classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

[kiwi]

Aristarchus - I find that your quotes here simply serve to support what I told you. The fundamental equations themselves are beautifully simple.

why does our sun not respond in a "beautifully simple" way as the fundamental equations must surely show? ... where does that leave your claim of "empirical-observation" as the smoking-gun to the theory?

could you comment on the claim made by Stephen Crothers that the accepted "Schwarzschild" model is an interpretation of the original,... and in fact the only model that cannot be worked forward and back to fit with the original, unlike the papers of Droste and others? ... yet Hilberds model is the accepted scientific basis for the propigation of Black Holes?

respectfully
Kiwi

[Nereid]

I've been reading this thread, and have a couple of questions; I hope they are not off-topic.

My questions are probably more for Aristarchus than anyone else who has posted in this thread, but of course I'd welcome anyone's response!

Much of the key work on thermodynamics was done before the atomic nature of ordinary matter was confirmed. Then around a century or so ago many of the key conclusions in thermodynamics were explained in terms of vast populations of atoms (and, as appropriate, ions and electrons), using an approach called statistical mechanics.

Now the relevant laws of thermodynamics are very simple, and they account for essentially all relevant lab-scale (i.e. macroscopic) experimental results; however, can one say that these laws are, in fact, emergent properties (of matter, including plasma), and that the fundamental forces and processes are actually very different (QED - quantum electrodynamics - I think)?

In this Thunderbolts Forum, and in the works of Hannes Alfvén and Anthony Peratt (among others), I see that the properties and behaviours of plasmas are often described as extremely complex, even almost life-like. Yet the underlying physics - mostly classical electromagnetism - is extremely simple (little more than just Maxwell's equations). How does the reductionist/emergence dichotomy (if it can be called that), and Laughlin's ideas (per his book), relate to plasma physics?

[davesmith_au]

Nor did you answer my query regarding gravity as an electromagnetic effect.

Er, that should read "my deflection" if the topic of the thread is anything to go by, and as Aristarchus already pointed out.

Nevertheless, could you enlighten us as to what gravity is then? There'd be a Nobel in there somewhere for you then...

Cheers, Dave.

[starbiter]

Nor did you answer my query regarding gravity as an electromagnetic effect.

Nevertheless, could you enlighten us as to what gravity is then? There'd be a Nobel in there somewhere for you then...

Cheers, Dave.

Hello Dave: This statement implies a Nobel Prize for Wal someday, IMO.

michael

[Physicist]

Nor did you answer my query regarding gravity as an electromagnetic effect.

Er, that should read "my deflection" if the topic of the thread is anything to go by, and as Aristarchus already pointed out.

Nevertheless, could you enlighten us as to what gravity is then? There'd be a Nobel in there somewhere for you then...

Cheers, Dave.

Dave - if you read back in this thread you'll find that I provided a fairly thorough explanation of the phenomenon in question at the top of page 2. Since then the discussion has certainly moved off-topic, although in related and interesting directions. I apologize if that's against the rules here

As for what gravity "is", I think that one's best left for the philosophers. The interesting scientific question is - can it be linked to the standard model of particle physics? That's still an open question.

Perhaps as an admin, you can answer my query? Is it really conventional wisdom here that gravity is an electromagnetic effect? I have provided in another thread a simple explanation of why it can't be - and I'd be delighted to see a refutation.

[kiwi]

Nereid said

Now the relevant laws of thermodynamics are very simple, and they account for essentially all relevant lab-scale (i.e. macroscopic) experimental results; however, can one say that these laws are, in fact, emergent properties (of matter, including plasma), and that the fundamental forces and processes are actually very different (QED - quantum electrodynamics - I think)?

you may have already read this Nereid,... but if not

QUANTUM ENIGMA~ Physics Encounters Conciousness

by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner

[Nereid]

Nereid said

Now the relevant laws of thermodynamics are very simple, and they account for essentially all relevant lab-scale (i.e. macroscopic) experimental results; however, can one say that these laws are, in fact, emergent properties (of matter, including plasma), and that the fundamental forces and processes are actually very different (QED - quantum electrodynamics - I think)?

you may have already read this Nereid,... but if not

QUANTUM ENIGMA~ Physics Encounters Conciousness

by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner

Thanks kiwi.

No, I have not read it.

May I ask how it is relevant to the part of my post you quoted?

You see, as far as I understand it, there is no laboratory evidence that human consciousness has any effect on macroscopic phenomena once the blood supply to the brain of a human is cut off for more than an hour or so (i.e. whatever human consciousness is, it is totally dependent, in terms of anything observable in the lab, on functioning human brains).

[kiwi]

and that the fundamental forces and processes are actually very different

the quantum enigma deals with exactly that

[Aristarchus]

I find that your quotes here simply serve to support what I told you. The fundamental equations themselves are beautifully simple.

No. According to Laughlin, they don't support your contentions at all - as in the following:

They are very simple and beautiful and can be written in two or three lines. But then you find that this simplicity is highly misleading.

Furthermore - no, I don't see a conflict between reductionism and emergent properties.

The entire premise of Laughlin's book, A Different Universe, is that there is a conflict. This is something you need to address to him according to what he actually stated in his book.

There would be a conflict between the two if a "reductionist" theory predicted one thing and an "emergent" theory predicted another.

Laughlin is proposing an emergent approach, because he views the reductionist method as failing to predict the observations found in Nature. In fact, the complete title of his book is, A Different Universe: reinventing physics from the bottom down. At any rate, it has already been made clear to you in my previous post what Laughlin has stated, and, again, in no way does it reflect anything that serves to support your defense, as in the following quote from Laughlin that counters:

We can refute the reductionist myth by demonstrating that rules are correct and then challenging very smart people to predict things with them. Their inability to do so is similar to the difficulty the Wizard of Oz has in returning Dorothy to Kansas. He can do it in principle, but there are a few pesky details to be worked out. One must be satisfied in the interim with empty testimonials and exhortations to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The real problem is that Oz is a different universe from Kansas and that getting from one to the other makes no sense. The myth of collective behavior following law is, as a practical matter, exactly backward. Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics. The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law.

Perhaps what you are missing is that your perceived "conflict" is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Us scientists are pragmatists. We'll take anything that works!

Yes, well, Laughlin is stating that it doesn't work, and he by no means represents someone that is a proponent of the EU model.

Speaking of deflection, I can't help but notice that you again failed to provide a counterexample to my assertion.

Huh? The way you stated it previously it appeared you wanted me to provide a counter example to my own assertions. I think you still do, but I believe you're hoping to bait through instance in the chance that I might bite. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, I do finally ascertain what it is you're asking - and with all due respect - I think a certain amount of latitude of witticism should be granted me here, but feeling obliged to garner whatever information it is that you're seeking, I find it strange I'm doing this in response to someone that drops such lines as (viz.), "We'll take anything that works!" I mean, the latter sounds like something from a detergent commercial.

Nor did you answer my query regarding gravity as an electromagnetic effect. If you can show that it is, there's doubtless a Nobel Prize in it for you!

Ah. It's good to have you on record that you will indulge your fellow EU posters, as long as they provide you with information that warrants a Nobel Prize - I'm assuming in Physics. For a second, I thought you might ask me something unreasonable in some catch me if you can dialogue. Silly me. Seriously though, is it really too much to ask for me to distinguish myself with such an honor that hasn't even been bestowed upon Stephen Hawking. Is he a hero's of yours in the same vein of the "anything that works!!" crowd? I understand he's hit a bit of a snag the past several years, as in the following link:

Los Alamos Researcher Says "Black Holes" Aren't Holes At All


Never mind the fact that there is already a discussion/thread at the EU forum called Gravity and Strong Force - or - the fact that Hannes Alfven disproved eventually, based upon the empirical data from the Apollo missions, the accepted beautiful mathematical composition of Sydney Chapman - or the fact that repeatedly EU proponents have stated numerous times on this forum that they don't discount the role of gravity, but rather, the heavy reliance of it through observing the cosmos through the lens of thermodynamics, especially considering that the elusive graviton hasn't been found and/or that electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity - and this might give one pause.

Oops, a sudden disruption. I believe my wife is calling:

Aristarchus' wife - "Honey?"

Aristarchus - "Yes, dear."

Aristarchus' wife - "Are you coming to bed soon."

Aristarchus - "Soon, I hope, but it appears I have been given a homework assignment."

Aristarchus' wife - "A homework assignment?"

Aristarchus - "Yeah, yeah."

Aristarchus' wife - "About?"

Aristarchus - "Not really sure. Many open questions, but apparently the only acceptable grade for it is on the order of winning a Nobel Prize."

Aristarchus' wife - "Like what Al Gore won?"

Aristarchus - "No, no, this is in physics, not comedy."

Aristarchus' wife - "How did this all happen? What are you telling people, now?"

Aristarchus - "Oh nothing, nothing, really. It just appeared to me that one of the EU posters started to bad mouth my fellow EU proponents about not understanding the science that they so happen to have a passion about, just as he/she probably shares this same passion - ssooo, I thought I would attempt to defend the good chap/chappettes on the EU forum by simply pointing out to this accusing poster that there are also those in his/her field that are not even EU proponents that state that it isn't at all cut and dry as what appears in the field of cosmology, given the scaling up problem the reductionist model posits. I happened to mention the book by Laughlin I told you about, and before I know it, my reading comprehension skills are brought into question and now I find myself saddled with trying to win a Nobel Prize."

Aristarchus' wife - "Wow."

Aristarchus - "Tell me about it."

Aristarchus' wife - "In physics?"

Aristarchus - "Apparently."

Aristarchus' wife - "But you suck in math."

Aristarchus - "Tell me about it. It would have been a lot easier to do standup like Al Gore did."

Aristarchus' wife - "Have you contacted Stephen Hawking?"

Aristarchus - "I text-messaged him, and he responded that this Nobel Prize stuff is a bit tricky. He stated he'd see what he can do after he catches the scores for football."

Aristarchus' wife - "The NFL?"

Aristarchus - "No, no, more like Futball. He's a Cambridge man, I understand. A student of Sir Fred Hoyle, you know."

Aristarchus' wife - "I thought Fred Hoyle had enough students working under him, and Hawking was assigned to someone else?"

Aristarchus - "Cut me some slack, I have a Nobel Prize to contend with."

Aristarchus' wife - "Honey?"

Aristarchus - "Yes, dear."

Aristarchus' wife - "There's a General Puntridge calling on the phone."

Aristarchus - "Well, what does he want? Tell him, I'm busy."

Aristarchus' wife - "He says it’s urgent, something about a wing-attack plan R."

Aristarchus - "Oh for cryingoutloud, the Nobel Prize, wing-attack plan R - tell 'em to call Hawking’s, he's not doing anything. Do I have to do everything myself?"

[Physicist]

Aristarchus - I like your comedy!

However I don't think our discussion can continue unless you actually provide evidence to support your assertions - and that would consist of:

1. An example of where a "reductionist" theory predicts a different thing from an "emergent" theory, thus demonstrating your alleged conflict;

2. An example of where physicists use a mathematical model of unnecessary complexity, thus debunking my claim.

From what I read, you may have a race on your hands with that Nobel Prize - it looks like "Wal" is halfway there already

[Aristarchus]

Physicist,

Glad to place a smile and laugh on the face of my fellow EU posters. It's a good way to break the tension. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to revisit this today, but I'm not sure where the moderators of the forum might see that this thread is getting too far off topic - it might need a little guidance beyond my control - so I'll need to delineate and define carefully before my next response to you.

[Physicist]

Returning to a different strand of this convoluted thread...

could you comment on the claim made by Stephen Crothers that the accepted "Schwarzschild" model is an interpretation of the original,... and in fact the only model that cannot be worked forward and back to fit with the original, unlike the papers of Droste and others? ... yet Hilberds model is the accepted scientific basis for the propigation of Black Holes?

I can't comment on the history of the Schwarzschild solution, because I'm not a historian. I'm happy to call it whatever you want to call it - both Schwarzschild and Hilbert are long since dead, so they won't mind!

What I can vouch for is the correctness of the "Schwarzschild" solution, because I've done the math more than once myself, starting from Einstein's equations.

I googled your guy and the first thing I chanced upon was this:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -01-09.PDF

In it he claims that the "Schwarzschild" solution is not in fact a correct solution of Einstein's equations, and that consequently black holes aren't a prediction of general relativity. Please correct me if that's an unfair paraphrase.

So I read few pages of his paper, and I found a number of things that didn't make much sense, but the one that really jumped out at me was:

The invalid conventional assumptions that 0<r<α and that r is a radius of sorts in the gravitational field lead to the incorrect conclusion that r =α is a 2-sphere in the gravitational field of the point-mass. The quantity r =α does not describe a 2-sphere; it does not yield a Schwarzschild sphere; it is actually a point.

This is obviously wrong - take for instance the metric in his equation (17). It demonstrates that the distance between his "point" and itself is greater than zero. So he's contradicted himself, as well as "conventional wisdom" on the subject.

I stopped reading there - too many mistakes already

[Nereid]

and that the fundamental forces and processes are actually very different

the quantum enigma deals with exactly that

Sorry kiwi, I still don't get it.

The part of my post you quoted was about reductionism/emergent properties (or behaviour) with respect to thermodynamics; how does 'the quantum enigma' (whatever that means) relate to thermodynamics?

Anyway, taking a hint from Aristarchus' last post, perhaps we need to stop this discussion here, in this thread?

[davesmith_au]

This is obviously wrong - take for instance the metric in his equation (17). It demonstrates that the distance between his "point" and itself is greater than zero. So he's contradicted himself, as well as "conventional wisdom" on the subject.

I stopped reading there - too many mistakes already

Seems you're a lot better at math than some widely published mathematicians and physicists are. I have been privvy to many private exchanges between Crothers and a number of his 'peers' some of whom are quite well-known 'experts' in their fields.

Not once in these exchanges did any of them prove Crothers' math was incorrect. Several even went so far as to admit Crothers was right but stated they could not change their 'belief' in black holes. Clearly they were defending reputations and colleagues based on something other than proper mathematical rigor.

NOT being conversant myself with the math involved in such discussions, I'm left to make my decisions on the content of what's said about the math, and by whom. I'd rather take the word of some of the globe's leading published physicists and mathematicians than that of an anonymous forum poster who calls himself/herself "Physicist".

Regardless, to accept the reality of black holes is to accept that a point of zero dimensions can contain heaps and heaps of matter (in layman's speak) which any bricklayer can tell you is absurd. Just because one was taught something is correct or possible does not make it so. Critical thinking skills seem to have given way to reputations, funding streams and "conventional wisdom"... Or to put it in language the well-trained will understand, consensus is not equal to science.

Cheers, Dave.

[Physicist]

Seems you're a lot better at math than some widely published mathematicians and physicists are. I have been privvy to many private exchanges between Crothers and a number of his 'peers' some of whom are quite well-known 'experts' in their fields.

Dave - no, I'm by no means an expert. But I don't think you have to be. I think any good physics major with a semester of general relativity behind them ought to be able to pick apart the paper I saw.

Not once in these exchanges did any of them prove Crothers' math was incorrect. Several even went so far as to admit Crothers was right but stated they could not change their 'belief' in black holes. Clearly they were defending reputations and colleagues based on something other than proper mathematical rigor.

I suspect they were just trying to get rid of him as quickly as possible

This is a problem every well-known scientist encounters - a stream of scientifically mad people, each of them with the answers to life, the universe and everything, desperate for recognition and approval. It's an interesting phenomenon, and a little sad.

NOT being conversant myself with the math involved in such discussions, I'm left to make my decisions on the content of what's said about the math, and by whom. I'd rather take the word of some of the globe's leading published physicists and mathematicians than that of an anonymous forum poster who calls himself/herself "Physicist".

I agree wholeheartedly. But I'd encourage you to dig a little deeper - general relativity is relatively (pun) accessible to anyone with some kind of quantitative/technical background. It's for the most part completely independent of any other branch of physics, and so there aren't many prerequisites.

Regardless, to accept the reality of black holes is to accept that a point of zero dimensions can contain heaps and heaps of matter (in layman's speak) which any bricklayer can tell you is absurd. Just because one was taught something is correct or possible does not make it so. Critical thinking skills seem to have given way to reputations, funding streams and "conventional wisdom"... Or to put it in language the well-trained will understand, consensus is not equal to science.

To accept the reality of black holes is most certainly NOT to accept a point of infinite density. The fact is that no-one knows what lies at the singularity - indeed the very word "singularity" is an admission of our ignorance - because no-one knows the rules of quantum gravity.

The research that has been done, then, has very little to do with the singularity. It involves what we can say about the properties of black holes REGARDLESS of what is happening at the singularity. And there are lots of very interesting things that we can say. Just like there are many very interesting things we can say about electromagnetism without knowing anything whatsoever about the quantum mechanics of electrons.