is on for gravitational waves

Related Stories

Video: The hunt is on for gravitational waves

December 21, 2015

Gravitational waves are tiny distortions of space-time caused by some of the most violent cosmic events such as colliding black holes. The observation of these 'ripples of space-time' requires exquisitely sophisticated new ...

Improved sensors help navigate gravity waves

June 26, 2015

Efforts to detect gravitational waves—which were first predicted by Albert Einstein nearly 100 years ago—are advancing with international researchers including UWA researchers boosting the sensitivity of wave detectors.

Advanced LIGO to begin operations

September 16, 2015

The Advanced LIGO Project, a major upgrade of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, is completing its final preparations before the initiation of scientific observations, scheduled to begin in mid-September. ...

Missing gravitational waves lead to black hole rethink

October 21, 2015

Human understanding of galaxies and black holes is being called into question after an 11-year search for mysterious gravitational waves—famously predicted by Albert Einstein 100 years ago—failed to find anything.

Recommended for you

CMS gets first result using largest-ever LHC data sample

February 15, 2019

Just under three months after the final proton–proton collisions from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)'s second run (Run 2), the CMS collaboration has submitted its first paper based on the full LHC dataset collected in ...

337 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (20) Jan 12, 2016
What took the media so long? =D

Here is the original (rumor of) detection: http://www.nature...-1.18449 ; note the discussion about blind insertion of signals for practice runs, i.e. the analysts won't know if a seen signal is real until the unblinding of corrections (to avoid seeing a signal where none is) and insertions (to practice seeing real signals).

"Even if a signal has been seen, and if it is a genuine discovery, an official announcement probably will not happen until next year. The Advanced LIGO team plans to give itself about three months from the time of a signal detection to analyse it, write up a paper and vote to decide whether to announce it."

Here we are, "about three months" later.
AGreatWhopper
2.2 / 5 (21) Jan 12, 2016
I've noticed with CERN, just ahead of important funding milestones there're always a lot of "possible discoveries". Is, perchance, Advanced LIGO at that point now?
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (22) Jan 12, 2016
I've noticed with CERN, just ahead of important funding milestones there're always a lot of "possible discoveries". Is, perchance, Advanced LIGO at that point now?
You're confusing the hype of fraudulent huckstering monetarists with the pioneering hard work and dedication of scientists. It would be less confusing if you understood the science. Any of the science. At all.
baudrunner
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2016
For the $620 million they spent on LIGO they could have made their own gravity waves. All they need do is to build a gravity generator, which would only require a moderate redesign of a particle accelerator, or even a compact cyclotron, to simply send a bundle of tightly bound particles circling the ring at near light speeds, by which we should observe the relativistic effect of an increase in mass. Just for fun, set an upper limit at 1G. If the gravity field generated were allowed to suddenly collapse, that should generate gravity waves, provided that they exist, which I continue to believe they don't as all that is up there in the article is just rumor.
indio007
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2016
Maybe they'll announce a null result.
ichisan
2.3 / 5 (25) Jan 12, 2016
Sorry to poop on your little parade but there are no gravity waves. Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon related to energy conservation. It is instantaneous, just as Newton assumed centuries ago.
Andrew Palfreyman
3.6 / 5 (20) Jan 12, 2016
It's time someone helped you understand the difference between pooping and making a public fool of yourself.
animah
4.6 / 5 (20) Jan 12, 2016
Gravity (...) is instantaneous

Hmm No. This has been measured many times since the first experiment 13 years ago:

https://www.newsc...evealed/

Just google "gravity field propagation speed".
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (17) Jan 12, 2016
Gravity (...) is instantaneous

Hmm No. This has been measured many times since the first experiment 13 years ago:

https://www.newsc...evealed/

Just google "gravity field propagation speed".

Is the same true for magnetic fields?
OOps. Just checked - yes.
ichisan
2 / 5 (21) Jan 12, 2016
"Just google "gravity field propagation speed".

It's all a bunch of lies.
animah
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016
It's all a bunch of lies.

Evidence please?
Jayded
2.6 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2016
I prefer the concept of bent space.
Bob Osaka
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
They are called gullibility waves and their existence cannot be questioned.
Somewhat like North Korea's hydrogen bomb test, more likely 7 kilotons of conventional explosive packed into a tunnel, similar to its previous tests. At least LIGO or Krauss' false positives aren't intentionally deceptive. Knowing that one is mistaken is good science.
promile
Jan 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jayded
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
Can someone help me understand how you would go about detecting a gravity wave?
promile
Jan 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2016
Sorry to poop on your little parade but there are no gravity waves. Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon related to energy conservation. It is instantaneous, just as Newton assumed centuries ago.

Of course Newton did not know the speed of light. Faster than sound, is all they knew.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 13, 2016
They are called gullibility waves and their existence cannot be questioned.

You may question their existence but you can't make a case.
Somewhat like North Korea's hydrogen bomb test

There is no connection at all.
At least LIGO or Krauss' false positives

You are jumping to conclusions. These are rumours, nothing is definitive.
promile
Jan 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
theon
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2016
What do we gain from this cherry picking by Krauss? Will he be thrown out if wrong? Perhaps he has no results of his own to put forward?
brahmix
3.4 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2016
Re (2003): https://www.newsc...evealed/
"It would be revolutionary if gravity were measured not to propagate at the speed of light – we were virtually certain that it must," says Lawrence Krauss (him again) of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

(2011) http://www.desy.d...eed.html
'To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory—the gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities. The "speed of gravity" must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, __and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations__.'
promile
Jan 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2016
Is the same true for magnetic fields?
OOps. Just checked - yes.

Not surprising, since the photon is the interchange particle for the electromagnetic force.
indio007
5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
Retarded (in time) gravitational potential has never been observed.
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 13, 2016
Not surprising, since the photon is the interchange particle for the electromagnetic force.
- Anti-Thinking

Mindless repetition of a stale excuse posing as an understanding.

Dullard is generous.

Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2016
IMO the gravitational waves cannot exist just according to strictly 4D general relativity - it would require additional time dimension and reference frame for to allow the temporal propagation of space-time curvature.
Isn't that like saying quantum mechanics cannot exist in just 4D because the wave function is complex-valued?  (glad you're okay, Zeph) I think if you can fit 1D of time in the 3D of space, then you can fit 1D of "phase" in there too. And as many other 1D's as it takes to account for all that we observe.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2016
Just to comment on Baudrunner's idea: the idea that particles/objects gain mass as they speed up relativistically is an anachronism; a hold over of a very bad way of teaching relativity. Mass is the Lorentz invariant scalar magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector. Put more simply, mass is to energy-momentum what speed is to velocity. Because it's Lorentz invariant, all observers, regardless of relative motion, will agree on the value of mass.

The problem is that momentum defined as p=mv is only approximately true when v << c. p=gamma*mv is correct. Now you could combine the gamma*m and call that a "relativistic mass" but it isn't a 'true' mass. It *can* be convenient to think about in some physical cases, but it has to come with the giant caveat that it's not the *true* mass of the object.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (22) Jan 13, 2016
bluehigh blurted with immense application of "critical thinking"
- Anti-Thinking
Mindless repetition of a stale excuse posing as an understanding.
Dullard is generous
There yah go again cementing your position as the resident redneck "critical thinker" LOL !

Education please bluehigh
https://en.wikipe..._carrier

Step by step, with application of comprehension, intellectual discipline & a courageous enquiring mind wishing to enter into convergent dialectic and widen ones skill set along with becoming a beacon of emotional stability as you approach associating maturely with those that have done the 'hard yards' :P
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (19) Jan 13, 2016
indio007 claims
Retarded (in time) gravitational potential has never been observed
Beg Pardon ?

So you have never jumped off a height & felt delta potential as gravity accelerates you to the ground, do you even know how your narrow comment looks ?

Here yah go, join bluehigh and share you best "critical thinking" skills :P
https://en.wikipe...otential

Never heard of app of hydroelectricity, indio007 ?

Still havent answered my direct questions re; GPS, Hafele-keating, Mercury (metal), Mercury (planet), NIST atomic clocks ?

Where is crothers explanation as to why he fakes Einstein's Field equations, why has he munted the equation to make things up, does that make sense to you as a "critical thinker" in key association with bluehigh ?
https://en.wikipe...quations

Notice did you, that crothers claim is completely different to the correct one ?

Why do you think crothers did that, what did he gain ?

Yah think ?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (18) Jan 13, 2016
To bring some perspective on the situation, there is a good article on ScienceMag giving the historic account on these rumors http://www.scienc...rce-says For what it's worth, if it would turn out to be false, it would not be damaging for science but it would certainly be very damaging for Krauss's reputation.

Also, according to Luboš Motl the announcement from LIGO should be mada on the 11th of February.
promile
Jan 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
Is the same true for magnetic fields?
OOps. Just checked - yes.

Not surprising, since the photon is the interchange particle for the electromagnetic force.

Not quite sure what you mean by "interchange particle". As in - the medium of propagational exchange?
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
I was a bit flippant. I should have said 'virtual photon'. to be entirely correct.

Why an attractive force can result is a direct consequence of the uncertainty principle.

But since you don't want to hear from the experts...meh.
For anyone else interested here's a good summation of how virtual photons of like charges cause a repellant effect and those of unlike charges attract.
http://math.ucr.e...les.html
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2016
Describe the exchange of photons between magnets which causes either their attraction or repulsion. Try to do this without your big word point form nonsense riddled style of posting.

There are two things: particles, and fields.

Particles do not interact directly with each other, but through fields. Fields tell particles how physical properties like momentum change. Particles tell fields how they should change in response. By conservation of momentum, momentum must be exchanged somehow due to the change in particle momentum, and thus enters a force carrier particle. In the case of EM, this change goes to the creation or absorption of photons.

A photon is NOT a cue-ball richocheting off of matter. Rather, it is a package that contains momentum/energy. The thing that determines how this momentum/energy is then transferred to a particle, once again, the field. There is no transfer of momentum/energy, without both particles and fields.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2016
(continued)
Note: this is my understanding of things, and it is a classical description. I am not incorporating the idea that in QM, you must integrate over a state space of possibilities in order to determine the distribution of experimental results. People like antialias, please feel free to correct me if I am making a mistake.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2016
@bschott
What they are trying to explain to you is called quantum electrodynamics.
You can argue about interpretation but the QED formulas for non-tradiative interactions are the same as for the radiative ones except that the photon is virtual.
It's all true or Feynman was stupid.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 13, 2016

Describe the exchange of photons between magnets which causes either their attraction or repulsion. Try to do this without your big word point form nonsense riddled style of posting.

Not surprising, since the photon is the interchange particle for the electromagnetic force.


That statement is one of the biggest physics gaffes you lemmings repeat as though it is accurate.

You'll have to pass a course in QED first and THEN judge.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
How does the uncertainty principle attract magnets physically? What is the physical mechanism the uncertainty principle uses?

What do you mean by physical mechanism?
Perhaps you can invite all of your mainstream friends to a virtual banquet with nothing but the best virtual food, I am sure virtually everyone there will be satisfied having believed the virtual food was a realistic analogue for actual food.

You are confusing the colloquial definition of virtual with the physical one. Read the link. It gives a very good description of virtual.
This is the opposite of what you said in the same sentence

You are just arguing semantics here.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 13, 2016

No mainstreamer here can explain to you what is happening between 2 magnets without the requirement of a mathematical construct to represent the exchange.

That is incorrect. A physicist, in crank jargon a "mainstreamer", knows his Maxwell equations. These will also do the job.
promile
Jan 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 13, 2016
all true or Feynman was stupid.


He was taught the same stuff you were, but his understanding while slapping the desktop is evident, he gets it.

Actually Feynman was, together with Tomonaga and Schwinger the one who invented the "stuff".
He wasn't taught the "stuff". He MADE the "stuff".*
What's going on in your brains ?

*stuff: crank jargon for QED.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2016
@bschitt
I did study QED. You did not. Stil, I do not need QED to explain quasistatic magnetism. I have Maxwell.
You keep on making incomprehensible statements. Even about "crack". Are you ok, I mean, in the head?
And you don't understand metals either.
I can't think of a subject in physics that you do understand.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 13, 2016
What do you mean by physical mechanism?


See above regarding Kinetic energy transfer.

You are confusing the colloquial definition of virtual with the physical one.


If something is "virtual", it does not exist in the physical world, no confusion on my part because I can tell the difference.

You are just arguing semantics here.


No. I am arguing with lunatics here.

You ARE the lunatic.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
@billschott
And of course, stars do not experience any sizeable force from the intergalactic magnetic field.
Obviously.
Scroofinator
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2016
And of course, stars do not experience any sizeable force from the intergalactic magnetic field.

No but their magnetically induced heliosphere does, obviously.
my2cts
2.4 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2016
@scroofinator
I don't believe it. Those fields are only a few microgauss, much smaller that the fields of th e sun itself. Convince me with a reference.
btw I meant _galactic_ where I wrote intergalactic.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
Describe the exchange of photons between magnets which causes either their attraction or repulsion. Try to do this without your big word point form nonsense riddled style of posting..


relational positioning - "spin".
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
"Just google "gravity field propagation speed".

It's all a bunch of lies.


Because I say so!

Laughing!!
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (16) Jan 13, 2016
@bschott
What they are trying to explain to you is called quantum electrodynamics.


Math.

Physics uses math to precisely describe physical phenonena. Nobody has every given me a satisfactory alternative to what we should use instead of math. Yodeling? Interpretive dance? Please, let us know what does a better job.

Just because you don't understand the math, it does not mean that the physical picture behind the math is wrong. It also does not mean that it is counter-intuitive either. Rather, the math is sophisticated because the physical picture is sophisticated.

Case-in-point - QED is a quantized version of field theory, which is already a rather sophisticated mathematical framework that uses things like stress tensors and covariant derivatives to completely capture local physical relationships, but by quantizing it, we are forced to add fourier analysis, and ladder operators, too.
(to be continued)
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2016
http://www.nasa.g...ock.html

"scientists compile data from IBEX, NASA's twin Voyager spacecraft, and computer models to show that the heliosphere just isn't moving fast enough to create a bow shock in the tenuous and highly magnetized region in our local part of the galaxy."
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016
(continued)
We also have to add the theory of probability distributions to it as well.

But we only add those things because the physical picture behind them CALLS FOR IT. You have to understand all those things before you BEGIN to understand QED. Otherwise, you will be lost in a morass of equations without any sense of why they are the way they are.

On top of that, the calculations of QED are very difficult simply because math has an annoying feature where most problems do not have closed form solutions. Hence, we need perturbation theory to pick up the slack. And this is where Feynman diagrams come in, as further mathematical tools to guide us along our way to making predictions.

Math is ugly, but it is necessary. Stop complaining about it, and actually learn about the physical pictures that LEAD TO IT, instead of assuming that people simply cut it from whole cloth.
Scroofinator
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2016
And the reason there's no bowshock is because:
"As the first man-made object outside of our solar system, Voyager provided our only glimpse so far of the interstellar medium and it provided one giant surprise: The magnetic fields out there were aligned pretty much the same as the ones in here, though it had long been expected they would be oriented in a different direction."
http://www.nasa.g...iosphere
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016

No mainstreamer here can explain to you what is happening between 2 magnets without the requirement of a mathematical construct to represent the exchange.

That is incorrect. A physicist, in crank jargon a "mainstreamer", knows his Maxwell equations. These will also do the job.

Aren't Maxwell's equations a mathematical construct?
indio007
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2016
Massen you didn't even address my post at all. Retarded gravity i.e. gravitational Liénard–Wiechert potential. Which is not observed. You are aware that the gravitational force exerted by the sun on the earth at this moment is toward the position the sun was 8 minutes ago? That of course is if gravity travels at the speed of light. It's easy to discern that no stable orbit can be had from this situation. None of the items you mentioned have any bearing on the issue.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
Lets be real, a gravitational wave caused the apple to hit Newton on his head. It offered him to review the inside and causal effects that make the apple. I.e static and dynamic electromagnetic wave and two particles, a "+" and a "-". But, OK, lets try ignoring them and seek a piece of magic.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
all true or Feynman was stupid.


He was taught the same stuff you were, but his understanding while slapping the desktop is evident, he gets it.

Actually Feynman was, together with Tomonaga and Schwinger the one who invented the "stuff".
He wasn't taught the "stuff". He MADE the "stuff".*
What's going on in your brains ?

*stuff: crank jargon for QED.

Feynmann drew nice diagrams from the data without adding causal effects, i.e. a simple calculation. So I don't hold him in high regard. Actually adding confusion with a new "whatever"
Hyperfuzzy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2016
Lets be real, a gravitational wave caused the apple to hit Newton on his head. It offered him to review the inside and causal effects that make the apple. I.e static and dynamic electromagnetic waves and two particles in abundance, a "+" and a "-". But, OK, lets try ignoring them and seek a piece of magic.


Or should we say an averaged field since it changes faster than 10^-100 seconds, count the particles, then count the perturbations. So we can only see an average based upon our finite vision. Reality has no limits and the particles have no defined boundary conditions. Just the two. Physics as defined by Maxwell. Nothing else. Must start over to fix.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016
You are aware that the gravitational force exerted by the sun on the earth at this moment is toward the position the sun was 8 minutes ago? That of course is if gravity travels at the speed of light.

You are aware that gravity travels in all directions (from the sun) and so is therefore already where Earth will be 8 minutes from now...?
It's why they call it a FIELD...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2016
all true or Feynman was stupid.


He was taught the same stuff you were, but his understanding while slapping the desktop is evident, he gets it.

Actually Feynman was, together with Tomonaga and Schwinger the one who invented the "stuff".
He wasn't taught the "stuff". He MADE the "stuff".*
What's going on in your brains ?

*stuff: crank jargon for QED.

Feynmann drew nice diagrams from the data without adding causal effects, i.e. a simple calculation. So I don't hold him in high regard. Actually adding confusion with a new "whatever"

Feynmann got his diagrams directly from a path integral, with, in turn, is a clever reformulation of wave-amplitudes, which, in turn, come from the laws of QM.

I think we should not hold you in high regard because you don't know what you're talking about.
ichisan
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
Spacetime is the ultimate in crackpottery. Nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime, by definition. This is the reason that Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides (Zeno was a famous student of his) and called spacetime a block universe in which nothing happens. Source: Conjectures and Refutations.

"Gravity waves" is just more crap piled on top of the mountain of crap that modern physics already sits on.

http://rebelscien...for.html
http://rebelscien...ime.html

Relativists are all a bunch of morons. LOL.
Stevepidge
2 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
Math is flawed. Numbers, which were invented to represent and count "like" objects are based on logical representations and in turn treats objects as exact copies of one another. For instance, 5 "people", 5 "desks", 20 "dogs" etc. Because of this built in fallacy in assuming that all like things are exact, math can never truly represent reality and the incredible diversity, even among things that appear to be exact such as individual molecules and sub atomic "particles". Godel was right, if you are looking for completeness in math, you are barking up the wrong tree.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016
Spacetime is the ultimate in crackpottery. Nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime, by definition.

...No...not by definition.

Things move--through time and space. It's just that time and space are no longer inert backdrops, but things that are structured in accordance with configurations of matter and energy.

As for your links, what can I tell you? Maybe start with basic Newtonian mechanics, and then work your way up. You are saying all this from a position of deep ignorance, and the only way for anyone to BEGIN to argue with you is for you to understand basic concepts, like dimension, and not be confused about it due to whatever popular culture has taught you.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (16) Jan 13, 2016
Numbers, which were invented to represent and count "like" objects are based on logical representations and in turn treats objects as exact copies of one another. For instance, 5 "people", 5 "desks", 20 "dogs" etc. Because of this built in fallacy in assuming that all like things are exact, math can never truly represent reality and the incredible diversity

REAL NUMBERS. LOOK THEM UP.
built in fallacy in assuming that all like things are exact,

We don't assume that. Indeed, part of physics is trying to express physical constants as the result of fundamental relationships, rather than bare numbers. For example, the speed of light is 1 / sqrt(vacuum permittivity * magnetic permeability).
math can never truly represent reality and the incredible diversity, even among things that appear to be exact such as individual molecules and sub atomic "particles".

No, because numbers are only part of the picture. Relationships are arguably more important.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2016
Nothing like an article on gravity to bring out the crackpots, none of whom understand a blessed thing about the actual physics they're complaining about.

I will reiterate. The math is sophisticated because the physics is sophisticated. What we observe tends to conflict with what our primitive primate brains assume about the world. It is counter-intuitive because intuition comes from personal experience. Very few of us have personal experience with the very energetic (relativity) or the very small (quantum mechanics, or, hell, statistical mechanics). For those of us that do--the experimentalists and theorists, it DOES become second nature, but it takes years. And, once it does, they can then take those notions and develop wholly new notions, which, to the uninitiate, seem like unprecedented black magic.
(to be continued)
ichisan
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
"Things move--through time"

Yeah. Stupid is as stupid does. All relativists are morons.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016
(continued)
But almost every single thing at the frontier of our understanding comes from somebody, somewhere adding another block to the edifice of knowledge.

This brings us to gravitational waves. Of course, if your level of physics education is, at most, freshman physics, gravitational waves will seem magical to you. But, a person who studies it will, in great detail, be able to trace them all the way back not just to Relativity, but where Newton first began contemplating the nature of reality, and each step supported by the full weight of the steps preceding it.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2016
@ bschitt
moronic statements, and the ensuing stupidity

This is Crankish for physics.
Words have a different meaning in your posts.
What you think is English is actually Crankish.
No panic, I am compiling a Crankish-English dictionary.

thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2016
"Things move--through time"

Yeah. Stupid is as stupid does. All relativists are morons.

What is your alternative?
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016
Math is flawed. Numbers, which were invented to represent and count "like" objects are based on logical representations and in turn treats objects as exact copies of one another. For instance, 5 "people", 5 "desks", 20 "dogs" etc. Because of this built in fallacy in assuming that all like things are exact, math can never truly represent reality and the incredible diversity, even among things that appear to be exact such as individual molecules and sub atomic "particles". Godel was right, if you are looking for completeness in math, you are barking up the wrong tree.

The flaw is in "apple", "people", "desk", you erroneously blame math.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2016
Spacetime is the ultimate in crackpottery. Nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime, by definition.

Profound stupidity.
Your brains are fubar, poor schlemazzel.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
Hey my2cts, was my reference good enough for you?

So not only does the heliosphere interact with the interstellar medium, it aligns with the surrounding medium.

The question is what is the source of the interstellar field?
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
Feynmann drew nice diagrams from the data without adding causal effects, i.e. a simple calculation. So I don't hold him in high regard. Actually adding confusion with a new "whatever"

Who is "Feynmann" ? What is a "causal effect" ? In what way is QED a "simple calculation" ? How is solving previously unsolvable equations "adding confusion". What ever is a "whatever".
Are you mental?
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2016
Hey my2cts, was my reference good enough for you?

So not only does the heliosphere interact with the interstellar medium, it aligns with the surrounding medium.

The question is what is the source of the interstellar field?

Hi Scroof
The reference is good. Unfortunately it does not say what the field strength is. The number I have seen in papers is 1-10 microGauss, but here the field is called "strong".
Nevertheless, no magnetic field is strong enough to compete with the gravitational force on the sun, which is an ongoing dispute I have with one of the regular lunatics here.
ichisan
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
From the mouth of a relativist:

""There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle."
Source: Relativity from A to B by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago"

You cretins on this thread should sit your cretinous asses down in the back of the class and shut the hell up. LOL
Scroofinator
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2016
Well given the fact the gravity is 39 orders of magnitude weaker then EM, theoretically a magnetic field could be conceived that would overpower the sun's gravitational field. But practically, you are correct.

Have you ever asked yourself why, if gravity is so much weaker, and we are floating around in an EM sea, does gravity dominate at the celestial scale?

To me, it's sensible that gravity is just a unique manifestation of EM which is still not understood.

I choose to travel the path not traveled by millions for a hundred years. But hey, to each their own.
my2cts
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2016
Spacetime is the ultimate in crackpottery. Nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime, by definition.

...No...not by definition.

Things move--through time and space. It's just that time and space are no longer inert backdrops, but things that are structured in accordance with configurations of matter and energy.

As for your links, what can I tell you? Maybe start with basic Newtonian mechanics, and then work your way up. You are saying all this from a position of deep ignorance, and the only way for anyone to BEGIN to argue with you is for you to understand basic concepts, like dimension, and not be confused about it due to whatever popular culture has taught you.

His problem is simpler namely that a time and place corresponds to a point in spacetime. In a 3+1 dimensional way all appears fixed. Off, course, this paradox has nothing to do with spacetime, as the concept does that all is known at all times.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
Well given the fact the gravity is 39 orders of magnitude weaker then EM, theoretically a magnetic field could be conceived that would overpower the sun's gravitational field. But practically, you are correct.

Have you ever asked yourself why, if gravity is so much weaker, and we are floating around in an EM sea, does gravity dominate at the celestial scale?

Easy. Charges cancel out at short scales. Magnetic fields do not but are weak. Energy just keeps adding up, so gravity dominates at large scale.
To me, it's sensible that gravity is just a unique manifestation of EM which is still not understood.

Pleading against this is that all of the many enduring attempts to unify gravity and EM so far have completely failed.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2016
From the mouth of a relativist:

""There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle."
Source: Relativity from A to B by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago"

You cretins on this thread should sit your cretinous asses down in the back of the class and shut the hell up. LOL

cretin: Crankish for someone who is not a crank. Derogatory.
Well, obviously. Motion is represented by wordlines in spacetime. The wordlines themselves do not move. Another paradox resolved.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016
Energy just keeps adding up

Precisely! With EM it's directional, with gravity it's dimensional. Both are just different ways energy interacts.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2016
Energy just keeps adding up

Precisely! With EM it's directional, with gravity it's dimensional. Both are just different ways energy interacts.

With EM it is charges that interact, not energy.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016
From the mouth of a relativist:

""There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes...

That's just a rhetorical flourish.

The crux of GR is a tensor equation where, on one side, you have how space-time behaves locally, which you can't really understand until you understand what a metric is, and what intrinsic curvature is, and on the other side is the local spatio-temporal flux of momentum/energy.

So, conceptually, the way to think of space-time is as a manifold of 4 dimensions, where one dimension is time, whose geometry follows certain rules. That's all he means.

It's really just a pedagogical strategy for the neophyte to wrap his/her head around the concepts of GR.

You are complaining about absolutely nothing.

Of course, it doesn't seem that way to you because you're mired in the land of popular science descriptions. As I said, start with Newtonian mechanics, and work your way up.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
Massen you didn't even address my post at all. Retarded gravity i.e. gravitational Liénard–Wiechert potential. Which is not observed. You are aware that the gravitational force exerted by the sun on the earth at this moment is toward the position the sun was 8 minutes ago? That of course is if gravity travels at the speed of light. It's easy to discern that no stable orbit can be had from this situation. None of the items you mentioned have any bearing on the issue.

That is incorrect.
"As in the case of the Liénard–Wiechert potentials for electromagetic effects and waves, the static potentials from a moving gravitational mass (i.e., its simple gravitational field, also known as gravitostatic field) are "updated," so that they point to the mass's actual position at constant velocity, with no retardation effects. This happens also for static electric and magnetic effects"
https://en.wikipe...position
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2016
Given the the nature of the meaningless protestations raised by crackpots in this forum, I almost feel like popular science descriptions aren't worth it.

For every person entranced by such descriptions, there is a crackpot too crazy to understand that they don't tell the whole story (or even the correct one), but too arrogant consider they are crazy. And that's dangerous, since then they pretend to act as authorities and spread their misconceptions to unassuming laymen who can't yet tell the difference between authentic physics and "why is my face on fire?" physics.

I think part of the mistake is that there are simply no familiar analogues for the more advanced concepts. Perhaps we should try a different strategy. Instead of dressing concepts up so that people get confused, just relate fundamental aspects of experimental results and how they motivated theory. You don't have to eschew pictures for this.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2016
....

I think we should not hold you in high regard because you don't know what you're talking about.

Sure, after the fact. Not showing the neutron split, or particle motion for the field released, So, not a fan. QM or Maxwell? QM leaves you to define what you are talking about. Maxwell defines the particle motion that create the field, it has nothing to do with QM, simple wave equation based upon "might happen" vs did happen because .. i.e. what are you talking about? Here's a measurement to prove it! Oh we can also measure gravity with Maxwell and kn own fields, not mystery fields which are ever present and never observed.
https://onedrive....le%2cpdf
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2016
Math is flawed. Numbers, which were invented to represent and count "like" objects are based on logical representations and in turn treats objects as exact copies of one another. For instance, 5 "people", 5 "desks", 20 "dogs" etc. Because of this built in fallacy in assuming that all like things are exact, math can never truly represent reality and the incredible diversity, even among things that appear to be exact such as individual molecules and sub atomic "particles". Godel was right, if you are looking for completeness in math, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Guess it's a good thing that math allows for little things called variable entries...
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2016
Sure, after the fact. Not showing the neutron split, or particle motion for the field released, So, not a fan.

It seems you are not familiar with the incredible range of incredibly accurate prediction that QED has enabled. It seems that you are not in a position to make the statements you make. It's a free country but why be a fool?
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
Perhaps we should try a different strategy. Instead of dressing concepts up so that people get confused,

I think we don't need a different concept. People who come here come here for the articles. Do you really think they will take some trollish comment over the content of a published article?

The crackpots are kidding themselves bigtime if they think anyone is going to take them up on their 'alternative' theories based on what they post here or elsewhere on the web. In all the time I've been here I haven't seen it happen once.

All their hours/months/years of railing and ganshing of teeth has exactly zero effect - especially since this is a site ABOUT popular articles ABOUT science articles.

Scientists don't frequent this site. They go straight to the source (because they have the journal subscriptions paid by their institutes and get to go to conferences, direct)
animah
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2016
You cretins on this thread

For reference - ichisan is Louis Savain, a programmer and much-ridiculed religious crackpot who has for 10 years announced he was going to build a Christian AI that would disprove Darwin. LOL.

On Pharyngula:
http://scienceblo...-savain/

In the Encyclopedia of American Crackpots:
http://americanlo...ain.html

Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
Furlong@
No, because numbers are only part of the picture. Relationships are arguably more important.

I wouldn't argue that for a date with Scarlett Johannson...:-)
ichisan
3 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
Babbling fools. LOL
ichisan
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2016
"Perhaps we should try a different strategy. Instead of dressing concepts up so that people get confused"

The lying jackass gets caught in the act but he quickly figures out a way to excuse his stupidity.

ahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
Nevertheless, no magnetic field is strong enough to compete with the gravitational force on the sun, (which is an ongoing dispute I have with one of the regular lunatics here).

What do mean by "compete with"?
indio007
5 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016

That is incorrect.
"As in the case of the Liénard–Wiechert potentials for electromagetic effects and waves, the static potentials from a moving gravitational mass (i.e., its simple gravitational field, also known as gravitostatic field) are "updated," so that they point to the mass's actual position at constant velocity, with no retardation effects. This happens also for static electric and magnetic effects"
https://en.wikipe...position[/q

Citing wikipedia is bad enough but citing a wikipedia article that has this at the top.

"This article needs attention from an expert in Physics".
is...

The last paragraph is so irrational it's mindblowing.

Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2016
bschott didnt read or "lost it"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
Describe the exchange of photons between magnets which causes either their attraction or repulsion
More education first please bschott, need to notice my link necessitates education in essential & key pre-requisites
https://en.wikipe...particle

bschott betraying anti-math prejudice or Fear
I don't want the math or the peer reviewed paper, a physical description of precisely how two objects "exchanging" photons...
Basic Physics philosophy first bschott, Maths cannot explain - it can only describe & it does very well indeed *provided* you get your head around algebra (placeholders) in conjunction with Calculus Eg Field equations

bschott, try & get a grip, virtual particles are similar to Dark Matter (DM) placeholder & thus can be described Eg semiconductor PN holes, math is practical & predicts Very well

Eg Solid state Physics ie Integrated circuits work !
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
Minor clarification/correction to my last post of
bschott, try & get a grip, virtual particles are similar to Dark Matter (DM) placeholder & thus can be described Eg semiconductor PN holes, math is practical & predicts Very well
More appropriate to write:-
"..virtual particles are similar to Dark Matter (DM) placeholder & thus, as for quasiparticles, can be described reliably Eg semiconductor PN holes, math is practical & predicts Very well"

A growing trend here & in general; last 20yrs or so re Physics. Those that, that for whatever reason sadly miss out & key education in structured philosophy of Physics in respect of its (asymptotic) development over last ~100 years have proclivity to claim; need a "re-think". "its wrong", "its imaginary" or "it fails" etc

Yet they miss key, some might say, phenomenological aspect.

Eg We can't empirically *know* what goes on in empty space observing effect of magnetism but, can describe it & it predicts Very Well !

TBC
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
Describe the exchange of photons between magnets which causes either their attraction or repulsion. Try to do this without your big word point form nonsense riddled style of posting..


relational positioning - "spin".

I messed up on this one -
I do not believe any "photons" are exchanged (unless they're virtual in nature). Rather attractive or repulsive info is exchanged between 2 (dipolar) magnets via their relational position to eachother. I misread his statement.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2016
Sure, after the fact. Not showing the neutron split, or particle motion for the field released, So, not a fan.

It seems you are not familiar with the incredible range of incredibly accurate prediction that QED has enabled. It seems that you are not in a position to make the statements you make. It's a free country but why be a fool?

huh?
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2016
del2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy: I had a look at your paper. I think you need a good proof-reader. I corrected the 'grocer's apostrophe' in the Abstract for you. Since I disagree with your definition of a neutron in the section 'Gravity' I haven't gone much further. I 'm afraid your definition of gravity made no sort of sense to me.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016
With EM it is charges that interact, not energy.

Two sides of the same coin dude. Charge can affect energy. More specifically an electron's magnetic moment due to the charge. When we measure an atom's mass compared to what we calculate we get two different answers. The percent error is greater for elements with higher moments per volume. One can logically conclude that magnetism affects mass, therefore, energy.

If there's an explanation for this phenomena please correct me. I haven't really found one yet.
TabulaMentis
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2016
Are there any ideas floating around about Einstein gravitational waves being used to power a spacecraft's gravity engine or is that a task only quantum gravity can accomplish?
If so, I would love to know the link(s) or the keyword(s) to search.
antigoracle
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2016
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, reaffirms that he cannot read. Mutterin Mike has found another Wiki link and FAILS to read the caution at the very top.
https://en.wikipe...particle
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
antigoracle claims
..science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, reaffirms that he cannot read. Mutterin Mike has found another Wiki link and FAILS to read the caution at the very top
Been down this rabbit hole with you MANY times. Have already apologised long ago for mis-stating Bonobo's as monkeys when they are Apes since I misread which side of the sub-branch they were on, you don't get any qudos it has already been fully addressed long ago & already apologised for, in any case you failed to notice when you had the chance, grow up, Physics please

Header also addressed long ago, references are important wikipedia is as general intro use, either you still havent learned or only bark to find flaw, old pattern you have never done better

antigoracle, as I wrote before to you MANY times which you FAIL to comprehend, the references are helpful, not deleted/edited, there are several of them, which do u hate ?

Get a grip address Physics - why can't you ?
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
TabulaMentis with Science Fiction
Are there any ideas floating around about Einstein gravitational waves being used to power a spacecraft's gravity engine or is that a task only quantum gravity can accomplish? If so, I would love to know the link(s) or the keyword(s) to search
Nice try to lighten the mood here TabulaMentis :-)

From contemporary Physics angle there's no mathematical study I know which indicates if there would ever be useful energy

FWIW:
There are many oddballs that lurch to view Newton/Einstein are wrong overall due to large distances as doesn't describe star motion over long periods ie Extrapolating from static to dynamic case re n-body problem. At our scales we reliably use gravitation/relativity just fine around Solar System (SS) Eg Orbits etc, inference is therefore a correction worthy to converge on at very large scales but, not needed at SS scales. Have an idea but not helpful here, sorry not written a wikipedia page for that yet ;-)
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016

That is incorrect.
"As in the case of the Liénard–Wiechert potentials for electromagetic effects and waves, the static potentials from a moving gravitational mass (i.e., its simple gravitational field, also known as gravitostatic field) are "updated," so that they point to the mass's actual position at constant velocity, with no retardation effects. This happens also for static electric and magnetic effects"
https://en.wikipe...position


Citing wikipedia is bad enough but citing a wikipedia article that has this at the top.

"This article needs attention from an expert in Physics".
is...

The last paragraph is so irrational it's mindblowing.


You can also check the reference in the wiki article, and the references therein.
So what are you complaining about ? wikipedia is a very reliable source.
It is not anyone's fault but your own that you are stupid.
Even a broken clock is right more often than you.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
ichisan claims
From the mouth of a relativist:
...
You cretins on this thread should sit your cretinous asses down in the back of the class and shut the hell up. LOL
Beg Pardon ?

Would you be so kind to articulate your particular theory with more substantiveness than cranks on here that cant get their head around basic tenets of relativity, ie They are well known who unfortunately missed out on high school Calculus & instead of learning a little math such as exploited by Maxwell & Gauss instead betray immense insecurity barking complaint with Nil actual Physics, when its easy !

Surely ichisan, you don't want to be lumped with; Benni, bschott, indio007 etc that just can't get through basic Calculus as necessary to understand Gauss:-(

So ichisan, please link us to your; theory, approach, rationalisation & give us clear definitive articulation that, despite relativity working very well for bulk of phenomena, why you feel its just "not right", details ?

Math ?
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
Are there any ideas floating around about Einstein gravitational waves being used to power a spacecraft's gravity engine

If you mean capturing the gravity waves going through space and using that as an energy source: Probably not. The energies in this are really, really tiny unless you are very close to a strong source. And the strong sources are of a nature that you really don't want to be close to them (inspiralling neutron stars/black holes and that sort of thing)

If you mean making your own by confining such a source (e.g. some sort of artifically created micro black holes that release waves as they spin/approach each other) then that doesn't seem practical. Apart from creation of such a thing confinement would be near impossible. And the mass of these things would mean your craft has a HUGE momentum (meaning it would be impossible to steer on anything but a straight line)
bluehigh
4 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
No. I am arguing with lunatics here.


> you have so much more patience than me.

relational positioning - "spin".
- the artist of science

> Yes. Simply elegant.

Scroofinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2016
So, conceptually, the way to think of space-time is as a manifold of 4 dimensions, where one dimension is time, whose geometry follows certain rules.

Furlong, have you ever used Hamiltonian mechanics for these calculations? I only ask because I recently stumbled upon it, and I never heard about it in my physics classes in school (only took the pre-req phys for engineers and scientists). Since it's used to calculate Reimann manifolds (which in my opinion are the best way to conceptualize space-time) it seems like a pretty powerful method.
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2016
With EM it is charges that interact, not energy.

Incorrect

The EM field is a neutral field. It carries charges (electric only) 'electro...' and magnetic momentum '...magnetic' in discreet energy packet that are called photons but also through virtual photons which are disturbances of the EM field. Here is the basic of virtual particles http://profmattst...re-they/
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
Furlong, have you ever used Hamiltonian mechanics for these calculations?

I have used Hamiltonian mechanics, but not with GR, yet.
I only ask because I recently stumbled upon it, and I never heard about it in my physics classes in school (only took the pre-req phys for engineers and scientists).

If your courses were introductory, then that isn't surprising. As a calculation tool, it is very powerful, but as a tool for introducing students to basic physical concepts, it's not the best.
Since it's used to calculate Reimann manifolds

Can you elucidate? I ask because I really wouldn't describe it that way. A Riemannian manifold is simply a manifold equipped with an inner product. While the Lagrangian operates over generalized coordinates, there is no explicit inner product defined for them. Of course, that doesn't stop us from using the dot product on these coordinates.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
Reimann manifolds (which in my opinion are the best way to conceptualize space-time)

You are mostly correct. Spacetime is actually a pseudo-Reimannian manifold, which means that, while it has an inner product, it isn't positive definite. This means that curvature's a little more complicated for pseudo-Riemannian manifolds than for Riemannian ones.
it seems like a pretty powerful method.

It is, though I don't see how it would help shed light on the nature of GR.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
The crackpots are kidding themselves bigtime if they think anyone is going to take them up on their 'alternative' theories based on what they post here or elsewhere on the web. In all the time I've been here I haven't seen it happen once.

I don't think anyone would, either. What I think is that for a layperson, it is likely difficult to determine the difference between a legitimate physical argument, and certain plausible crackpot ones, especially those that bandy about imposing technical terms, and so might be left with the impression that there truly IS a debate. I am not simply conjecturing, here. Research indicates that the comments section on hot-button topic articles can shape a layperson's opinion far more than even the content of the article itself.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
With EM it is charges that interact, not energy.

Two sides of the same coin dude...

I think you need to be careful, here. While charge affects energy, they are NOT the same thing. Rather, they are two different fundamental properties of matter. Indeed, that two particles can have the same charge, but different rest mass seems unequivocally to show that they are different.

You are correct that charge DOES effect energy. In particular, an electron DOES have a self energy that comes from interacting with the EM field (https://en.wikipe...energy), but you can't conclude that because of this, charge IS energy.

Also, energy has a very specific definition. Namely, it is the amount of work done to put a physical system in its current state. The type of work done on the system yields the type of energy that is stored in it.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
It's funny when you ask a question about a physical phenomenon and everyone who thinks they are a physicist starts quoting who's mathematical work describes it.

You are drawing an arbitrary line at what should be considered math, and what should be considered physics. Most so-called mathematical work comes from rigorous experiment. We develop the math to capture the physics.
At the end of the day not a single one can tell you precisely how, or why the force exchange between 2 magnets physically occurs. They only understand the math....

Again, I don't know what you want besides something that doesn't conflict with your preconceived notions of how physics should work.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2016
Are there any ideas floating around about Einstein gravitational waves being used to power a spacecraft's gravity engine
No, they don't really scatter at all off intervening matter. They pass right on by and their effect is mostly just to alternately stretch/compress the matter, along with the spacetime. Not even a black hole would stop them - on the contrary, by detecting and measuring the waves we'll able to "hear" what happens *inside* black holes as they ring like bells during mergers.

If you could warp the spacetime in front of the spacecraft somehow, then it would free fall in that direction and the occupants wouldn't even feel any acceleration at all.
Hyperfuzzy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2016
I feel gravity, the sun moves, the earth moves, i move, i.e. we all feel gravity waves locally. juz say'n

Oh by the way, think small and many, it's hidden in plain sight.

Just something you should know, Dr E was an idiot. Didn't Peter Sellers do a movie about a demented man lifted up to genius status? It was really funny.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
I feel gravity, the sun moves, the earth moves, i move,

That's because you are at rest in the gravitational field. In free fall, you do not feel gravity.
i.e. we all feel gravity waves locally. juz say'n

No, those aren't gravitational waves. You don't feel them because they are too small to feel.
Oh by the way, think small and many, it's hidden in plain sight.

Well, yes, there are many of them, but they also interfere with each other.
Just something you should know, Dr E was an idiot.

Sigh. Fine. You are welcome to believe this. It doesn't really matter, because what he predicted was correct, as we have found over and over again.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2016
I feel gravity, the sun moves, the earth moves, i move,

That's because you are at rest in the gravitational field. In free fall, you do not feel gravity.
i.e. we all feel gravity waves locally. juz say'n

No, those aren't gravitational waves. You don't feel them because they are too small to feel.
Oh by the way, think small and many, it's hidden in plain sight.

Well, yes, there are many of them, but they also interfere with each other.
Just something you should know, Dr E was an idiot.

Sigh. Fine. You are welcome to believe this. It doesn't really matter, because what he predicted was correct, as we have found over and over again.

Unbelievably stupid people. Must be the one's who were last to leave the ice age. By the way, there was a warmer place further south. 30000 years before walking out, and now you know everything!? Space and time wrinkles, nonsense!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2016
Space and time wrinkles, nonsense!

As I said, you are free to believe what you want. I am sure you have not taken the time to actually understand what a space-time "wrinkle" even is. Those of us that do understand that it takes more than glib understanding of a science field to declare it incorrect will continue living in reality, while you continue to yell at passing clouds.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2016
Spacetime is actually a pseudo-Reimannian manifold, which means that, while it has an inner product, it isn't positive definite.

Right so this negative inner product infers gravitation, which is included in the 4 dimensional HM. That's all I'm getting at, it seems some things regarding gravity are implicit when doing the calculations with HM. Could also just be my lack of knowledge regarding the subject too, but at least that's how I understand it.
While charge affects energy, they are NOT the same thing. Rather, they are two different fundamental properties of matter

Aren't we saying the same thing here? Matter is the coin, and charge/energy would be heads/tails?
I have never heard of self-energy either, pretty interesting. In particular:
In basic terms, the self-energy is the energy that a particle has as a result of changes that it itself causes in its environment.

So an electron causes a strong EM field, thus altering it's own gravitational potential.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
With EM it is charges that interact, not energy.


I would love to hear YOU explain how the charges interact, physically. Not Maxwells equations, but what takes place between charges when they interact and how this leads to the observations we make when they interact. If you can do this, I promise I will lay off you....even when you say stupid things.

A full understanding of the electromagnetic interaction requires an understanding of the vacuum, so a unified field theory which I don't have. What I CAN say and have said before is that QED describes quasi static EM interaction with exactly the same formula as photon exchange.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
With EM it is charges that interact, not energy.

Incorrect


Nah...still correct

The EM field is a neutral field


Never. There is no such thing as a "neutral" magnetic field.

It carries charges (electric only)


Charges describe magnetic polarity, in the case of electricity the charge state describes current

'electro...' and magnetic momentum '...magnetic' in discreet energy packet that are called photons but also through virtual photons which are disturbances of the EM field. Here is the basic of virtual particles http://profmattst...re-they/


With all this "knowledge" you would think that the fusion guys wouldn't be mystified by simple plasma instabilities. Maybe if they got out of the virtual world.....

So you know what "the fusion guys" think. Hah. They would throw you out.
All the rest of your post is unbelievably wrong.
my2cts
3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
I feel gravity, the sun moves, the earth moves, i move, i.e. we all feel gravity waves locally. juz say'n

Oh by the way, think small and many, it's hidden in plain sight.

Just something you should know, Dr E was an idiot.

This statement obviously backfires.
Didn't Peter Sellers do a movie about a demented man lifted up to genius status? It was really funny.

You watched the whole 130 minutes believing that the movie was about Einstein?
That is incredibly stupid.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
Right so this negative inner product infers gravitation, which is included in the 4 dimensional HM.

No, the sign of the inner product distinguishes time-like vectors from space-like vectors. It is a consequence of the fact that the space-time interval between events is not positive definite. In fact, in SR, which does not really deal with gravity, you can also have a negative inner product.
it seems some things regarding gravity are implicit when doing the calculations with HM.

I don't know enough about this to comment.
Aren't we saying the same thing here? Matter is the coin, and charge/energy would be heads/tails?

Well, what exactly do you mean?

This isn't like mass/energy equivalence where wherever you have mass, you have corresponding energy and vice-versa, or like EM where a change of IRF transforms an E field into a B field.

There are other reasons not to think of charge as energy.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2016
(continued)
For example, when current flows through a wire, electrical energy moves much faster than the charge carriers.

There is no way to tell, given a certain amount of charge, how much energy is. As far as we know, there is no fundamental relationship between charge and mass.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
Charge and energy are independent phenomena.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2016
Well, what exactly do you mean?

I mean both are ways to express a component of matter. They just interact in different fields, as far as what's currently understood. One of these fields is still hypothetical, which is why we are commenting on this article.

I think of it like an engine's horsepower compared to torque, one says how fast work can get done, the other says how much work can get done.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2016
Also to add to the idea is the recent discovery of the brightest supernova ever:
http://phys.org/n...ova.html
It has been theorized that these super-luminous supernovae are powered by so-called magnetars, neutron stars with extremely powerful magnetic fields, with the magnetism providing the engine for the immense luminosity. According to this theory, the magnetic field's spin magnifies the energy of the explosion, increasing the luminosity.

Essentially the reason these supernovae are so energetic is because of their intense magnetic field.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2016
@bschott
You are correct. Your first statement is ok.
It is only the rest that is quatsch.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
In other words, I only understand this mathematically.

No, in other words, you are not being specific. What do you consider math, and what don't you consider math?

Part of the problem is that you are confused about virtual particles and force carriers. A virtual particle, from my understanding, is a mathematical tool for describing part of a perturbative calculation. It has more mathematical significance than physical significance (see Technocreed's link above). It's like a term in a multipole expansion. This expansion yields a very physically real field, but is the mathematical sum of fields of monopoles, dipoles, and so on.

OTOH, force carriers ARE real, and carry the field's momentum/energy.

Virtual particles can take the form of a force carrier just like a multipole expansion term can take the form of a quadrupole.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2016
As far as we know, there is no fundamental relationship between charge and mass.

Is it me or is this just jibberish?

It's just you.

Look up Poynting vector. It represents the flux of electrical energy in the EM field. It is what actually does the work in our appliances.

On the other hand, charge carriers (such as electrons, or holes in some superconductors), move very slowly. They are not what does the work in appliances.

I also meant to write,
There is no way to tell, given a certain amount of charge, how much energy THERE is.

Is that enough?
Benni
3.8 / 5 (16) Jan 14, 2016
Not surprising, since the photon is the interchange particle for the electromagnetic force.


Anti_Physics, no surprise that a Biology major such as yourself would make yet one more gaffe about anything to do with Electricity & Magnetism. Here read it & weep:

An electron has an intrinsic angular momentum independent of its orbital characteristics around the nucleus or movement through a conductor. A ball of charge has magnetic moment because it is spinning such that the charge on the edges produce a current loop of "electron spin" thus generating a magnetic field created by intrinsic angular momentum. Depending on the direction angular momentum of electron spin you get "attraction" or "repulsion", a property of KINETIC ENERGY, not electro-magnetism (photons).

Stick to biology, you don't know anything about physics.
my2cts
3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
@bullshitt
At the end of the day not a single one can tell you precisely how, or why the force exchange between 2 magnets physically occurs. They only understand the math....

Which describes the physics.

Between these 2 magnets there is a field of "flux" capable of applying kinetic force to the 2 magnets to keep them apart.

Define "field of flux". Define "kinetic force".
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
I mean both are ways to express a component of matter.

No, they aren't. Given the presence of energy, charge is not necessarily also present.

The neutrino has energy, but has no charge.

I think of it like an engine's horsepower compared to torque, one says how fast work can get done, the other says how much work can get done.

This analogy is flawed. Something with horsepower always has torque and vice-versa.

That is not the case with energy and charge.

By the way, it seems to me like you are hinting that the origin of mass is electromagnetic. You should know that this idea has been around for a long time, and we have good reason to believe that it is not true. See https://en.wikipe...ic_mass.

That is not to say it isn't true. Just know that plenty of people got there before you.
my2cts
3.1 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
An electron has an intrinsic angular momentum independent of its orbital characteristics around the nucleus or movement through a conductor. A ball of charge has magnetic moment because it is spinning such that the charge on the edges produce a current loop of "electron spin" thus generating a magnetic field created by intrinsic angular momentum. Depending on the direction angular momentum of electron spin you get "attraction" or "repulsion", a property of KINETIC ENERGY, not electro-magnetism (photons).

Stick to biology, you don't know anything about physics.

Benni confuses electron spin with electron charge, the poor schlemazzel.
That doesn't stop him from yelling at others.
A bad case of Dunning-Kruger + narcissism.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
Anti_Physics, no surprise that a Biology major such as yourself would make yet one more gaffe about anything to do with Electricity & Magnetism.

Anti knows the stuff he's talking about, and defers to people who know better then his own knowledge is inadequate.

You accuse people of not knowing differential equations, and then fail to demonstrate that you have any knowledge of them at all.

By the way, I am STILL waiting for you to solve the simple differential equation I gave you a few months ago. It sure is taking you a long time.
Depending on the direction angular momentum of electron spin you get "attraction" or "repulsion", a property of KINETIC ENERGY, not electro-magnetism (photons).

And yet, there is no such thing as an atom that consists entirely of two electrons.

Why, it's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
Hi everyone. :)

If all could tone down the personal/ego animosities and cheap shots/insults, and stop 'kneejerking' at each other for a bit, here are some relevant/crucial FYI 'items' for your collective consideration before proceeding further with your (hopefully more objective/courteous) discussion of the reality as it is and not as it 'conjectured' in whatever 'side's' preferred interpretational construct. Here goes:

- everything is 'made of' energy-space; the various permutations of configurations/flows 'features/structures' are ALL 'energy-space' in one form/dynamics or another, the forms and dynamics being a combined effect of BOTH 'active' AND 'passive' volumetrics of 'energy-space' entrained in the phenomena/events under study.

- pre-Einsteinian concept/treatment of energy-space, as some sort of 'media', was valid but did not actually identify its fundamental nature/entities/properties; and is where the original concept of 'space pressure' term came from.

cont...
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
Hi everyone. :)

If all could tone down the personal/ego animosities and cheap shots/insults, and stop 'kneejerking' at each other for a bit,


This is impossible. Neither Benni, nor bschott, are capable of having a reasonable conversation.

Scroof is, and you can see that, despite that I disagree with him somewhat, we are being respectful to each other.
everything is 'made of' energy-space

Are you saying space is the same thing as energy?
the various permutations of configurations/flows 'features/structures' are ALL 'energy-space' in one form/dynamics or another

Are you just saying energy is conserved and takes different forms?
the forms and dynamics being a combined effect of BOTH 'active' AND 'passive' volumetrics of 'energy-space' entrained in the phenomena/events under study.

I don't understand this at all. What do you mean by active and passive? What are volumetrics?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2016
...cont:

- Einstein correctly used that original idea of 'space pressure' when 'abstracting' all its physical properties (whatever they were) to formulate his 'space-time' mathematical construct to describe (not explain as such) GRAVITY effect as due to the properties of 'spacetime' (ie, energy-space) as 'conditioned' by a mass/energy feature's action on that 'diffuse' surrounding energy-space.

- so Einstein is CORRECT that GR is rooted in mass/energy features' effects on surrounding energy-space (or in math construct, 'spacetime') which in turn produces what is observed as 'gravitational attraction'.

- and since everything IS energy-space, then classical/einsteinian derivations of energy/mass equivalence principles (latest encapsulation being in abbreviated form E=mc2) should tell us that it is MOTION/CHANGE in/of said energy-space (or abstraction 'spacetime') that creates all forms/dynamics of energy-space matter/fields phenomena at all scales.

That's all for now. :)

thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2016
Depending on the direction angular momentum of electron spin you get "attraction" or "repulsion", a property of KINETIC ENERGY, not electro-magnetism (photons).

Oh, yes, and one more thing, though I am pretty sure somebody pointed this out to you before, but the magnetic field of a magnetic dipole falls off as 1/r^3 not as 1/r^2. So, the attraction between two electrons, even if you were to ignore the far more powerful coulomb force between them (which would be nonsensical to begin with), would fall off much faster than we know it does.

As I said, you don't know what you're talking about, but that has never stopped you before.
Hyperfuzzy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2016
Jeez, people giving more credit to unsound ideas rather than measurable physics. It's not that innocuous that we should argue facts not dumb ideas that pop into your heads, unfounded. So, where's my hemlock if I just dethroned a worshiped idea. Or just keep looking for what you don't know as an existence proof. What seems to be the thinking is: if it doesn't have an existence proof, we'll keep looking. Idiots, science is based upon what exist, else it's religion or magic! No need to search if factual! Logic begins with an obvious axiom, not this. What I see is physics that obey logic. No one can give me a formal proof of this nonsense. Saying you see the satellites obey Dr. E while not using the vector velocity, idiots or defining error as a function of potential energy. Cause you still don't get it. The body force is different based upon the proximity to any body. Practical! We live in a sea of EM fields, yet we do not consider any response due to it.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2016
@ thefurlong, everyone: I only had time today (and for the next few days at least) to make brief comment/contribution here in order to prompt all 'sides' to reconsider all their previous 'understandings'; I provided the above brief FYI 'items' so that all could at least see that there is a natural 'compromise' understanding/approach to what 'energy' is at base, how it arises/evolves/subsides etc in the overall universal 'energy-space' context/source of EVERYTHING observed/deduced.

I'd love to discuss these matters at length, but limited text format here, and limited time/energy at my disposal for completing my work, makes it unfeasible to do so at this juncture. I may of course, as I find time, make further brief observations as your collective discussions proceed, but that detailed/exhaustive discussion I must leave to all of you for a while yet.

I only ask that you think about by above FYI 'items' for a few days so that they may give you objective pause/context. Bye. :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2016
PS at everyone: It would help readers follow the various exchanges better if everyone ADDRESSED their posts to the relevant person's NAME when quoting them. Otherwise the usual mixups and bad feelings/misunderstandings/confusions will arise as they always do when a thread is long and many-faceted as to interlocutors/issues. Good luck and good thinking all, and bye for now. Cheers!...and stay safe. :)
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2016
Or just keep looking for what you don't know as an existence proof. What seems to be the thinking is: if it doesn't have an existence proof, we'll keep looking.

We are not at the point yet where we can rule out gravitational waves or confirm their existence. Have patience.

You are also not taking into account that we have INDIRECT EVIDENCE for gravitational waves. See http://www.astro....setaylor

Physicists are not just tilting at windmills. They have seen tantalyzing evidence. Again, it amazes me how many people think that physicists cut ideas from whole cloth instead of how it really works, with them arriving at conclusions by slowly, methodically, accumulating evidence and ideas.
Hyperfuzzy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2016
So lets continue to ignore this "sea" which is everywhere. It has no effect! Really? It gives us gravity. There is nothing but these "+" and "-" charges and the field. We can calculate; but we do not know what they are relative to our perception. It must be another trick. So think of something that makes sense to an aberrated mind.

https://onedrive....le%2cpdf
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
Hi again, thefurlong. :)

About to log out and saw your "Hulse-Taylor Pulsar' reference as somehow being 'indirect' evidence in support of hypothesized gravitational waves. This prompts me to post further FYI 'items' for collective consideration by all who have depended on that 'example' for their arguments/acceptance re 'gravitational waves'. Here goes:

- The local ENERGY-SPACE process/environment involved in that overall 'gravitational feature' of the H-T Pulsar is 'unknown' at this distance. However, we CAN say with confidence, based on KNOWN science, that there is MUCH energy-flow/processing within and around that 'feature' affecting the local energy-space surroundings.

- So MUCH energies involved may be producing all sorts of 'retardation/acceleration/relocation' effects locally.

- the ONLY 'radiation' from said local/feature that we KNOW is 'real/probable' is in the forms of Neutrinos/Photons and Relativistically ejected Protons/Electrons/other 'particles'.

cont...
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2016
...cont @ thefurlong:

- insofar as the gravitational fields/effects MOTIONAL/VARIATIONAL characteristics are concerned, the ONLY translational effects we know of so far are associated with the speeds of the parent bodies which produce the G field.

- the ONLY way any 'gravitational' effect/component 'energy' can LEAVE a system is via the 'parent' gravitating' ENERGY/MASS 'particles' ejected from the system via neutrino-escape, photonic electromagnetic radiation and polar-jet acceleration of protons/electrons etc into deep space. As Zephir observed, it is likely that the ONLY 'gravitational wave' FROM such dynamics is associated with the neutron/photon/particulate matter 'component SOURCES' ejected from the system.

- energy/mass cannot be created/destroyed, merely relocated/reformed; hence ONLY gravitational translations are of KNOWN type which accompany their energy/mass 'gravity inducing' SOURCES; as our planets/sun do with their respective 'gravity well' fields.

Bye. :)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
@RC
I have seen your comment before logging on; yes you are usually on ignore. So for your information the inportant information we get from the HS binary pulsar system is the orbital relativistic precession http://ciera.nort...berg.pdf
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2016
About to log out and saw your "Hulse-Taylor Pulsar' reference as somehow being 'indirect' evidence in support of hypothesized gravitational waves. This prompts me to post further FYI 'items' for collective consideration by all who have depended on that 'example' for their arguments/acceptance re 'gravitational waves'.
PSR B1913+16 isn't the only example. You need to catch up.

"The recently discovered double-pulsar system J0737−3039 is in a more compact orbit (2.4 hrs compared to 7.7 hrs for PSR B1913+16), which allows the measurement of all five PK [post Keplerian] parameters as well as the mass ratio R, giving a total of four tests of general relativity.  Kramer et al. (2006) showed that GR is correct at the 0.05% level and measured the masses of the two neutron stars to better than 1 part in 10^4." -- quoted from here: http://www.cv.nra...ing.html
Scroofinator
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2016
Ahh the ghost particle.
The neutrino has energy, but has no charge.

The near massless, rarely interacting bit of matter that is still barely understood. If we can barely detect the it's energy, maybe we just can't detect it's charge. If it's supposed to just be the smaller version of the electron wouldn't you expect some charge? Honestly though, I haven't studied the SM enough to try and truly argue a point, I just want to show my ignorance regarding why I don't care about it. Not really sure what all these particles actually do to help us understand gravity anymore than we currently do.

I do think mass is electromagnetic, and that it's just a good approximation. Doesn't make it wrong, just not completely right. But hey, what do I know? I wouldn't be surprised if gravity turns out to be some form of magnetism that isn't in the dipole form. Magnetic monopole perhaps?

For me, Coulomb's Law and Newton's gravitation are too similar to just be mere coincidence.
ichisan
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2016
Gravitational waves in space cannot possibly exist for the simple reason that space (distance) is a perceptual illusion, a creation of the mind. It does not exist (see link below). Only particles and their positions exist. Space is superfluous. This is not unlike characters moving in a 3-D video game. They don't move around in any space inside the computer. Only their positional properties change. It's the same with particles. In the not too distant future, after physicists eventually wake up from their stupor, we'll develop technologies that will allow us to move instantly from anywhere to anywhere without going through the intermediate positions.

http://rebelscien...ion.html
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2016
Ahh the ghost particle.
The neutrino has energy, but has no charge.

The near massless, rarely interacting bit of matter that is still barely understood. If we can barely detect the it's energy, maybe we just can't detect it's charge. If it's supposed to just be the smaller version of the electron wouldn't you expect some charge? Honestly though, I haven't studied the SM enough to try and truly argue a point, I just want to show my ignorance regarding why I don't care about it. Not really sure what all these particles actually do to help us understand gravity anymore than we currently do.

I do think mass is electromagnetic, and that it's just a good approximation. Doesn't make it wrong, just not completely right. But hey,


talking about neutrinos; it was wolfgang Pauli who proposed their existence in 1930 and they were finally detected in 1956.

what do I know?

Well I know exactly what M. Pauli would reply to the quote above.
ichisan
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2016
This is a class for dummies. A waste of time. See ya.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2016
Benni's pattern of personal attacks (again)
Anti_Physics, no surprise that a Biology major such as yourself would make yet one more gaffe about anything to do with Electricity & Magnetism
Why so insecure Benni needing to disparage others, common pattern as here !
http://phys.org/n...ess.html]http://phys.org/n...ess.html[/url]

Benni says
An electron has an intrinsic angular momentum independent of its orbital characteristics around the nucleus...
Hmmm, read this somewhere (link?) or in your uni textbook (which one?) or did you arrive at it independently ?

Then
A ball of charge has magnetic moment because it is spinning such that the charge on the edges produce a current loop of "electron spin" thus generating a magnetic field created by intrinsic angular momentum
Hmm, Definition of "ball of charge" please or meant a charge quanta e- <-> p+ ?

Benni's confusion(s)
http://phys.org/n...ess.html]http://phys.org/n...ess.html[/url]
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2016
This is a class for dummies. A waste of time. See ya.

And stay away, you moron.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2016
it amazes me how many people think that physicists cut ideas from whole cloth instead of how it really works, with them arriving at conclusions by slowly, methodically, accumulating evidence and ideas.

Personally I think this is because most people never get into contact with how scientists actually work. At best they get to see some demonstrations during visitor's day. Otherwise they get their ideays from Hollywood movies. Both show a very distorted view as if scientists were people that do some cool stuff "off the cuff"...instead of it being years and years of slogging through minute increments and trying out 9 things (each of which seem brilliant at the time) that don't work until finally hitting on the one thing that does.

The last part is particularly important to understand for those 'intuitive' or armchair scientists on here (i.e. the crank crowd). Just because you think an idea is brilliant doesn't mean it's correct. Vastly more likely than not it's wrong.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2016
.instead of it being years and years of slogging through minute increments and trying out 9 things (each of which seem brilliant at the time) that don't work until finally hitting on the one thing that does.


I've had at least three in the last two months, and I am just a lowly student. Gotta stop getting distracted by shiny, new, ideas and continue my studies. I've been on like the same page of my GR book for a while, now.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2016
Let say, I'm an aetherist and a hateful enemy of relativity - so I want to prove, that the speed of light CAN change depending on direction in which it's measured. So I will build EXACTLY the same interferometer like the LIGO detector and I will seek for delays of light in both its arms by interference shifts.

It's called a Michelson-Morley interferometer. And yes: that has been tried (in the late 1800s and several times since). It is the experiment that buried aether theories. Aether would show up at much lowert sensitivites than LIGO provides.


I've had at least three in the last two months, and I am just a lowly student. Gotta stop getting distracted by shiny, new, ideas and continue my studies. I've been on like the same page of my GR book for a while, now.

Yeah..same thing happend (and happens) to me, too. It's absolutely important to work through the implications of an idea before shouting "Eureka!". It makes the real moments all the sweeter, though.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2016
Yeah..same thing happend (and happens) to me, too. It's absolutely important to work through the implications of an idea before shouting "Eureka!". It makes the real moments all the sweeter, though.

By the way, I never really responded to your idea here:http://phys.org/n...ter.html . I am curious if anything came of it (or if you thought further about it). I had things to say about it, but never got around to saying them, though I don't know if phys.org is really the place to discuss original research.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
I am curious if anything came of it

Brother of someone I studied at uni with just became a professor in physics. I was thinking on checking it out with him. Haven't had a chance to meet yet.
(I'm sure someone thought of this one before. So chances that this is one of those 9 out of 10 times is pretty high)

Maybe yes, maybe not

Not maybe. That's a definite yes. We know how fast the Earth is moving relative to itself when on opposite sides of the sun. Aether would show up easily. (And effects would show up in daily life all over the place...e.g. in HUGE drift of GPS coordinates)
Scroofinator
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2016
It's called a Michelson-Morley interferometer. And yes: that has been tried (in the late 1800s and several times since). It is the experiment that buried aether theories.

It was a null result, which did nothing to aether. What killed it was Einstein's SR, where he stated it was unnecessary.
Then some years later Einstein realized he was wrong, but at that point it was too late as the damage had been done. Einstein himself was an aetherist in the end.
http://www-histor...her.html
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
It was a null result, which did nothing to aether. What killed it was Einstein's SR, where he stated it was unnecessary.
Then some years later Einstein realized he was wrong, but at that point it was too late as the damage had been done. Einstein himself was an aetherist in the end.

The problem is that aether is an unnecessary hypothesis. Action at a distance is already explained--by fields! There is no reason to assume that fields are matter. They do the job that's required.

People have this need to make descriptions of reality to conform to what they're used to. After all, every day experience tells us that contact between matter is the agent that causes things to move. But, I think this is not a good strategy. After all, we have found that reality doesn't often do this.

I think a superior strategy to trying to relate reality to the familiar is to find the simplest, effective, description of reality.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2016
Let say, I'm an aetherist and a hateful enemy of relativity - so I want to prove, that the speed of light CAN change depending on direction in which it's measured. So I will build EXACTLY the same interferometer like the LIGO detector and I will seek for delays of light in both its arms by interference shifts. Maybe the scientists trying to prove the general relativity with LIGO are secret double agents..
How many of the other less challenging experiments that have been done give results showing c is a universal constant? All of them.
Benni
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 15, 2016
The furlong, and the rest of his debate team, have no idea what is happening in the space between two magnets, but some are clearly very competent in math.


.......and have you stated a mouthful here. The biologist turned physics expert (Anti_Physics) has no concept of angular momentum of electrons & spin orientation in creating magnetic fields. The Anti_Physics debate brigade do not find it comprehensible that photons do not carry positive & negative charge.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2016
I am curious if anything came of it

Brother of someone I studied at uni with just became a professor in physics. I was thinking on checking it out with him. Haven't had a chance to meet yet.
(I'm sure someone thought of this one before. So chances that this is one of those 9 out of 10 times is pretty high)

Boy, do I know THAT feeling...:-)
For me, its more like 99 out of 100... (ADHD, I guess)

We know how fast the Earth is moving relative to itself when on opposite sides of the sun. Aether would show up easily. (And effects would show up in daily life all over the place...e.g. in HUGE drift of GPS coordinates)

Isn't the "huge drift" why it requires constant recalibration?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
describe what the magnets do to the space between them


That is specific.

No, that is not specific. Let me show you, because I will tell you what happens, but you won't accept it.

Here is the classical description:

An EM field exists everywhere. Let's assume that your initial conditions are that the two magnets are held apart so that the fields between them are static. Then, at 0s, they are allowed to move freely. Well, at each magnet's position, the field will tell it to start accelerating towards the other. Locally, around each magnet, the field momentum and EM energy density will change to account for its change in momentum and energy due to force and work. These local changes lead to radiation, which propagates outward from the magnets. It also carries energy and momentum with it.

That is a description of what they do to the space between them.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
The furlong, and the rest of his debate team, have no idea what is happening in the space between two magnets, but some are clearly very competent in math.


.......and have you stated a mouthful here. The biologist turned physics expert (Anti_Physics) has no concept of angular momentum of electrons & spin orientation in creating magnetic fields.

Neither you, nor bschott have explained to me, if attraction between charges is simply magnetism
1) why you don't have atoms that consist entirely of two electrons with different spins
2) how the attractive force between magnets is inverse cube, but the one between charges is inverse squared
The Anti_Physics debate brigade do not find it comprehensible that photons do not carry positive & negative charge.

What are you trying to say here? Do you even know?
Benni
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 15, 2016
the field momentum and EM energy density will change to account for its change in momentum and energy due to force and work.


......and what has this got to do with the angular momentum of electrons which is what creates magnetism? Do you even know what "angular momentum" is, and why it is critical to electrons creating repulsion or attraction within the structure of an atom's electron shell? I guess you don't, so why don't you take Chemistry 101 & learn how an atoms outer orbital configurations are created in the first place.
Gkun
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2016
I read the whole lot of comments... well, entertaining, I thought at the beginning. Then it became entrancing. After a while I was tired, but I could not stop reading. Now I would like to have my time back.

One question. Why do you keep replying to those people? I mean... I am interested into physics, but I work with computers and, well, I would not try to have my own physics theory or try to refute popular ones. I just don't know enough about this. But no matter what you believe, when you think the other side is crazy... well just stop talking. In here you have two sides thinking the other one is crazy and going on trying to convince them. Bah....
Gkun
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2016
I read the whole lot of comments... well, entertaining, I thought at the beginning. Then it became entrancing. After a while I was tired, but I could not stop reading. Now I would like to have my time back.

One question. Why do you keep replying to those people? I mean... I am interested into physics, but I work with computers and, well, I would not try to have my own physics theory or try to refute popular ones. I just don't know enough about this. But no matter what you believe, when you think the other side is crazy... well just stop talking. In here you have two sides thinking the other one is crazy and going on trying to convince them. Bah....
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2016
The problem is that aether is an unnecessary hypothesis. Action at a distance is already explained--by fields! There is no reason to assume that fields are matter.

That's what Einstein was saying, you have to take the state of motion out of the thought of aether, and thus, matter.

Can you explain to me how the Higgs field is conceptually different from aether? I'm honestly don't see any difference.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2016

CME's are still real in mainstream astrophysics...right stupid?

CME's have nothing to do with the galactic rotation of the sun.
Define "field of flux". Define "kinetic force".

these are mainstream terminology. I have used them in the correct context. Kinetic force is the physical transfer of energy, flux is how the mainstream describes what a magnetic field is. They just don't know what it is doing.

No these are not mainstream terms. Force is transfer of momentum, by definition. In SR force also has a time component. This describes energy transfer.
Afaik "Kinetic force" can only mean "force", "kinetic" just makes it sound more scientific, as if you know what you are talking about which we all know is not the case.
Magnetic flux is the surface integral of the normal component of the magnetic field. It depends on the definition of a finite, oriented surface and is not a field.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
the field momentum and EM energy density will change to account for its change in momentum and energy due to force and work.


......and what has this got to do with the angular momentum of electrons which is what creates magnetism?

Spin angular momentum, orbital angular momentum and linear momentum of charges all contribute to magnetism.
Do you even know what "angular momentum" is, and why it is critical to electrons creating repulsion or attraction within the structure of an atom's electron shell?

Electrons never attract each other. Your hear new nonsense every day on this blog.
I guess you don't, so why don't you take Chemistry 101 & learn how an atoms outer orbital configurations are created in the first place.

Good plan . Let me know when you finish so you can start making sense.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
Without external magnetic fields of opposite polarity SA particles would never be able to join to form hydrogen.

Interesting. You have a completely weird idea of the structure of a hydrogen atom. Where on earth do you find all this crap ?
why you don't have atoms that consist entirely of two electrons with different spins


No matter what the "spin" is, like charges repulse. Just like both positive poles of a bar magnet.
What is a positive pole ? There are North poles and a South poles. There are positive and negative charges. You completely lost it.
my2cts
3 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2016
More and more cranks emit more and more nonsense until a critical point is reached.
The hypercritical crap collapses onto itself into fathomless nothingness. All information entering with its horizon is destroyed. An expanding Crap Nebula is testimony that a catastrophe has occurred.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2016
Now I will do just that regarding kinetic energy transfer:

When the positive poles of 2 bar magnets are close enough that the fields impinge and 1 magnet is in motion, it transfers kinetic energy to the other magnet via the interaction of the external fields. The force causes the second magnet to move despite never physically contacting the first magnet. Sorry for referring to it as kinetic force....it seemed logical.

Three words explain how this happens, not 4 years of math.

Magnetic forces do not transfer kinetic energy.
Everyone with minimum skill in physics knows.
Your kidding around with magnets is irrelevant to the repulsion between charges. Only for relativistic charges magnetic fields become first order.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
@ bullschitt
F.ds vanishes for a magnetic field, so no work.
"Because the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the motion, the magnetic field can do no work on an isolated charge. It can only do work indirectly, via the electric field generated by a changing magnetic field."
https://en.wikipe..._current

"I'm dying here ... this is great."
So now you are dead wrong.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
@bullschitt
Any physics student, professor will tell you the same as I do. Also if Faraday, Ampere, Maxwell, Fresnel, Lorentz, Lorenz were still among us they would have told you the same.
But off course bullschitt knows better.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2016
Hi thefurlong. :)

While your 'descriptive' explanation of 'fields' is 'ok' for purposes of describing the discernible effects and calculating/predicting the behavior of the system under study, it in no way explains the underlying physical entities which manifest that which your explanation 'describes' etc. See the problem? It's all 'labels' for this and that; but NO physical/effective properties/entities actually identified which create those effects we observe/calculate/predict in merely 'descriptive' terms/labels ABSTRACT geometry/maths analysis constructs. That was the fatal mistake of Einsteinian theoretical physicists/models; they decided to pretend there was 'nothing there' even though they KNEW there was; which is why we have been stuck with purely ABSTRACTED mathematical 'spacetime' 'labels/descriptions' of what IS physically 'there' at the most fundamental energy-space level which possess real physical effectiveness characteristics that MANIFESTS the EFFECTS. :)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
Well, magnet A still moved without contacting magnet B when I pushed B towards A.

Well, two magnets that attract each other DO do work. After all, they have magnetic moments, and from electrostatics, we know that the B field does work on magnetic moments. But, electrostatics is just an approximation.

In reality (classically), the B field does no work. After all, it the magnetic force on a charge is always perpendicular to its velocity.

What you are not taking into account is the fact that, when you have a loop of current, it is constrained to the loop. These aren't freely flowing charges. Thus, when the charges try to move in the direction perpendicular to their velocity, they start pushing against their container, doing work on it. The container thus feels a force from the charges, and begins accelerating.

It's actually an interesting problem--one of those things that makes a person double check what they think they know.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2016
So now you are dead wrong.


I am? It was illusion? Awe sheeeit.

Well, magnet A still moved without contacting magnet B when I pushed B towards A.

So no...you are just, as usual, very confused because the simple example above doesn't conform with the reality that someone else told you that you were part of...but none the less it happens everytime and is thus, part of the rest of our observable reality.

Gnight you mensa poster boy you....

Just read the wiki paragraph.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
Well, magnet A still moved without contacting magnet B when I pushed B towards A.

Well, two magnets that attract each other DO do work. After all, they have magnetic moments, and from electrostatics, we know that the B field does work on magnetic moments.

" It is often claimed that the magnetic force can do work to a non-elementary magnetic dipole, or to charged particles whose motion is constrained by other forces, but this is incorrect because the work in those cases is performed by the electric forces of the charges deflected by the magnetic field."
https://en.wikipe..._current
baudrunner
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2016
Just to comment on Baudrunner's idea: the idea that particles/objects gain mass as they speed up relativistically is an anachronism; a hold over of a very bad way of teaching relativity.
For the record, that should read "objects gain mass relativistically", not "as they speed up relativistically".

..that's all pretty high-falootin' output you got, there, @Shaver, but the manifestation of the relativistic effects of increasing a body's mass is a real and physically measurable thing if you're making the measurement from outside of an accelerator ring, ie.from within your inertial frame of reference. You haven't been reading... http://phys.org/n...ies.html
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
I agree with shaver. The energy increases as mc^2*gamma. The mass is constant.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2016
Hi all. :)

It'd help avoid confusion if people bore in mind that there are mainly TWO (and hybrids of same) separate/different entities/dynamics being discussed in cross-purpose manner here: 'magnet-to-magnet' AND/OR 'magnet-to-charges' interactions. Ie...

- a bar magnet moved towards/through a 'neutral' copper wire LOOP will induce charges to MOVE; hence imparting energy to the loop electrons to 'flow' and make a counteracting 'magnetic field' which manifests a RESISTANCE force against the bar magnet's motion; whereas...

- respective N/N, S/S, N/S poles of two bar magnet moved towards each other may EITHER repel OR attract, where the 'attraction' or 'repulsion' is due to energy-space effects/force basically impacting MAINLY on each other's magnetic FIELDS, and only INDIRECTLY to any protons/electrons making up the bar magnets.

PS: Consider also various 'unusual' like-charge-like-charge 'stable' features created under specific conditions: Cooper-Pairing etc.

Cheers. :)
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
There is no confusion. :-))
A moving magnet has an electric field, which is responsible for any work done.
The magnetic field does not do work, ever.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
There is no confusion. :-))
A moving magnet has an electric field, which is responsible for any work done.
The magnetic field does not do work, ever.
Can you please elaborate what you mean? Especially where the electric field comes from and what it subsists in and/or mediated/propagated by in order for the moving magnet to 'get' an electric field when 'moved'? I'm really interested in your perspective on what you think is actually 'happening' and what 'entities' are involved. Thanks. :)

PS: I am already aware that a solitary/stationary bar magnet does not do work via its field in order to maintain that field. But all other dynamic/multi-magnet interacting/moving situations involve some ork and feedback between both magnetic fields and induced electric fields. :)
Hyperfuzzy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2016
relative curl of E, spatially and temporally.
juz say'n, why argue, facts are facts
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2016
There is no confusion. :-))
A moving magnet has an electric field, which is responsible for any work done.
The magnetic field does not do work, ever.

Just to be clear, I agree with m2cts. I was merely stating that 2 magnets that attract each other do work, but it isn't the magnetic field that is actually doing the work. In the case of electrostatics, it is more appropriate to say that the magnets are doing work on each other (since the fields don't change). I shouldn't have written that the B field does work on the magnetic moment, because it doesn't.

At any rate, see the explanation I provided. The charges push against the container holding them, and accelerate it in the direction of its velocity.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016

An EM field exists everywhere.


Indeed it does (not always "electro", but close enough)....so at least part of the classical description recognizes an aspect of "space".

You seem to be saying - a magnetic filed exists everywhere..
The electro part being a result of that field encountering something (matter, another magnetic field, whatever...).
Right?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016

An EM field exists everywhere.


Indeed it does (not always "electro", but close enough)....so at least part of the classical description recognizes an aspect of "space".

You seem to be saying - a magnetic filed exists everywhere..
The electro part being a result of that field encountering something (matter, another magnetic field, whatever...).
Right?

An EM field exists everywhere. That is not to say that it is not 0 N/c or 0 Teslas in some places.

When it vanishes, it still obeys Maxwell's equations, so SOMETHING is still there. It just doesn't have any force on charges in its vicinity.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
Hi thefurlong. :)

While your 'descriptive' explanation of 'fields' is 'ok' for purposes of describing the discernible effects and calculating/predicting the behavior of the system under study, it in no way explains the underlying physical entities which manifest that which your explanation 'describes' etc.

Well, you are assuming there ARE underlying physical entities. Why can't the fields, themselves simply be the underlying physical entities--the ultimate constituents of the universe? What good would it do to find out what fields are "made of" in the context of "propagating waves"? Would it explain "propagating waves" any better than the field concept itself? Should it? If so, why? Wouldn't YOU simply be replacing one label with another?

Unless it made a new prediction, or confirmed previously unrelated physical observation, that's all you'd be doing--relabeling.

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
(continued)
Of course, you aren't really interested in relabeling (I hope). So, I would argue that what you are really looking for is a new physical law that accounts for BOTH "propagating waves" and something else--say the masses of fundamental particles. In that case, no physicist would fault you.

In summation, I would say you are NOT looking for something else that explains "propagating waves", because if you were, you would simply be relabeling, because fields do that quite aptly. Rather, you are looking for a deeper law that explains SOMETHING ELSE, too.

Going back to aether, the idea doesn't offer anything else BUT an explanation of "propagating waves". So, it isn't an effective concept. I maintain that fields do everything that aether does. We do not need to assume, further, that the universe is permeated by matter to explain what fields already explain quite aptly. As I said, you should be looking for the SIMPLEST effective description of nature's laws.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2016
(continued)
... effective description of nature's laws.


Look, try studying Maxwell's Equations. You need a charge for a static field. You need it to move for an EM Field. Doesn't matter if you move or it moves. You can sit in a Faraday cage and still field gravity, it does not hide this static field, even the cage has a field. You may explain everything with just these two particles and Maxwell. So know what your simplifications mean and throw away all erroneous complications. I know what you're thinking, but first defined a method of measurement.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
There is no confusion. :-))
A moving magnet has an electric field, which is responsible for any work done.
The magnetic field does not do work, ever.

It generates the electric part of electromagnetic...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2016
(continued)
... effective description of nature's laws.


Look, try studying Maxwell's Equations.

Haha. I am. Right now. That's pretty much all I have been studying lately, to a fault. I really should be continuing my GR studies, but I took some time, over the last few months, to look deeper into them after I had an idea (well several).
You need a charge for a static field.

I don't dispute this.
You need it to move for an EM Field.

Not necessarily. Classically, you could have a particle that sits there and oscillates between positive and negative charge, and the field would still change.
You may explain everything with just these two particles and Maxwell. So know what your simplifications mean and throw away all erroneous complications. I know what you're thinking, but first defined a method of measurement.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
There is no confusion. :-))
A moving magnet has an electric field, which is responsible for any work done.
The magnetic field does not do work, ever.
Can you please elaborate what you mean? Especially where the electric field comes from and what it subsists in and/or mediated/propagated by in order for the moving magnet to 'get' an electric field when 'moved'? I'm really interested in your perspective on what you think is actually 'happening' and what 'entities' are involved. Thanks. :)

PS: I am already aware that a solitary/stationary bar magnet does not do work via its field in order to maintain that field. But all other dynamic/multi-magnet interacting/moving situations involve some ork and feedback between both magnetic fields and induced electric fields. :)

I don't know "what is happening". I just state what Maxwell theory, or QED, have to say about this. It is a good question to which a TOE should give the answer.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2016
continued.
Matter is described by fields that are degrees of freedom of the vacuum. A TOE should address the properties of the vacuum. The vacuum is not a material medium, rather matter is an excitation of the vacuum. I like the analogy with solid state, for example silicon. In silicon you can excite an electron out of the valence band, leaving behind a hole. The two can combine into a, hydrogen like, exciton.
https://en.wikipe.../Exciton
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2016
(continued)
... effective description of nature's laws.


Look, try studying Maxwell's Equations. You need a charge for a static field. You need it to move for an EM Field. Doesn't matter if you move or it moves. You can sit in a Faraday cage and still field gravity, it does not hide this static field, even the cage has a field. You may explain everything with just these two particles and Maxwell. So know what your simplifications mean and throw away all erroneous complications. I know what you're thinking, but first defined a method of measurement.

A static [electric, magnetic] field is also an EM field. Making a distinction undoes Maxwells work and we don't want to go there.
promile
Jan 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2016
@continued
An exciton lives in silicon, but is not silicon.
promile
Jan 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2016
@Promile
Maxwell died in 1879, 8 years before the Michelson-Morley experiment.
promile
Jan 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2016
(continued)
... effective description of nature's laws.


Look, try studying Maxwell's Equations.

Haha. I am. Right now. That's pretty much all I have been studying lately, to a fault. I really should be continuing my GR studies, but I took some time, over the last few months, to look deeper into them after I had an idea (well several).
You need a charge for a static field.

I don't dispute this.
You need it to move for an EM Field.

Not necessarily. Classically, you could have a particle that sits there and oscillates between positive and negative charge, and the field would still change.
You may explain everything with just these two particles and Maxwell. So know what your simplifications mean and throw away all erroneous complications. I know what you're thinking, but first defined a method of measurement.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

But the charge stays the same.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
Hi Techno, Proto. Apologies for tardy reply. Very busy.:)
..the HS binary pulsar system
Such exercises based on simplistic assumptions ignoring local energy/mass flows/features (including strong magnetic/tidal/lens-thirring coupling/feedback). Similarly, new-found local conditions/variability making 'standard candle' supernovae events not so 'standard' after all.

PSR B1913+16 isn't the only example
I was specifically addressing example cited by TecnoCreed etc. :)
"The recently discovered double-pulsar system J0737−3039 is in a more compact orbit (2.4 hrs compared to 7.7 hrs for PSR B1913+16), which allows the measurement of all five PK [post Keplerian] parameters as well as the mass ratio R...
Risk of GIGO/Circuity high in exercises using unwarranted assumptions to interpret remote dynamics which in turn is used to estimate masses which in turn used to explain changes... (BICEP2, standard candle supernovae, 'exercises' also cautionary cases).

:)
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
@rc
So whatever the sophisticated observations and calculations these highly intelligent specialists do, you sweep it under the rug in a few casual lines.
Modesty is not your forte.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2016
continued.
Matter is described by fields that are degrees of freedom of the vacuum. A TOE should address the properties of the vacuum. The vacuum is not a material medium, rather matter is an excitation of the vacuum. I like the analogy with solid state, for example silicon. In silicon you can excite an electron out of the valence band, leaving behind a hole. The two can combine into a, hydrogen like, exciton.
https://en.wikipe.../Exciton

You don't know this! Affinity, described by the field, vacuum is nothing!
But no vacuum gas zero field.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2016
continued.
Matter is described by fields that are degrees of freedom of the vacuum. A TOE should address the properties of the vacuum. The vacuum is not a material medium, rather matter is an excitation of the vacuum. I like the analogy with solid state, for example silicon. In silicon you can excite an electron out of the valence band, leaving behind a hole. The two can combine into a, hydrogen like, exciton.
https://en.wikipe.../Exciton

You don't know this! Affinity, described by the field, vacuum is nothing!
But no vacuum has zero field.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
So whatever the sophisticated observations and calculations these highly intelligent specialists do, you sweep it under the rug in a few casual lines.
Please don't take it like that, mate. :)

It's not ego/personal. I work within and observe from reality and known science; not speculative assumptions/exercises which have compromised/misled (as mainstream increasingly admitting themselves!) a lot of prior 'accepted' 'work'/'conclusions'.

I above cited two cases to Techno and Proto. The literature/body of mainstream cosmology/physics is riddled with such flawed GIGO/Circuitous 'foundational assumptions' that led mainstream to stray from reality/sound science. No need to get 'defensive' or 'touchy' when someone comes along and points to the flaws (now being increasingly admitted; so leading to reconsidering of past 'accepted' assumptions/claims).

That's how 'falsification' works. One need only point to the flaws/falsifying info. So science advances. :)
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
So whatever the sophisticated observations and calculations these highly intelligent specialists do, you sweep it under the rug in a few casual lines.
Please don't take it like that, mate. :)

Feel free to trash any science work any time. IMO it is essential that published work is asserted as critically as possible, but you do need to back it up.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
continued.
Matter is described by fields that are degrees of freedom of the vacuum. A TOE should address the properties of the vacuum. The vacuum is not a material medium, rather matter is an excitation of the vacuum. I like the analogy with solid state, for example silicon. In silicon you can excite an electron out of the valence band, leaving behind a hole. The two can combine into a, hydrogen like, exciton.
https://en.wikipe.../Exciton

You don't know this! Affinity, described by the field, vacuum is nothing!
But no vacuum has zero field.

The word vacuum means "empty", not "nothing".
The vacuum is just the ground state of whatever is supporting all of these wavelike phenomena described by field theory.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
Feel free to trash any science work any time. IMO it is essential that published work is asserted as critically as possible, but you do need to back it up.
Mate, I don't "trash" SOUND objective science/work; you should know that by now. :)

And over the years I HAVE attempted to 'back it up'; but have been sabotaged by the usual reactionary types "trashing" all serious attempts at serious/objective discourse on the matters. In any case, my COMPLETE ToE publication will do all that is needed. It explains what was correct/not correct in current/previous theories/understandings; and will do so in a manner which is based on verifiable reality not just maths/conjectures.

Until then, this 'piecemeal' discourse is all I am at liberty to offer. You may take my offerings constructively/otherwise; but please do not ascribe to me any ego/personal or other motives other than those of very best use to both science and humanity...without rancour or expectations. :)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
The word vacuum means "empty", not "nothing".

Exactly. But what is it empty of? What is still there that we are not considering? Gravity field? Magnetic fields?
And what about all the photons that are travelling through a given space at any one moment? (from just about every direction) Does a travelling photon have a "charge"? Or maybe generates a tiny bit of one when it contacts another photon travelling in a different direction? Or does it just change it's "charge" in that contact event?
The vacuum is just the ground state of whatever is supporting all of these wavelike phenomena described by field theory.

You mean the equilibrium point between negative and positive "charges"?

my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
@RC
I only believe science is sound if I tried hard to trash it and failed.
Gauge invariance did not survive this test, special relativity did.
The existence of gravitational waves follows from SR combined with the fact that the source of gravity is energy momentum, so I do not doubt their reality.
The risk of going it alone is to wander off. Critique of others can prevent mistakes
and also can help remove weaknesses in your work.
Negative referee reports teach you the most but of course they don't help getting your paper out.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
The risk of going it alone is to wander off. Critique of others can prevent mistakes
and also can help remove weaknesses in your work.
Negative referee reports teach you the most but of course they don't help getting your paper out.

Sound advice, RC. Take it...
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
Hi my2cts. Thanks for your polite and thoughtful responses; much appreciated. :)

All that you say is fine as far as it goes in a general sense. But consider the 'false steps' by various scientists which were 'accepted' then found wanting scientifically/logically. This has happened before, is happening now, and will continue to happen until the theory is complete/consistent in reality/logic terms.

As for Relativity/QM, both are abstract theory/approach; incomplete/inconsistent in reality/logic except in their own domain of applicability as purely abstract (but still useful) 'descriptive/predictive' algorithms/analytical constructs/models.

Unlike mainstream approaches, my ToE 'theorizing process' is self-directing/self-correcting at every stage by testing against reality/logic/known sound science; eschewing convenient copouts/abstractions which would make it partial/abstract also.

Only thus can a totally physically real, independent, objective, complete 'ToE' arise. :)
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
@rc
I don't think a viable TOE can be the work of one man. You'll have to be able to send a community in the right direction. My desire to be right is however always superseded by my curiosity.
If you detect false steps, pick on the low hanging fruit and start a thoughtful discussion.
Even the powerful, or perhaps they more than anyone else, need friends.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2016
SR/QM are incredibly successful theories with a very wide application. Imo these theories per se are accurate, but perhaps there is more to it. Something hiding in plain sight.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)

I took that advice long before now, mate; and it was SELF-advice from myself to my scientific approach since age nine. :)

My theorizing process was necessary precisely because mainstream was NOT taking that advice themselves; and getting into all sorts of blind alleys of abstraction, circuitous/unsound 'exercises' and 'conclusions/assumptions etc of the type and longstanding effects similar to those which led to BICEP2, Standard Candle, Gravitational Wave etc etc assumptions and flawed 'interpretations/'results' which were being 'accepted' and so further misleading/compromising subsequent 'work/theory' in those fields.

In short, you may rest assured I am the most stringent/objective critic of my own ToE theorizing process. If only mainstream had always held as steadfastly to the same level of independence, objectivity and resisted the 'publish or perish' and other anti-science imperatives/temptations which compromise if not scrupulously eschewed!

Cheers. :)
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2016
Hmm..the voting on here has gotten strange.

Oh...never mind. Someone is sockpuppt-voting for himself.
Man...there is no surer sign that someone is wrong than when he's got to make up imaginary friends to try and get some validation.

Its so pathetic/painful to watch it makes me lose all hope in intelligent discourse.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
Sorry my2cts, everyone, have run out of spare time for today. Will return to reply as I can when I find more time, hopefully in a day or two...or......

Thanks for your polite and thoughtful tone/responses of late. I assure you it is most appreciated and most welcome to any serious scientist/discourser re the universal physical reality.'

Later!...until then, stay safe, all. :)

PS: @my2cts. And yet "one man" almost got the ToE/GUT right. A pity he went the ay of 'abstraction' instead of following the physical reality to its inevitable physical/logical complete and consistent ToE/GUT conclusion. Nil desperandum, mate...I'm working on it. :)
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
antialias_physorg offered
...the voting on here has gotten strange
& here
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

Also likely either Benni or his 'cousin' bschott having personal attacks, ie made a nick close to mine to muddy the waters !
https://sciencex...._Masson/

ie *not* me by any circumstances, in any case pointless to use votes for anything other than a flag function, its clear to the good thinkers around here that understand formalism of Physics & Science or example, that votes mean nothing & making socks wastes time

For anyone to go down that path re puppets etc betrays Huge lack of emotional security & low self esteem re comparative intellectual capacity & straight out childish vengeful behavior Eg
https://sciencex....thanyou/

Interesting is, one can get to read the server logs (in a round about way ;-) & feed them into a profiling script & discover heaps

*grin*
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
@Benni/bschott, why can't you articulate your full logical positions from your perspective in the same clear language & concise way humy has here
phys.org/news/2016-01-theory-secondary-inflation-options-excess.html
~14hrs ago

Along with that please note my post to Benni re lab experience & finding missing reactances, did you do *any* in your precise uni training in "Electrical Engineering" ?

Benni/bschott, your position please ?

Do yah think:-

1. Relativity is wrong ie Field equations, if so how/where ?
2. Newton is wrong, details Eg Uranus vs Mercury ?
3. Rectilinear motion is wrong ie F=ma, ie Multiplication/Addition or even units ?
4. Maths is wrong, eg Calculus of either Integration and/or Differentiation ie Newton/Leibnitz ?

What is your specific position please guys ?

or, even easier, just post link where you made your positions crystal before barking personal attack & criticism at others ?

Can you do that please Benni/bschott & be mature for a change ?
Hyperfuzzy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
So whatever the sophisticated observations and calculations these highly intelligent specialists do, you sweep it under the rug in a few casual lines.
Please don't take it like that, mate. :)

Feel free to trash any science work any time. IMO it is essential that published work is asserted as critically as possible, but you do need to back it up.

Like Galileo
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2016
SR/QM are incredibly successful theories with a very wide application. Imo these theories per se are accurate, but perhaps there is more to it. Something hiding in plain sight.

Bull. How does an optical connector deliver a clear signal with a multi-nano second delay? It's not big enough. Therefore ...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
Hmm..the voting on here has gotten strange.

Oh...never mind. Someone is sockpuppt-voting for himself.
Man...there is no surer sign that someone is wrong than when he's got to make up imaginary friends to try and get some validation.


Agreed, it has. Scratchin' my head as to why those same 3 are 5-voting me and down voting people with actual valid input...
Oh... And mike - Benni and Bschott are not the same. Bschott actually has some valid input.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2016
See https://onedrive....e%2cdocx

for the state of this argument, tongue in cheek intended.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2016
See https://onedrive....e%2cdocx

for the state of this argument, tongue in cheek intended.

Seeking publication within the J. I. R.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
Whydening Gyre wrote
.. mike - Benni and Bschott are not the same. Bschott actually has some valid input
Your perception may be valid, from my perspective borderline, won't go into details as "still in progress" but, suffice to say just because appears one has "useful" input for some doesn't necessarily mean they're not same (physically) Eg Schizophrenic (SCZ)

FWIW Mother went downhill re Alzheimers (ALZ) added SCZ sign with distinct personality attributes, so I studied SCZ informally ~9yrs ago, then took major step & went back to uni post grad food science partly for free access to high-end med/biochem journals, investigated food groups biochem/minerals re moderating ALZ/SCZ, Eg Japanese diet/Okinawa etc & stumbled on odd counter intuitive supplementation regime substantive as
https://en.wikipe...ootropic

Tested myself circa 2012-15
Unusual cognitive enhancement, habit changes, share trade daily, mucho $, viable tech projects suitable for IPOs etc
bluehigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2016
It generates the electric part of electromagnetic...
- WG

Wow again! Sometimes the simple is the most thought provoking.

* passes a fresh chocolate croissant with a touch of whipped cream *

indio007
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2016

1. Relativity is wrong ie Field equations, if so how/where ?


You've been shown this by Crothers https://www.youtu...HHXaPrWA . You simply pretend it doesn't exist. You seem to insist that wikipedia has the correct field equations. the video has the source of every equation and they are mainstream text books. the equation you have issue with appears in A Short Course in General Relativity James Foster, ‎J. David Nightingale. That's just one proof.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
In general I think Feynman is great. Here's Feynman on magnets... lol... Bshott might get a kick out of this.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
indio007 claims
You've been shown this by Crothers https://www.youtu...HHXaPrWA You simply pretend it doesn't exist
No. His "interpretation" is not just false its immensely incompetent, his application is facile & his knowledge of maths is minimal & far below the level of a mature speaker on a complex topic Eg. He relies on emotive context to appeal only to the uneducated :-(

Have you thought there are Nil comparable papers to Crothers, his approach is Wrong !

indio007 says
You seem to insist that wikipedia has the correct field equations
Eh ? its a reference & valid & applicable. In your video Crothers sets one term to 0, ie Wrong & THEN interprets from that basis (strawman) ie False !

Get on this forum & discover you have been seriously misled, Crothers is in it for money to charge appearance/lecture fees & get subscriptions to his site, he's a plain con man !
http://www.intern...10762343

cont
Old_C_Code
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2016
While waiting for Feynman on magnets link to be reviewed: Feynman's answer to Bshott's question on "What makes two magnets repel one another?"

Feynman "I DON'T KNOW!" lol.

At least Feynman is HONEST, as opposed to so many arrogant commenters here.
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 17, 2016
@indio007
It suffices to mention that t'Hooft is a Nobel and Crothers is a nobody. http://www.nobelp...bio.html

On this webpage humorously labeled "gravitating_misconceptions" t'Hooft addresses Crothers's case (Mr. C is Crothers). http://www.staff....ons.html

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
Cont @ indio007
who claims
.. video has the source of every equation and they are mainstream text books
If that were true & if free of Crothers misapplication then you'll see its same form as on wikipedia link AND is same as the references on the wikipedia page TOO !

NB Crothers ignores Gauss = Another big fail !

indio007 says
..the equation you have issue with appears in A Short Course in General Relativity James Foster, �ŽJ. David Nightingale
So, read it, link ?

indio007 claims
That's just one proof
No ! doesnt prove anything, Crothers insistence on setting one side to 0 & BEFORE going through relationship & THEN adding emotion to distract/influence but, unfortunately Crothers is smarter than you & bulk of uneducated people who haven't studied Physics in depth, its HOW he makes money, criticizing without educating is a hallmark of the Con Artist !

Equations
https://www.youtu...PKAKZWx8
& read comments there please & follow up
indio007
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2016
@indio007
It suffices to mention that t'Hooft is a Nobel and Crothers is a nobody. http://www.nobelp...bio.html


Is this an appeal to credentials or and appeal to authority logical fallacy? I'm having a problem choosing.
Protoplasmix
4.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2016
For folks who are interested in the actual science that takes place on a daily basis at the observatories, you can explore the weekly reports and logs of the scientists. It's thoroughly fascinating.

Here's the link: LIGO Weekly Reports
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
@indio007
It suffices to mention that t'Hooft is a Nobel and Crothers is a nobody. http://www.nobelp...bio.html


Is this an appeal to credentials or and appeal to authority logical fallacy? I'm having a problem choosing.

Not at all, on the linked webpage Mr t'Hooft adresses Crothers directly. Here, I am just reporting this fact.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 17, 2016
TechnoCreed offered in retort to indio007
@indio007
It suffices to mention that t'Hooft is a Nobel and Crothers is a nobody. http://www.nobelp...bio.html
Brilliant, thats a good summary indeed, thanks.

I've been slowly going through a refresher in relativity, although I studied it for Electronic Engineering back in 1976-82, there were only 2 semesters on it and the field equations re tensors required a higher level math not offered or even needed by Engineers. So am going through the L.Susskind lectures...
https://www.youtu...f0bB38h0
& specific intro to Field Equations by DrPhysicsA
https://www.youtu...PKAKZWx8

indio007 sadly got into this without appreciation of the con man psychology Crothers uses to manipulate & propagandize for $

NB
Crothers vid doesnt allow comment, those I have linked too do, ie they don't have insecurity issues which Crothers has, ie He can't do the math !
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2016
indio007 fails to understand
Is this an appeal to credentials or and appeal to authority logical fallacy?
Think indio007, how do people such as Physics professors get any credentials to start with, they work at & suffer in some ways years & years of study, experimental investigations, literature reviews & Challenge !

indio007 note: Einstein's field equations rely on Gauss which relies heavily on Maxwell, these have stood the test of time globally

indio007 might be on right track
I'm having a problem choosing
Good observation, start with understanding massive weight of math proofs re Gauss/Maxwell & immense empirical evidence for both & then ask yourself a simple question:-

As Einstein uses Gauss/Maxwell & these are proven then what is the chance hes wrong ?

AND

If he were wrong it would have been discerned decades ago when the first experiments proceeded & Eg NIST atomic clocks ?

Please make pro/con list re Crothers item points, he fails All :-(
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2016
Old_C_Code offers
While waiting for Feynman on magnets link to be reviewed: Feynman's answer to Bshott's question on "What makes two magnets repel one another?"
Feynman "I DON'T KNOW!"
Damn good point & spot on, no one actually "knows", thats why math models are derived & they fit sum of Physics that pre-dates them too :-)

Mathematical models make predictions of many types, so far, proven correct, this doesnt mean maths IS representation of reality ie symbolic

Old_C_Code says
At least Feynman is HONEST, as opposed to so many arrogant commenters here
Indeed !
Especially those who *only* criticize, cannot appreciate Physics soundly based on Maths.
ie Maths can only describe & it does so Very Well Indeed, within error bars

As I've asked Benni often to explain it from equation algebra pointing to an unknown (eg his claimed degree) etc but, he fails ie he lies

Supreme arrogance is claiming to be electrical/nuclear engineer when challenged AND ignoring Q's
ddroesse
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2016
The crackpots are kidding themselves bigtime if they think anyone is going to take them up on their 'alternative' theories based on what they post here or elsewhere on the web. In all the time I've been here I haven't seen it happen once.

I don't think anyone would, either. What I think is that for a layperson, it is likely difficult to determine the difference between a legitimate physical argument, and certain plausible crackpot ones, especially those that bandy about imposing technical terms, and so might be left with the impression that there truly IS a debate. I am not simply conjecturing, here. Research indicates that the comments section on hot-button topic articles can shape a layperson's opinion far more than even the content of the article itself.


...Research indicates that the comments section on hot-button topic articles can shape a layperson's opinion far more than even the content of the article itself.
Do you have a link for this research?
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
The word vacuum means "empty", not "nothing".

Exactly. But what is it empty of? What is still there that we are not considering? Gravity field? Magnetic fields?

Empty of everything except zero point fluctuations, if they are real.
And what about all the photons that are travelling through a given space at any one moment? (from just about every direction) Does a travelling photon have a "charge"?
Or maybe generates a tiny bit of one when it contacts another photon travelling in a different direction? Or does it just change it's "charge" in that contact event?

3 times no, in today's physics.
The vacuum is just the ground state of whatever is supporting all of these wavelike phenomena described by field theory.

You mean the equilibrium point between negative and positive "charges"?

No. The absence of these, and all the rest.
Old_C_Code
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
Maxwell's equations are derived requiring an "ether". Einstein even said there had to be an ether, he thought it was just too infinitesimally small to matter. So the math insists on an either.

Take it Mike! :)
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2016
While waiting for Feynman on magnets link to be reviewed: Feynman's answer to Bshott's question on "What makes two magnets repel one another?"

Feynman "I DON'T KNOW!" lol.

At least Feynman is HONEST, as opposed to so many arrogant commenters here.

You are accusing non-named therefore all commenters of dishonesty.
That is unfair to all commenters.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2016
Maxwell's equations are derived requiring an "ether". Einstein even said there had to be an ether, he thought it was just too infinitesimally small to matter. So the math insists on an either.

Take it Mike! :)

What's your point ? Maxwell derived the equations and died many years before the aether was abandoned, precisely BECAUSE of his equations.
my2cts
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
There is no confusion. :-))
A moving magnet has an electric field, which is responsible for any work done.
The magnetic field does not do work, ever.

It generates the electric part of electromagnetic...

The magnetic field does not "generate the electric part".
By definition the magnetic field does not do work.
Time dependent currents and/or spins do.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
"What's your point ? Maxwell derived the equations and died many years before the aether was abandoned, precisely BECAUSE of his equations."


That makes no sense. It was abandoned because it was apparently TOO small to matter, which is obviously a terrible reason.

Thanks for proving my point about how Feynman is honest and comments here are arrogant and ignorant. Because "geniuses" here "matter of factly know" why two magnets repel each other, and Feynman never did know.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
...Research indicates that the comments section on hot-button topic articles can shape a layperson's opinion far more than even the content of the article itself.
Do you have a link for this research?

I might find this plausible with hot button issues (i.e. issues that are subjective).
Science is not. Mere opinion on science articles counts for less than nothing. If a layperson gets swayed by *opinions* on these articles then there is something very wrong with regards to the education system and its teaching of science literacy.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
The magnetic field does not "generate the electric part".
By definition the magnetic field does not do work.
Time dependent currents and/or spins do.

a fluctuation (due to whatever) INITIATES the electric part...
time dependent currents of what? Metter? Electrons?
But I am with ya on the "spins" part..
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
The magnetic field does not "generate the electric part".
By definition the magnetic field does not do work.
Time dependent currents and/or spins do.

a fluctuation (due to whatever) INITIATES the electric part...
time dependent currents of what? Metter? Electrons?
But I am with ya on the "spins" part..

Maxwell is with me on both parts and so is the rest of post-Maxwell physics and physicists .
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
Maxwell derived the equations and died many years before the aether was abandoned, precisely BECAUSE of his equations
Maxwell derived his equations with aether model. Can you explain, how the same equations can lead into abandoning of concept, which http://arxiv.org/...02.05926 for their derivations?

If there is an aether then the MEs depend on the speed of that aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment observed no such dependence. This result meant the end of the 19th century aether theories and ultimately led to special relativity.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
The magnetic field does not "generate the electric part".
By definition the magnetic field does not do work.
Time dependent currents and/or spins do.

a fluctuation (due to whatever) INITIATES the electric part...
time dependent currents of what? Metter? Electrons?
But I am with ya on the "spins" part..

Maxwell is with me on both parts and so is the rest of post-Maxwell physics and physicists .

(shrug) Ok, you win. I defer to your superior depth of knowledge...
So - what about those currents?
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016

time dependent currents of what? Metter? Electrons?

Currents of charge of course.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
(shrug) Ok, you win.

You win more than I do. I already knew this, now you do too ;-).
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016

time dependent currents of what? Metter? Electrons?

Currents of charge of course.

Okay, good. So now, what constitutes charge? And what causes the charge to be in a "current" state?
my2cts
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016

Okay, good. So now, what constitutes charge?

No one knows.
And what causes the charge to be in a "current" state?

Some electric field makes it move.
my2cts
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
@wg
It's a dry day. You drive a few km in your car and you have rubber soles under your shoes.
When you get out of the car a spark flies from the car to your finger (or vice versa, I'm not sure). You get a static discharge. Ouch, that is charge.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
@Mike_Massen
Einstein's field equations rely on Gauss which relies heavily on Maxwell, these have stood the test of time globally.
Ok for Einstein, but I do not understand the position that Gauss and Maxwell occupies in the above statement. Elaborate please

Gauss, with his divergence theorem, gave Maxwell the mathematics to describe the electric and magnetic fields; not the other way around. https://www.youtu...Q2dwJHXE
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
cont.

I should add that Gauss law was formulated in 1835; Maxwell was only 3 or 4 years old then.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2016
TechnoCreed noticed
Ok for Einstein, but I do not understand the position that Gauss and Maxwell occupies in the above statement
My mistake, apologies, had Gauss/Maxwell swapped around simple as that, has been 40+yrs :/

Which raises the point for the Benni/bschott/indio007/cantdrive85's etc of the world, Physics has a long foundational & evidentiary past, so when Eg indio007 is arbitrarily influenced by Crothers' emotive line without benefit of essential maths he just doesn't know how to converge on an essential aspect re that. If only it were possible for a connection to be clear re how the theorems relate then all the broohaha against Einstein might take a far better level...

TechnoCreed offers Gauss, with his divergence theorem, gave Maxwell the mathematics to describe the electric and magnetic fields; not the other way around. https://www.youtu...Q2dwJHXE Good link there, since its not from me then Benni might actually watch it ;-)
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
promile claims
Maxwell derived his equations with aether model
Not quite, details matter.

Nil aether dependency in maxwells equations, he merely *assumed* an aether was responsible, likely a traditional view initially but, iirc after maxwell formulated maths it was clear that photons re electric<->magnetic field relationship was all that was necessary to propagate photons losslessly just fine without needing aether of any sort as per the type which could be synonymous with Eg Air as medium for sound, water as medium for air etc

Seems Maxwell's discovery pointed to exception re photon's specific electric/magnetic relationship which proved aether wasn't needed & especially so as no such equivalent interaction is present in lossy; air & water waves ie. The photon e/m field paradigm

promile asked
Can you explain, how the same equations..
Good point, it shows how a model can be applied across bounds & still have some validity however, photons are special !
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
Old_C_Code arrogantly claims
Maxwell's equations are derived requiring an "ether"
How so, there's nil term for *any* aether; lossless, lossy or otherwise - where please ?

With respect, you're reading way too much into Maxwell's mere traditional assumption.

Note, at that time in history (pre Maxwell) there was no example anywhere of how it might be imagined a wave could propagate without medium !

Making idle arbitrary claims is wrong, please support "requiring an aether" ?

Old_C_Code claimed
Einstein even said there had to be an ether, he thought it was just too infinitesimally small to matter
Evidence please, we don't want to lump you in with the Benni's of the world who make sweeping claims & never support their claims or maybe you misread Einstein's off the cuff comment as (IIRC) Maxwell conceded his equations had no aether term

Old_C_Code claims
.. math insists on an either
No ! Prove your claim & please have perspective "insists" ?
How so ?
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
"What's your point ? Maxwell derived the equations and died many years before the aether was abandoned, precisely BECAUSE of his equations."


That makes no sense.

It is one of the most well known facts of 19th and early 20th century physics.
How did you miss it?
It was abandoned because it was apparently TOO small to matter, which is obviously a terrible reason.

The aether was too small to matter? What does that even mean.
The MM experiment is accepted to have totally disproven aether theories.

Thanks for proving my point about how Feynman is honest and comments here are arrogant and ignorant. Because "geniuses" here "matter of factly know" why two magnets repel each other, and Feynman never did know.

Who claimed here to know what makes the EM field?
You keep repeating this strawman argument.
You yourself are much more arrogant than you think.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
Einstein even said there had to be an ether, he thought it was just too infinitesimally small to matter.

Assuming he said that, he very likely was joking.
Wtf is an "infinitesimally small aether" except a pacifier for the perplexed.
Then some ignoramus turns it into a crackpot theory.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
The MM experiment is accepted to have totally disproven aether theories
But it confirmed Maxwell's equations, which were derived with aether model (Faraday's molecular vortex fluid being more specific). How such a model could be disproved, after then - it was confirmed instead.

No, the null result per se did not conform Maxwells equations.
Are you already a member of the flat earth society?
You can meet lots of like minded people there.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
It was abandoned because it was apparently TOO small to matter
This is basically correct.

Come on, take a pill.
But thanks to technological development today we can observe the universe at the scales, where these effects cannot be neglected anymore.

What effects?
Even at the water surface the ripples of certain size spread in regular circles in transverse waves like along thin elastic membrane, so that the underwater and its frame drag is not required for their description anymore. These effects arise just at larger or smaller scales, where the (effects of) additional dimensions of water surface cannot be neglected.

You are 180 years too late with your ideas. Our distant ancestors already dismissed that.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
@wg
It's a dry day. You drive a few km in your car and you have rubber soles under your shoes.
When you get out of the car a spark flies from the car to your finger (or vice versa, I'm not sure). You get a static discharge. Ouch, that is charge.

It's one of many kinds of charges. It's electro, in this case.
The spark occurs because you or the car have changed it's electrical charge potential (Most likely you) to a "ground" (lower) state. The ouch occurs because your body is a "resistor".
Anyway, it's charge differential causing electric flow. One of you has a lower voltage potential state (again, most likely you).
kinda like - your chute not opening on a 5k ft. jump - the ground is a "resistor", gravitational pull (or push, if you like) is the "charge" differential.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
promile claims
But this model has nothing to do with https://en.wikipe...s_aether model, which Maxwell did use in his derivations and which FORMS the space
Prove it please with the MATH which requires an aether, any aether at all ?

promile claims
The Michelson-Morley experiment only disproved the former aether, but it confirmed the later model instead
Beg Pardon - prove it ?

promile claims
.. but they don't realize, it's just the model, which Maxwell did never use in his calculations
So if I understand correctly, you claim Maxwell never used the sparse aether model but used the later one you claim was found by Michelson-Morley call it the 'unsparse' model - is that correct ?

Then pray tell promile, just where its properties are handled by a term which is not just infintesimally small but lossless and if not lossless (ie like air/water/wood etc) then why is the maths for that term completely non-existent ?
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
"But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation of Maxwell's laws of the electro-magnetic field. The laws were clear and simple, the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory."
Albert Einstein
http://www-histor...her.html
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
@promile
I guess Einstein knew what he was talking about when he said the above.
How come your story is so different from his ?
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
So if I understand correctly, you claim Maxwell never used the sparse aether model but used the later one you claim was found by Michelson-Morley call it the 'unsparse' model - is that correct?
Yes. The dense aether model was proposed long time after Maxwell death with Oliver Lodge, but it was never considered seriously and it has been essentially forgotten. The physicists just had full heads of relativity, which had been developed this time and which promised to calculate many things.
Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model for the ether
The physically most correct mechanical analogy for aether is superfluid, which has been observed much later with Kapica. Maxwell had no chance to construct it, given his state of technology.

Lots of long forgotten people proposed models to save the aether. Why should we even bother with this one?
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
What effects?
Many effects. The low-scale effects, which correspond the Brownian noise at the water surface are more prominent, and they were revealed first as so-called quantum noise and zero-point energy. The atoms of helium shake itself like pollen of grains in the water,

Only in the normal state, in the superfluid state helium moves like one body.
their resemblance of this effect with Brownian motion is uncanny.

In a superfluid there is no Brownian motion.
It is entirely unclear what you are talking about.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2016
Question what has been published over the last 100 years. So I would not use any of them as a reference. juz say'n

And no, magnetism does not create an electrical field, magnetism as viewed within a 4D space is only and E field at a point, i.e. no time flow, a static space with attributes defined at each point, magnetism is not a necessary condition. No time, no magnetism, so we only see magnetism in a time varying 3D space. Other words, how much time does it take to travel the entire loop? A magnetized material has multiple aligned loops and will affect another loop to comply to its field given proximity and motion.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
IMO Einstein understood the role of aether for relativity, when he said, "without aether the relativity is unthinkable". But he also added that "concept of motion may not be applied to it" (which is understandable, if you imagine the superfluid).

Superfluids have a state of motion. Einstein's ether does not.
An ether that is a superfluid does not agree with the MM experiment.
A material aether makes no sense.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
Question what has been published over the last 100 years. So I would not use any of them as a reference. juz say'n

Ok throw out all science since 1916 ;-))
And no, magnetism does not create an electrical field, magnetism as viewed within a 4D space is only and E field at a point, i.e. no time flow, a static space with attributes defined at each point, magnetism is not a necessary condition. No time, no magnetism, so we only see magnetism in a time varying 3D space. Other words, how much time does it take to travel the entire loop? A magnetized material has multiple aligned loops and will affect another loop to comply to its field given proximity and motion.

OK throw out electricity and magnetism too. We are now in about 1800.
Anything else you want to trash? That arrogant Newton perhaps? I never liked Copernicus, pompous jerk ! Democritus? Out with that nut.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2016
Question what has been published over the last 100 years. So I would not use any of them as a reference. juz say'n

Ok throw out all science since 1916 ;-))
And no, magnetism does not create an electrical field, magnetism as viewed within a 4D space is only and E field at a point, i.e. no time flow, a static space with attributes defined at each point, magnetism is not a necessary condition. No time, no magnetism, so we only see magnetism in a time varying 3D space. Other words, how much time does it take to travel the entire loop? A magnetized material has multiple aligned loops and will affect another loop to comply to its field given proximity and motion.

OK throw out electricity and magnetism too. We are now in about 1800.
Anything else you want to trash? That arrogant Newton perhaps? I never liked Copernicus, pompous jerk ! Democritus? Out with that nut.

Another misinterpretation!
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
In a superfluid there is no Brownian motion
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6988858&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel7%2F6971875%2F6988061%2F06988858.pdf%3Farnumber%3D6988858? Why it shouldn't exist in it? Actually in superfluid helium the Brownian motion can be observed with naked eye instead - like sorta neverending tiny undulations of helium surface against direct light source.

You mean motion, without "Brownian".
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
Einstein excluded ether. Here is an excerpt from the following link.
...if no particular state of motion can be ascribed to the ether, there does not seem to be any ground for introducing it as an entity of a special sort alongside of space.
But the physicists were still far removed from such a way of thinking; space was still, for them, a rigid, homogeneous something, incapable of changing or assuming various states. Only the genius of Riemann, solitary and uncomprehending, had already won its way by the middle of the last century to a new conception of space, in which space was deprived of its rigidity...
He wrote that in 1934: http://photontheo...n13.html
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
@my2cts
Zephir's physics is self taught; you have to know how to interpret is terminology. For Brownian motion, I think he is talking about light causticity effect. I might be wrong; it has no interest to me. I stopped trying to interpret his writing since the implementation of the ignore button. https://en.wikipe...optics), https://www.googl...bih=1017
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
Hi all. A brief FYI to avoid further cross-purpose misunderstandings/exchanges re superfluidic/superconducting/bose-einstineian etc 'media' in various known states/context. :)

Keep in mind: all laboratory collections of superfluidic/superconducting/bose-Einsteinian occur in contained/bounded physical systems; whereas any UNIVERSALLY fundamental-level ubiquitous such-like 'media' is NOT so contained; and hence can exhibit/allow more varied/expansive phenomena/dynamics than laboratory-bounded/controlled etc contexts/collections may.

In any case, the ONLY tenable logical fundamental quantum level 'media' is a sort of energy-space constituting at that level THE NO-LOSS propagation medium for ALL 'levels' of energy-space configurations/iterations/flows/features observed/deduced.

'Abstracting away' said ubiquitous no-loss source/propagatory medium was convenient/useful for abstract descriptions/calculations/predictions, but not for fundamental physical reality explanations. :)
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
Wtf is an "infinitesimally small aether" except a pacifier for the perplexed.

A postulated, but uncalculated measure of "aether" density.
Guess I'm "perplexed"...:-)
BrianFraser
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2016
It is not sufficient to detect a cyclic variation in gravitational intensity. If gravitational waves are real, and limited to the speed of light, there also has to be aberration. But various experiments, satellite motions, and astronomical observations have demonstrated that there is none. This implies that gravitation is instantaneous (i.e., it is "non-local"). Einstein's Special and General Relativity theories are both "local" by design and intent. Trying to apply them to non-local phenomena is out-of-scope.

See: "Beyond Einstein: non-local physics" by Brian Fraser (html) 2015.
bluehigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2016
@BrianFraser

I believe Phys.org does not generally object to links.

The PDF is at ..

http://scriptural...tein.pdf

my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2016
For Brownian motion, I think he is talking about light causticity effect.
I'm talking about Brownian motion in superfluids in the context of http://ieeexplore...6988858.

Brownian motion is the motion of a mesoscopic body caused by collisions with individual atoms or molecules of a liquid. Superfluid liquids have no motion of individual atoms or molecules.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2016
vacuum waves

I have no idea what you mean by this.
Mike_Massen
1.1 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2016
BrianFraser claims
.. If gravitational waves are real, and limited to the speed of light, there also has to be aberration
For time being I'll consider proposition, in that case what is the character of aberrations expected & over what extent ?

Because, as the scale likely comparatively very large (On order of size of solar/planetary bodies) & wavelength long (& immense attenuation assuming origin nonlocal) they can't be seen by existing instrumentation, when you make claim there "has to be" then onus is on you to offer "some" scale assessed to that claim.

Re BeyondEinstein.pdf, Hmmm begins with arbitrary leap re E=mc^2 at head of P3, X both sides by c "somehow" introduces additional dimensions & claim now "non local" & "insights" is how can I put it, a Huge Stretch ?

Eg
Why stop at Ec=mc^3 why not again so, when Ec^2=mc^4 might make even more sense ?

E may be 2D or higher - why ignore it, if indeed idea of just X 'c' both sides were valid ?

Any Ref re X 'c' ?
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2016
The physically most correct mechanical analogy for aether is superfluid, which has been observed way later with Kapica in 1937.

Ah, superfluid vacuum theory, an extension of the Standard Model and a candidate for a theory of quantum gravity.
promile
Jan 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BrianFraser
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2016
@bluehigh

I used the reference: "Beyond Einstein: non-local physics" by Brian Fraser (html) 2015
because that document (.html) contains references not included in the original article (.pdf). See for instance:

'How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality" ', George Musser (November 1, 2015) http://www.scient...ocality/

I was surprised to read an article like that in a very mainstream journal like Scientific American.
Hyperfuzzy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2016

Note: Learning something that defies "self" concepts makes one feel bad. Welcome the emotion; it means you are learning something new. Why people hate change, while denying Truth that is well known!
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2016

Note: Learning something that defies "self" concepts makes one feel bad. Welcome the emotion; it means you are learning something new. Why people hate change, while denying Truth that is well known!

What are you trying to tell us, flipper ?
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2016
Why do you "put" words in "quotes" ?
Does that make them more "interesting" ?
Also sermons only on sunday please, this a working day.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2016
there also has to be aberration.

Quasistatic fields have no aberration.
https://en.wikipe..._gravity
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2016
Hi my2cts. :) Just an FYI re usage of inverted commas. Usually these are used to indicate the contained word/term/phrase etc is to be 'read' in the context of the discussion/issue. It is most necessary in many cases where different meanings may be 'read into it' by the reader if the word/phrase etc was left to be misunderstood or jumped upon for using as a 'weapon' by someone intentionally misunderstand in order to construct a strawman or just to take cheap shots etc etc for whatever reason they are doing so. I'm sure you've seen such examples where malicious types purposely ignore the context and latch onto a possibly ambiguous word/term and make a mountain out of a molehill just to distract/derail from the actual issue/point being made/discussed. This sort of 'troll/sabotage tactic' will be harder to use if the word/term etc is put in inverted commas to indicate that it is used IN CONTEXT and no other meaning implied. The troll tactics in past made it necessary. Pity. :)

my2cts
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2016
Hi my2cts. :) Just an FYI re usage of inverted commas.

The"quotes" remind me of Dr. Evil. He was hilarious.
http://images.mem.../dr-evil
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
Hi my2cts. :) Just an FYI re usage of inverted commas.

The"quotes" remind me of Dr. Evil. He was hilarious.
http://images.mem.../dr-evil
That sort of "subconscious association/connotation" is a very common problem which militates against straightforward 'reading/hearing' of others' message. It is an especially counter-productive subconscious 'prejudicial kneejerk' in someone trying to assimilate new realities/facts/ideas etc and letting such irrelevant/negative associations/connotations 'color' what should preferably be clear, objective reading/listening/comprehending of the communication CONTENT/CONTEXT as intended by the writer/speaker.

Still, it's a 'funny' thing that; and has more than once resulted in innocent people being hanged based on similarly impacted 'witness statements' unduly 'colored' by prior associations/connotations having nothing to do with matters/people involved in the case at hand.

Take care, mate. :)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2016
Hi my2cts. :) Just an FYI re usage of inverted commas. Usually these are used to indicate the contained word/term/phrase etc is to be 'read' in the context of the discussion/issue. It is most necessary in many cases where different meanings may be 'read into it' by the reader if the word/phrase etc was left to be misunderstood or jumped upon for using as a 'weapon' by someone intentionally misunderstand in order to construct a strawman or just to take cheap shots etc etc for whatever reason they are doing so. I'm sure you've seen such examples where malicious types purposely ignore the context and latch onto a possibly ambiguous word/term and make a mountain out of a molehill just to distract/derail from the actual issue/point being made/discussed.

Yeah, but.... Now explain your excessive use of "/"... :-)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Just an FYI re usage of inverted commas. Usually these are used to indicate the contained word/term/phrase etc is to be 'read' in the context of the discussion/issue. It is most necessary in many cases where different meanings may be 'read into it' by the reader if the word/phrase etc was left to be misunderstood or jumped upon for using as a 'weapon' by someone intentionally misunderstand in order to construct a strawman or just to take cheap shots etc etc for whatever reason they are doing so. I'm sure you've seen such examples where malicious types purposely ignore the context and latch onto a possibly ambiguous word/term and make a mountain out of a molehill just to distract/derail from the actual issue/point...

Yeah, but.... Now explain your excessive use of "/"... :-)
Already done long ago, mate. You missed it. Limited text format here makes use of such contraction/connection options necessary when complexity/content levels high. Cheers. :)
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2016
Hi my2cts. :) Just an FYI re usage of inverted commas.

The"quotes" remind me of Dr. Evil. He was hilarious.
http://images.mem.../dr-evil

Several people here voted me down.
Is that because you don't like Dr. Evil ? That would explain it.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2016

Note: Learning something that defies "self" concepts makes one feel bad. Welcome the emotion; it means you are learning something new. Why people hate change, while denying Truth that is well known!

What are you trying to tell us, flipper ?

Clarity
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2016
@hf
So then why are you so unclear?
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2016
Math is flawed. Numbers, which were invented to represent and count "like" objects are based on logical representations and in turn treats objects as exact copies of one another. For instance, 5 "people", 5 "desks", 20 "dogs" etc. Because of this built in fallacy in assuming that all like things are exact, math can never truly represent reality and the incredible diversity, even among things that appear to be exact such as individual molecules and sub atomic "particles". Godel was right, if you are looking for completeness in math, you are barking up the wrong tree.

The flaw is in "apple", "people", "desk", you erroneously blame math.

The score, 2.8 out of 11 ratings, shows that there are at least 6 nuts active here, including sock puppets.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2016
@hf
So then why are you so unclear?

Sorry, you might have a problem with understanding if you cater to magic.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
The score, 2.8 out of 11 ratings, shows that there are at least 6 nuts active here, including sock puppets.
Mate, you think you got problems! There's been a newly-hatched brood of 'non-commenting usernames' hitting my page too, irrespective of whether my content was correct in known science or logics etc. When they get you down to the 1.6 mark, then you'll start to understand how ludicrously easy it is for idiots and trolls to game the ratings system 'metrics' here for their own benefit despite the damage it does to this science site's credibility. Good luck, mate! :)
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2016
@RealityCheck -- pure science has no effect on trolls, but quotes and slashes keep them at bay. I have to quote Ira: Okayeei

Concise/exact "direct" and to the point/subject "use" of words/verbiage is the essence/spirit/embodiment of unique "humorous" sharpness/inventiveness/intelligence in the short/quick expression/conveyance of "aforementioned" symbols/bits/elements.

Does that↑ make sense? No, it was written by a witless wonder. And "brevity is the soul of wit."

So please try harder to choose a single word when only one is needed. Otherwise you're forcing your readers to do your work.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
.."brevity is the soul of wit." So please try harder to choose a single word when only one is needed. Otherwise you're forcing your readers to do your work
Too much brevity is social media format/gossip; not for complex scientific/logic explanation/discussion. Genuine/objective interlocutor/discourser in science/logic discussion willing to learn will be more than ready and expecting to do some work to that end. Only trolls and lazy 'passersby' interested in personal angles and idiot dramas etc is put off by serious/complex posts on matters which require thought, time and work on many levels. Also, some others' posts create more misunderstandings and unnecessary/nasty exchanges than real science/logic dialogue/comprehension due to there being a lot 'left out' by overzealous use of glib/curt posts necessitating more and more clarifying/countering posts which, by the time the nastiness has taken root, the original point/discussion derailed. "Yes/No"? :)
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016
Too much brevity is social media format/gossip; not for complex scientific/logic explanation/discussion. Genuine/objective interlocutor/discourser in science/logic discussion willing to learn will be more than ready and expecting to do some work to that end. Only trolls and lazy 'passersby' interested in personal angles and idiot dramas etc is put off by serious/complex posts on matters which require thought, time and work on many levels. Also, some others' posts create more misunderstandings and unnecessary/nasty exchanges than real science/logic dialogue/comprehension due to there being a lot 'left out' by overzealous use of glib/curt posts necessitating more and more clarifying/countering posts which, by the time the nastiness has taken root, the original point/discussion derailed.
Translation: To avoid misunderstandings with complex subjects it is sometimes necessary to compose a longer post.

See how easy that is?

"Yes/No"? :)
Yes. No. :)
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2016
Math is flawed. Numbers, which were invented to represent and count "like" objects are based on logical representations and in turn treats objects as exact copies of one another. For instance, 5 "people", 5 "desks", 20 "dogs" etc. Because of this built in fallacy in assuming that all like things are exact, math can never truly represent reality and the incredible diversity, even among things that appear to be exact such as individual molecules and sub atomic "particles". Godel was right, if you are looking for completeness in math, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Guess it's a good thing that math allows for little things called variable entries...


Variable entries are useless, as they assume definite relationships. Or slightly less static relationships. Math will NEVER explain the universe alone, NEVER EVER EVER.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
Translation: To avoid misunderstandings with complex subjects it is sometimes necessary to compose a longer post. See how easy that is?
Hehe, it's easy to restate/summarize a point made once someone explained it fully enough so that the understanding came across sufficiently well to allow such restatement/summarization having regard to preceding provision of the fuller origins and context behind the issue treated in that nutshell restatement/summarization. In other words, it's easy once someone explained it exhaustively beforehand. Anyway, I'm glad you got the point, as your nutshell translation confirms. :)
"Yes/No"? :)
Yes. No. :)
You can't have it both ways, mate. Choose one of those or you will "be in two minds" about it and won't "know whether you're arthur or martha" despite you having subsequently nutshelled my exhaustively explained point so neatly. :)
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2016
@hf
So then why are you so unclear?

Sorry, you might have a problem with understanding if you cater to magic.

Are you some kind of religious nut ? Just guessing ...

OK, you are a bit off the point. Exactly what is wrong with you?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016
BrianFraser says
I used the reference: "Beyond Einstein: non-local physics" by Brian Fraser (html) 2015
because that document (.html) contains references not included in the original article (.pdf)
Where is the link to that specific html version please ?

NB: you havent answered my question re how you imagine adding a 'cancel-able' multiplier can make it add more dimensions - see all my questions in context please ?

ie. Adding to my earlier question
How can acting on a scalar equation by multiplying both sides make it a low order tensor ie by adding some 3D like coordinate system - where does the extra information come from so that your suggestion mass is a now 3D term but has no vector/coordinates associated with it ?

But, hey perhaps you are not the same BrianFraser, who actually authored the paper, is that correct ?

You just chose the nick to follow him, then why, in that case can you offer rationale for him why you imagine its ok to do above in Math ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.