Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

reply to post by Bedlam

That's right. Even if the charge was 10^-33 there are numbers of photons striking objects that dwarf 10^33 and it would be detectable, and as you say there's really no means for a photon to carry electric charge.

My point to Mary is we don't just say it's zero because some professor told us that and we accept it, but there are actually experiments and analyses to determine if "no electric charge" is actually true. Everything we see indicates that it is true.

That's why it's mind-numbing to see someone claim a photon has electric charge with no supporting measurements to back up the claim in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.

Bedlam


However, a photon is an EM wave. It's an electric field, and a magnetic field, and no means to carry a charge, for neither one of those does. Thus is charge relegated to particles with mass, like electrons and protons.

All crackpots should commit this to memory

UnifiedSerenity
When we think we know all the answers, then we quit learning. What is wrong with more questions? I call that an opportunity, and it seems some people just want to take the first idea that comes along, and stick with it. I don't trust in science that uses stuff you can't observe to explain a theory. Dark matter? Can you please put some on display for me?

Firstly there is very good observational evidence that there is something like 'dark matter' (which actually is a theory which has certain physical consequences which can be validated or invalidated by astrophysical observations and heroic data analysis), but 100% of the professional scientists who work on it know that the explanation is not complete and fully satisfactory at this stage. It's a tremendously large and contentious area of theory, experiments and observations. And astrophysicists use everything they CAN and DO observe to justify the theory. Gravitational lensing, ahem? Got Einstein?

And scientists have tested other alternate explanations (MOND was big for a while) to dark matter but if they are made sufficiently quantitative they do not match observations as well as dark matter with independent degrees of motion and freedom (which is what it really comes down to).

Black Holes? Oh, I know we just haven't figured out how to show it yet. It reminds me of Darwin and his theory you can't observe and shows nothing in the fossil record he thought would be there, but it's what people like. It explains it for them, an if it's not how he said it is, then we are left with questions!

This is wrong. Unlike 'dark matter' which is has a clear phenomenological justification but not yet a sufficiently explanatory mechanistic explanation, Darwin and successors' evolutionary theory has enormous specific and predictive evidence with well studied fundamental molecular mechanistic justifications and endlessly validated ecological theories, simulations and supporting observations.

I really do think that as much as people think we are enlightened to day, they have no idea just how locked into a darkness of intellectual arrogance beyond belief.

There's no evidence of this at all in professional science. We're locked in darkness of bad career prospects.

UnifiedSerenity

When we think we know all the answers, then we quit learning.

When you don't know any of the answers we do know, you didn't start to learn in the first place.

mbkennel

There's no evidence of this at all in professional science. We're locked in darkness of bad career prospects.

Little home projects are where the fun's at. How are you with physical chemistry? I need a non-FORN physical chemist that can get a q-sensitive clearance and will work cheap.

My other major side project requires someone who's good at physical nuclear chemistry and isn't afraid of working with very toxic radioactive gases and very active neutron sources. I'm still in the phase I pitch stage, though, so it's all theoretical unless they buy into it. Do you like Idaho?

Bedlam

mbkennel

There's no evidence of this at all in professional science. We're locked in darkness of bad career prospects.

Little home projects are where the fun's at. How are you with physical chemistry? I need a non-FORN physical chemist that can get a q-sensitive clearance and will work cheap.

My other major side project requires someone who's good at physical nuclear chemistry and isn't afraid of working with very toxic radioactive gases and very active neutron sources. I'm still in the phase I pitch stage, though, so it's all theoretical unless they buy into it. Do you like Idaho?

Fortunately for my health, I suck really bad at both of these. (I'm in private industry now doing modeling & software).

ps: hi, welcome back. about that plasma stuff....don't leave us hanging...

mbkennel

Fortunately for my health, I suck really bad at both of these. (I'm in private industry now doing modeling & software).

Coding for graphics cards yet? There's all sorts of engineering and physics problems you can pound to death on CUDA. I'm flailing my way into it now. All sorts of interesting problems no one appears to have coded for CUDA solutions. Heck, I haven't even found a commercial SPICE that runs on CUDA yet, although I didn't look all that long. The reason why, I guess, is because the support software sucks ass. NSA loves them, though. Rumor has it they added POPCNT to CUDA just for the spooks.

I suck at them both as well. The problem is that I look at issues and say "Hey, I bet you could find a two photon dye that would require two fairly tight laser wavelengths to pump an electron up to an intermediate level on the first one, and up to an end level with the second photon, then cascade back and trigger a chemical reaction but only if you had managed to pump to the end level...random photons wouldn't likely get you there before the electron fell back from the intermediate level...so you could have a chemical process that's only gonna happen when you want it JACKPOT now I just need to find how to engineer the thing...crap." And then my problem is that there are lots of cheap Russian physical chemists you can hire over the net. But it's just what I can't use. Alas.

The other thing, well, it struck me as I was going to sleep. I can't imagine no one's doing it but I can't find any precursor studies that look like it would have led there. And my other version of that I DID find had been worked on ... in Russia, about five years ago, so it was a good idea, I just wasn't the first. And I thought sorting out decaying isotopes based on nuclear recoil was a unique idea. Dammit. The other idea is more basic, but again, I don't see any hint of it, so it's probably done in the 50s and been gagged ever since. But it doesn't hurt to file an intent to patent and see if you get SLAGged right off the bat.

ps: hi, welcome back. about that plasma stuff....don't leave us hanging..

I had to see a man about a dog. I need to scrape up the tattered remnants of the stuff I had been doing six weeks ago and see if I can make a coherent post out of it.

reply to post by Bedlam


Charge causes EM waves to exist (right?), so what is the relationship between them? How do they interact, and how is the EM field and EM wave fundamentally different from the quark fields which contain charged particles, and how are the particles coupled to the field?

Also Electric and magnetic fields are disturbed by charged particles, and can in turn disturb charged particles right? So why isnt an electromagnetic wave the same?

reply to post by mbkennel


The whole reason physicists think they need dark matter, is because they observed all detectable masses in the galaxy, added them up, and then plugged them into gravity equations and then observed that the observed masses would not be able to produce the kind of gravity field required to keep the galaxy stable and existent as it is?

Did they factor in the potentially ever increasing mass of the central black hole, and potentially unknown affects that may be present when the massive rotating gravity well of the milky way galaxy constantly collides with space (dark energy filled space?) outside of the galaxy, and also potentially relativistic mass of the bodies in the galaxy and perhaps affects they may have on gravity fields, like from the center a trickle down system of gravity wells lessening the load of bodies locally further from the center, and so on and so forth?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Charge is conveyed by particles with rest mass. If you want a negative charge, you've got to add an electron or remove a positron or the like. The charginess is associated with deposition or removal of a particle that has charge innately.

Photons have no rest mass. You can't deposit a photon on a surface, or in an orbital, there is no decay mode that absorbs a photon to change the charge state of a nucleon. Because photons always travel at C. They don't stop, other than weird special cases where they exist virtually in a plasmon deformation or the like.

An EM wave is a sort of pushme-pullyou of electric and magnetic fields creating each other. There's no charged particles associated with them as part of the wave. As a bad analogy, you might shout at me, but there's no lung bits conveyed on the sound wave. Unless you have TB, I suppose.

The only chargy thing that's connected with photons is if one of them has high enough energy and interacts with a charged particle, you can get production of an electron and a positron simultaneously. But it's charge neutral - you don't create a net charge. Because photons don't have one.

reply to post by Mary Rose


So a man with no scientific background is disputing physicists and your taking him seriously wow? i watched his video no where does he show any evidence of his claims and just saying you dont believe something doesnt make it true.

reply to post by Bedlam


Electric and magnetic fields are disturbed by charged particles, and can in turn disturb charged particles right? So why isnt an electromagnetic wave the same?

Also charged particles are responsible for creating EM waves, how are charged particles coupled with the EM field to be able to interact with it in this way,
and what about non charged particles has it that they are not coupled with the EM field,
and why cant EM waves disturb other EM waves (because no charge?) ?

And what occurs in situations where there is a charge neutral particle that is no interacting with the EM field but is turned to a charged particle or births one?

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Charge causes EM waves to exist (right?), so what is the relationship between them? How do they interact, and how is the EM field and EM wave fundamentally different from the quark fields which contain charged particles, and how are the particles coupled to the field?

Also Electric and magnetic fields are disturbed by charged particles, and can in turn disturb charged particles right? So why isnt an electromagnetic wave the same?

edit on 24-9-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Not all EM fields are caused by charged particles as loss of energy can also cause EMR as well.For example radioactive decay will produce an EM field But no charges particles are in motion.Now EM fields are disturbed by charged particles they create them.However in a magnet charged particles cant disrupt magnetic fields,Because charged particles in motion do not effect magnetic fields but the other way around magnetic fields effect charged particles. Basically thats how a generator works.So there is a difference if charged particles effected a magnetic field generators wouldnt work would they?

ImaFungi
Electric and magnetic fields are disturbed by charged particles, and can in turn disturb charged particles right? So why isnt an electromagnetic wave the same?

They do. But they don't *convey* charge. It's one thing to have a test charge and see it perturbed by a passing EM wave, but the EM wave doesn't convey charge. A wind can blow a pinwheel, but the wind doesn't impart pinwheels on the barn it hits.

The op is stating that EM waves are co-identical with charge. But they're not. The wind is not the fan. Wind doesn't convey fan-ness to the sail it hits.

And what occurs in situations where there is a charge neutral particle that is no interacting with the EM field but is turned to a charged particle or births one?

You need a charge gradient to create a pair. A neutron wouldn't do, I don't think. Although a neutron does have somewhat of a dipole.

reply to post by Bedlam


Ok I see, EM waves are not charged, because certain particles are charged, and EM waves are not charged particles. I do get your analogy I think. Basically EM field and subsequent waves are the medium in which charged particles move about, and their movements cause disturbances in the medium, and the medium itself is not charged, though something about the medium, it and charged particles creation, caused it to be coupled in such a way as to create the phenomenon of positive and negative charge, and all the events these qualities can invoke.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Pretty close. The fan can make wind, the wind can turn the fan, but the wind is not the fan even though windness and fanness may be related. It's not a good analogy but it's at least visualizable.

Or as Kirk just said, my foot can make a ripple in a lake that makes the boat rock in sympathy, but the ripple doesn't convey toe cheese to the boat.

ImaFungi
reply to post by mbkennel

 

The whole reason physicists think they need dark matter, is because they observed all detectable masses in the galaxy, added them up, and then plugged them into gravity equations and then observed that the observed masses would not be able to produce the kind of gravity field required to keep the galaxy stable and existent as it is?

Did they factor in the potentially ever increasing mass of the central black hole, and potentially unknown affects that may be present when the massive rotating gravity well of the milky way galaxy constantly collides with space (dark energy filled space?) outside of the galaxy, and also potentially relativistic mass of the bodies in the galaxy and perhaps affects they may have on gravity fields, like from the center a trickle down system of gravity wells lessening the load of bodies locally further from the center, and so on and so forth?

Yeah, they've computed and simulated all of this up the wazoo. And it's mostly from observations of other galaxies---and you have a squillion of them all in different configurations of their own and can look at clusters and superclusters of them. And at galaxy collisions and specifically the interaction of one galaxy's dark matter with another's (look up "bullet cluster").

www.universetoday.com...

reply to post by Bedlam


Yes I think I am understanding more and more (which usually means nothing)... So what does the EM field look like when charged particles are traveling but no EM radiation is being created. And what does it look like when one particle is forced to create EM wave?

So its not even that the EM field is neutrally charged like a neutron, the idea of associated the phenomenon of charge with EM field is just incompatible?

Cant fundamental quanta, matter, be destroyed...or eventually cant matter turn completely into radiation, and eventual one possibility is that all that exist will be radiation, what would have happened to charge?

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Yes I think I am understanding more and more (which usually means nothing)... So what does the EM field look like when charged particles are traveling but no EM radiation is being created. And what does it look like when one particle is forced to create EM wave?

So its not even that the EM field is neutrally charged like a neutron, the idea of associated the phenomenon of charge with EM field is just incompatible?

Cant fundamental quanta, matter, be destroyed...or eventually cant matter turn completely into radiation, and eventual one possibility is that all that exist will be radiation, what would have happened to charge?

Generally moving charged particles are associated with E or H fields. Accelerating particles pretty much always are, can't think of an example not.

Right, the notion of charge and an EM field are incompatible. EM fields move charge, moving charge makes EM fields (or accelerating to cover all bases), but the field is not the charge. It doesn't convey charge. It can't carry charge to a target.

In a sane world, there are a lot of basic chunks that seem to be eternal. Electrons, protons and the like don't seem to decay. Some particles reveal themselves to be some sort of freaky composite even though they're basic particles (mbkennel will spit on me here for being incomplete and stating it badly) for example, left to its own devices, a neutron will promptly become a proton and an electron and a few account balancing particles. It only remains a neutron if it's in a proper nucleus. Even then, if the nucleus isn't packed together well, you can get neutrons that aren't shielded well enough from free space and they'll decay into a proton and an electron anyway, it'll just take longer. Conversely, a nucleus can also be the opposite, and in that case it can reach up and grab the closest electron from its orbital and convert a proton into a neutron. Neutrons will also respond to other particles' anti-particles and AFAIK they're the only ones that do this.

Generally, with big complex particles splitting, you see a difference in the mass of the chunks compared to the mass of the whole, even though all the bits are still there, you've still got all the protons, electrons and neutrons you started with, although you may have to chase them down if, say, an electron goes flying off as a beta particle or your protons and neutrons start swapping into each other. But in any case, you can still find all the bits and pieces, and even though it's all there, the mass will have changed, and that's binding energy that's been freed that makes up the difference. About the only time that a basic particle becomes energy itself directly is if it encounters its anti-particle (or in the case of a neutron, other particles' anti-particles) in which case it will become EM energy and radiate away.

That's only going to happen if you've got appropriate types and quantities of anti-particles, and unless you find a lot of anti-matter I haven't heard about, that's not going to happen in this universe.

Bedlam



That's only going to happen if you've got appropriate types and quantities of anti-particles, and unless you find a lot of anti-matter I haven't heard about, that's not going to happen in this universe.

hm ok. So with like DC, direct current, isnt this linearly sending electrons from point A to point B, and are the electrons that say, are pumped into a computer 'used'.

Also isnt the matter of stars largely converted into radiation, or does a star have the same amount of matter when it is formed as when it dies? Not accounting for matter being flung off... I really thought other then anti particle collisions, matter could be destroyed or used up or turned to pure radiation. If not well ok then. Because I have heard potential theories on universal heat death, and that everything will eventually decay, into radiation, and then I guess its thought radiation has no way of decaying so it will just radiate forever (or something). So I was wondering if that is theoretically possible, what happens to conservation of charge, and nature of charge in general?