Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
We already told you:
1. QED model. If you don't think that model matches reality and perhaps it doesn't exactly:
2. We don't know.
Those are the best two answers we can give you I think.

The classical model works in many cases but it breaks down in certain situations where you need QED, but aside from those I'm not aware of other models that match observation.

If you're looking for more than what's above, I suggest asking in the Philosophy forum where I'm sure someone can make something up for you that will be unconfirmed in any experiment but is philosophically pleasing.

I posted a video in the OP like that, where the presenter denies quantum mechanics and says everything is really classical. Mainstream science doesn't happen to agree with him because his model doesn't match experiment, but if that's the answer you want then just watch the "Russ Blake Spring Theory" video. You'll love his denial of the uncertainty principle and virtually all of quantum mechanics, I think.

What this comes down to is either one desires to expend effort in using what is known and what they know to attempt to discover, discuss and think about what they do not know, or one does not. I approached this thread as if ones were interesting in discussing the future of physics, which will be nothing but hopefully the slow and fast and steady uncovering of what just prior was unknown mysterious ignorance.

a reply to: ImaFungi

At this point, you are just talking in circles. They have answered your questions as you have presented them. I think the breakdown is the clarity of your questions themselves. There's obviously a specific set of questions you would like to know the answers to, but the great majority of your posts have so many different trains of thought in them it is hard to pin down the underlying request.
I'm not bashing you, or anything like that. You obviously have a very active and curious mind. And that's a lot more than can be said for a great majority of the population, unfortunately.
But if I may make a suggestion, try slowing down the stream of consciousness in your posts to make them more understandable for the rest of us. When you put so many things in at once, it makes it difficult to ascertain precisely what it is you are trying to learn.

a reply to: ImaFungi
We all want to see our frontiers of ignorance advance. But how does that happen? Though discussion?

To paraphrase Feynman's key to science video clip, it happens like this:
1. Make your best guess about how something works
2. Design an experiment to test the idea
3. Perform the experiment, which will either reject the idea, or will say it's at least plausibly consistent with observation

We can't prove QED more than saying it's consistent with observation, so we can't prove it's right beyond that. Example: Newton's laws were consistent with observation for centuries, but ultimately Einstein developed a better model. So experiments can really only prove a model wrong. They can't prove it right, and the best they can do is to say the model is consistent with experiment. That's where we're at with QED.

Scientists may not agree with Russ Blake's model, but contrary to popular belief, they do agree with his statement that either relativity and or quantum mechanics models have to change to be compatible with each other so I don't know of any scientists who wouldn't like to see that compatibility resolved and discover the next, better model like a unified field theory or theory of everything.

So there are valid reasons to take step 1 above and propose alternative models to QED as we would like to see a better model, if there is one. But then you have to take steps 2 and 3 to evaluate the ideas. How is that going to happen in this discussion forum? I don't see how it will, but that process happens all the time outside this forum. People come up with ideas, they get tested, and they are proven wrong, or they aren't.

As Lawrence Krauss points out in his criticism of string theory, it's his job to do step 1 a lot and think of new guesses in theoretical physics about how the universe might work differently from existing models. But as he admits, his and many other theoretical physicists' ideas turn out to be wrong when step 3 is performed. Newton was able to find logic in Newtonian mechanics but experiments testing modern theoretical physics aren't as predictable.

We have a similar problem with your proposed line of discussion, which is this:

Q: How do magnets work?
A: QED is consistent with observation but like any model we can't prove it's ultimate reality or "correct" beyond that.
Q: I don't like QED, it's not reality (not really a question, but OK).
A: We can't confirm QED is reality, only that it's consistent with experiment. It in fact may not be reality. No model is.
Q: So you admit QED is only a model and may not be reality, what's a better model that is ACTUAL reality?
A: We can list some guesses, but without performing steps 2 and 3 above, just listing those guesses probably won't be very productive.

So yes we all want to know what the next better model will be. But if we don't have it yet, we can't give it to you.

Even when we develop that, we still can only say it matches observation better than the previous model. It still can't be proven as ultimate reality and could still be replaced by yet another model. Models can only be proven wrong, or consistent with observation, but not right.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

You are not attempting to consider the nature of my questions.

The nature of some of your questions is unclear or irrelevant. You keep on talking about 'substance' as if there is any deeper substrate beneath electromagnetism and electrons. There isn't any to the best of our extensive experimental investigations.

The Standard model gives the identity of all of what are believed to be the fundamental fields of Nature, and particles as we observe them are the elementary quantum-mechanically allowed 'excitations'. Some of these are electromagnetic fields and some are lepton fields. Others are about quarks & Higgs and other things irrelevant to this discussion.

The Standard model not only tells you what the fields are, but how they interact. Some of those interactions are the relationship between leptons like electrons, and photons, i.e. the EM field. In common limiting cases important technologically, "classical physics", the interactions are well governed by Maxwellian electromagnetism plus mechanical Newtonian laws of motion, but in some others you need additional QM to explain observations.

In this sense, the influence of an electron's motion, and its spin & magnetic dipole moment (part of the *electron*) on the EM field, and vice versa, are known in the QFT equations of motion in the Standard Model. A large fraction of the SM is derived from experimental observations, as in 'it appears to be a fact of Nature which cannot be derived from any others'. Intuitive or intellectual or internal mathematical consistency is important but far from being enough to firmly pin down the facts.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I ask questions. You have a pull string of responses. I ask questions. Attempt to think and answer the questions, attempt to think and see what I am trying to get at. Or do not. These are the options. If you are unwilling to consider what I am asking, there is no point in us talking to each other.

a reply to: mbkennel

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND A QUESTION OR SENTENCE, QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND AND I WILL CLARIFY.


Do electrons make magnetic fields, or does the substance required to make magnetic field exist, and electron makes it into its local energetically quantitative and qualitative geometric way?

This aspect right here please we must focus on because this is what a lot of my efforts have been trying to clear up, so we need to be careful and patient here.

So you and I and infinitely powerful gods who have access to a pure reality which contains absolutely nothing in it in all directions etc. (which is impossible, but lets pretend its not). You take an electron, just exactly 1 electron, from our reality into the reality that is pure nothing. In the reality that is pure nothing, is your electron "creating"/"making" a magnetic field, surround it? Is the magnetic field a substantial aspect of the body of the electron? As if we had a peach, and we only referred to the pit as being an electron, but everywhere we brought the pit, the fruit which surrounds it would go with it? So is an electron a pit, with a fundamental, inherent, intrinsic, fruitful, substantial body that is undeniably attached and apart of it at all times in all realities?

Or, if we bring the electron into the reality of absolute nothing space; would there only be a pit, without anything surrounding it, no magnetic field. Which would suggest, that the magnetic field aspect of electrons in our reality, is a substantial quantity and quality, which exists entirely independent to the object electron. Now the term independent can be tricky, as eternally all substance is absolutely related to one another, as a part of 'all the quantity that exists, at all times'. There is a fundamental substance, energy, which is the underlying substance of reality eternally. It can be altered in all the ways it can be altered. Stable creations can be created from it which last for relative amounts of time. But the underlying root of all things that can be created, is of the same substance. So that is why it is difficult to say what is dependent and independent of what. If Electromagnetic field is purely what electrons and nothing is and does. Or if electromagnetic field is, what electrons, and this other substance are and do and interact with one another.

If we take an electron into our pure nothing space. And wiggle it around. Will photons fling off from it? You see, what I am asking is; is electromagnetic field and propagation, entirely the exact substance of electron, or is there something besides exactly what is electron, that is needed, to allow electromagnetic field and propagation to exist.

a reply to: ImaFungi

You copied and pasted your earlier post. I was genuinely attempting to help everyone resolve the apparent disconnect between your questions and their responses. I truly think it is good advice.
Of course, possibly trying to find a way to make it work is purely your choice. As is charging ahead with the EXACT example of where I saw the potential source of the issue arising. They have been very patient in trying to answer your questions. It would be only courteous to attempt some of the same patience in repeating them.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: ImaFungi

You copied and pasted your earlier post. I was genuinely attempting to help everyone resolve the apparent disconnect between your questions and their responses. I truly think it is good advice.
Of course, possibly trying to find a way to make it work is purely your choice. As is charging ahead with the EXACT example of where I saw the potential source of the issue arising. They have been very patient in trying to answer your questions. It would be only courteous to attempt some of the same patience in repeating them.

Everything I write is with very careful and controlled reason. 90% of what I write is questions. A person can either post in response to me, with questions and/or answers. If they are not doing so, they are only wasting space and time. Everything I write is readably, if a person can read one word after the other, and know what words mean. I am not of fault. Highlight a sentence you dont understand and I will clarify. I have already written all the questions I desire to be thought about and answered, so that we may attempt to ask more and attempt to answer more answer more. So if someone ignores my great questions, but thinks that they can offer data which equals the data I am asking strict, subtle and detailed questions about, this is obviously pointless and dumb. If a person is responding to me, but has no desire to comprehend my questions, and attempt to work towards answering them, then there is no point for them to respond to me at all.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok then. Merely trying to facilitate better results.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok then. Merely trying to facilitate better results.

Its nothing I can do differently, I have probably made 300 posts in this thread all dealing with maybe 5-10 fundamental aspects of reality and physics. I have been asking the same questions over and over. And they have not been attempting to think about what they do not know. They are a toy with a pull string of responses. What I need to do is give up hope.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND A QUESTION OR SENTENCE, QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND AND I WILL CLARIFY.


Do electrons make magnetic fields, or does the substance required to make magnetic field exist, and electron makes it into its local energetically quantitative and qualitative geometric way?

This aspect right here please we must focus on because this is what a lot of my efforts have been trying to clear up, so we need to be careful and patient here.

So you and I and infinitely powerful gods who have access to a pure reality which contains absolutely nothing in it in all directions etc. (which is impossible, but lets pretend its not). You take an electron, just exactly 1 electron, from our reality into the reality that is pure nothing. In the reality that is pure nothing, is your electron "creating"/"making" a magnetic field, surround it? Is the magnetic field a substantial aspect of the body of the electron? As if we had a peach, and we only referred to the pit as being an electron, but everywhere we brought the pit, the fruit which surrounds it would go with it? So is an electron a pit, with a fundamental, inherent, intrinsic, fruitful, substantial body that is undeniably attached and apart of it at all times in all realities?

Or, if we bring the electron into the reality of absolute nothing space; would there only be a pit, without anything surrounding it, no magnetic field. Which would suggest, that the magnetic field aspect of electrons in our reality, is a substantial quantity and quality, which exists entirely independent to the object electron. Now the term independent can be tricky, as eternally all substance is absolutely related to one another, as a part of 'all the quantity that exists, at all times'. There is a fundamental substance, energy, which is the underlying substance of reality eternally. It can be altered in all the ways it can be altered. Stable creations can be created from it which last for relative amounts of time. But the underlying root of all things that can be created, is of the same substance. So that is why it is difficult to say what is dependent and independent of what. If Electromagnetic field is purely what electrons and nothing is and does. Or if electromagnetic field is, what electrons, and this other substance are and do and interact with one another.

If we take an electron into our pure nothing space. And wiggle it around. Will photons fling off from it? You see, what I am asking is; is electromagnetic field and propagation, entirely the exact substance of electron, or is there something besides exactly what is electron, that is needed, to allow electromagnetic field and propagation to exist.

Now, after the 3rd time reading this, I understand what it is you're trying to ask. I, however, am not truly capable of doing much beyond theorizing about it.
I bring this up because it would have been much easier to understand if you had only posted the second and final paragraphs. For me, at least.

Respect to all

I apologize if this question has been posted before.....what is re normalization??

originally posted by: rmi187
Respect to all

I apologize if this question has been posted before.....what is re normalization??

Excellent question!
That's one I had been wondering about myself. Hopefully one of the fine minds here can explain it.

originally posted by: pfishy

originally posted by: rmi187
Respect to all

I apologize if this question has been posted before.....what is re normalization??

Excellent question!
That's one I had been wondering about myself. Hopefully one of the fine minds here can explain it.

renormalization is a mathematical procedure to get rid of either divergences or singularities/infinities in complex physical equations. at first the people who created those procedure felt they were invalid methods with no physical reality. They felt it was a cheap gimmick. but over time they became convinced they were legitimate because they found corresponding physical mechanisms.

for example the equations describing an electron in the left hand side of the equation sources has a negative sign because of Einstein's second law. the mass of an electron is negative before renormalization. not only that the negative component is at least two times the electron mass (in addition to the electrons regular mass there is a positron mass and another electron mass plus the angular component, magnetic moment and other stuff) and much more because it depends on C^4 instead of C^2. but the activity of the component properties such as emitting a virtual photon which transforms into another electron and a positron before being reabsorbed into a virtual photon which is reabsorbed by the real electron. this as well as the other components of an electron such as magnetic momenta dipole momenta and angular spin renormalize to give a tiny but positive mass to an electron.

NOW for my so far twice unanswered question: What principle prevents us from interdicting renormalization and gaining access to the negative bare mass?

originally posted by: rmi187
Respect to all

I apologize if this question has been posted before.....what is re normalization??

Read Dirac's criticism of it, which hopefully explains what it is:

Renormalization

Dirac's criticism was the most persistent.[6] As late as 1975, he was saying:[7]

Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!

As Dirac said most physicists don't object to getting rid of infinities in models such as QED in this manner, but since relativity is non-renormalizable, it's difficult to come up with a unified theory that treats gravity similarly to the other interactions.

The Standard Model of particle physics contains only renormalizable operators, but the interactions of general relativity become nonrenormalizable operators if one attempts to construct a field theory of quantum gravity in the most straightforward manner...

So the consensus seems to be it works for particle physics, but not for relativity, hence creating some challenges in attempts to unify those theories.

I don't suppose you've heard about the mathematician (I forgot his name), who claimed to have proved that gravity propagates instantly? He did this by measuring the affect of the suns gravity on Earth and "allegedly" discovered, the Earth is actually being pulled 8 minutes ahead of schedule, IE where the sun "actually" is and not where we "see" it to be. Therefor he claims gravity is instant.

What is your take on this?

Sorry if this has already been posted, there are so many darn posts to read through!

Thanks!

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Correction: *Where we visually see it in the sky, based off of the tilt of the Earth on it's axis.*
The sun isn't actually moving...

a reply to: IAmTheRumble
I've heard of VanFlandern saying something like that but his ideas are considered fringe.

Speed of Gravity Measured for First Time

"Newton thought that gravity's force was instantaneous. Einstein assumed that it moved at the speed of light, but until now, no one had measured it," said Sergei Kopeikin, a physicist at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

"We have determined that gravity's propagation speed is equal to the speed of light within an accuracy of 20 percent," said Ed Fomalont, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Charlottesville, VA. The scientists presented their findings to the American Astronomical Society's meeting in Seattle, WA.

Newton thought it was instant but he didn't know about relativity and speed of light gravity makes more sense in the context of general relativity, and Fomalont claims his measurement is consistent with the speed of light.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well dang, I was hoping i had found a loophole!
That leads me into another question, if you don't mind. How exactly is the warp drive capable of going faster than light, if gravity can't propogate faster than light? Or am i musunderstanding something, since it's based off of the warping of space and time, which is done through gravity?

Thanks, once more!!!

Going on a road trip to alpha centauri at 99.9999999999 percent the speed of light. how much food, water, air and fuel should i take assuming a one way trip? because gamma...

I change my mind and return home at the same speed. how much food, water, air and fuel do i consume? because gamma...

when i and the people of earth reunite; how are the differences between my frame and their frame resolved? do I have a cargo bay full of food, a tank full of water, excess fuel, excess air, and a couple of days of beard growth or is all the fuel and so on gone and i have eight+ years worth of beard growth?