Notices
Results 1 to 91 of 91

Thread: Linear Acceleration of an Electron in an Electric Field?

  1. #1 Linear Acceleration of an Electron in an Electric Field? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    When an electron accelerates in a cathode ray tube it is always assumed that its acceleration is linear. The strong electric field between the anode and the cathode causes the electron to leave the cathode and accelerate towards the anode.

    However, according to Quantum Physics the energy which causes an electron to gain energy or accelerate comes in the form of small packets called “Quanta”. When an electron accelerates it absorbs these quanta thereby gaining energy. In the case of a cathode ray tube these quanta are supplied by the electric field.

    But if you look at the subject in closer detail certain philosophical paradoxes start to occur.

    If the accelerating electron can only absorb whole quanta or single quanta at a time, how can its acceleration be linear? When an electron absorbs a quantum of energy does it immediately increase its velocity to a higher level without progressively accelerating between the lower and higher velocities? If it did then this would result in a mathematically infinite acceleration occuring.

    Or does the electron store the quanta like fuel and use this fuel progressively over an interval of time to cause the linear acceleration? But if it does then how does the electron use a quantum of energy like fuel? What machinery is it using to burn this fuel to cause the motion?

    And further to result in linear acceleration the electron would have to absorb these whole quanta of energy at a constant rate or end to end. As soon as it had finished with one quantum of energy it would have to absorb the next, etc., etc.

    Another contradiction is that as the velocity of the electron increased in the cathode ray tube it would progressively encounter quanta at an ever increasing rate which would cause its acceleration to increase exponentially. Again this would tend to result in a non-linear acceleration.

    And finally when a quantum of energy is absorbed by the electron how is it that the quantum is able to communicate to the electron the direction in which it is to accelerate in?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    As far as I know, magnetic fields are not conveyed in quanta. If anything...I suppose the closest thing to 'steps' in the field that could exist would be increments at the Plank Length.

    I forgot the mathematical term for this, but the electron's acceleration should be increasing, something like velocity per second per second. If it was just a constant field, it would accelerate like an object falling off of a table due to gravity. Within a CRT television though, the electron is quickly getting closer to the source, so the density of the field is increasing as it progresses, resulting in even greater acceleration.


    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    As far as I know, magnetic fields are not conveyed in quanta. If anything...I suppose the closest thing to 'steps' in the field that could exist would be increments at the Plank Length.
    1. Magnetic fields and electric fields have no separate existence from electromagnetic fields. What is seen as magnetic and what is seen as electric depend on the reference field of the observer. Electromagnetic fields are quantized.

    2. galexander is a troll, so you can safely assume that his objective is not to have a question answered, but rather to just stir the pot.

    3. galexander is mixing a quantum perspective with a classical perspective in the same model. That won't work. There is no real problem here, just a mixing of models. The continuous acceleration is classical an fits well with Maxwell's equations -- CRTs will continue to work just fine. Looking at one electron and one photon at a time in the context of quantum electrodynamics to calculate a trajectory would be quite an undertaking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    As far as I know, magnetic fields are not conveyed in quanta. If anything...I suppose the closest thing to 'steps' in the field that could exist would be increments at the Plank Length.

    I forgot the mathematical term for this, but the electron's acceleration should be increasing, something like velocity per second per second. If it was just a constant field, it would accelerate like an object falling off of a table due to gravity. Within a CRT television though, the electron is quickly getting closer to the source, so the density of the field is increasing as it progresses, resulting in even greater acceleration.
    In a Cathode Ray Tube it is an electric field NOT a magnetic field which accelerates the electron.

    I made this quite clear in the initial thread.

    So what you are suggesting (despite of this) is that only part of the universe is a Quantum Universe, the remaining part is not.

    This means that given the appropriate forces electrons CAN exist in an array of different states around the nucleus of an atom to the great annoyance of Quantum Physicists.......!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    @ Mod's and admin's. What DrRocket has to say is not just a conjecture, but is an empirically demonstrable fact. Can we just send galexander straight to pseudo please?
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    galexander is a troll, so you can safely assume that his objective is not to have a question answered, but rather to just stir the pot.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    .

    So what you are suggesting (despite of this) is that only part of the universe is a Quantum Universe, the remaining part is not.
    Quantum mechanics always applies, it's just that it doesn't make sense to use it when the difference between two quantum states is infinitesimally small, and when classical mechanics will do. It is the same way with relativity. It always applies, but at speeds much less than c, it makes no sense to use it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    @ Mod's and admin's. What DrRocket has to say is not just a conjecture, but is an empirically demonstrable fact. Can we just send galexander straight to pseudo please?
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    galexander is a troll, so you can safely assume that his objective is not to have a question answered, but rather to just stir the pot.
    Presumably in your books GiantEvil it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of being a Troll if you don't agree with what they are saying.

    So much for the 'scientific method'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    .

    So what you are suggesting (despite of this) is that only part of the universe is a Quantum Universe, the remaining part is not.
    Quantum mechanics always applies, it's just that it doesn't make sense to use it when the difference between two quantum states is infinitesimally small, and when classical mechanics will do. It is the same way with relativity. It always applies, but at speeds much less than c, it makes no sense to use it.
    Ah yes.....but don't forget Harold14370 all the small things add up to the bigger things.

    I hope you will admit this is an unavoidable truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Presumably in your books GiantEvil it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of being a Troll if you don't agree with what they are saying.
    How can I disagree when nothing has been said?
    You, galexander, are a mere spewer of semantic dissension. The definition of "Troll".
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Presumably in your books GiantEvil it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of being a Troll if you don't agree with what they are saying.
    How can I disagree when nothing has been said?
    You, galexander, are a mere spewer of semantic dissension. The definition of "Troll".
    And where does it say that everyone HAS to agree with the ('divine') laws of physics?

    Dissension by definition makes you a Troll?

    Come off it! :x :x
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    semantic dissension.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    And where does it say that everyone HAS to agree with the ('divine') laws of physics?
    When you come to a science forum to discuss science... well, if you're not talking about science, what are you talking about?

    The "laws of physics" are there for a reason. Your inability to understand and accept them won't make them go away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Presumably in your books GiantEvil it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of being a Troll if you don't agree with what they are saying.

    So much for the 'scientific method'.
    The scientific method is at work here.

    Hypothesis: galexander is a troll.

    Observation : He/she/it behaves as a troll in several threads. No counter-examples are found. Behavior as a troll continued.

    In earlier threads your posts may have been found disagreeable. But that has evolved, due to your personal efforts, and what is now disagreeable is your existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    It seems the best you can do in refuting my thread is to accuse me of being a Troll.

    I take this as a personal attack.

    Further you are setting a very bad example for other members of this forum.

    In some forums (I can't comment on this one) you can be banned for calling someone a Troll.

    Perhaps it is worth considering this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    It seems the best you can do in refuting my thread is to accuse me of being a Troll.

    I take this as a personal attack.

    Further you are setting a very bad example for other members of this forum.

    In some forums (I can't comment on this one) you can be banned for calling someone a Troll.

    Perhaps it is worth considering this.
    Maybe you ought to consider ceasing to act like a troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    It seems the best you can do in refuting my thread is to accuse me of being a Troll.

    I take this as a personal attack.

    Further you are setting a very bad example for other members of this forum.

    In some forums (I can't comment on this one) you can be banned for calling someone a Troll.

    Perhaps it is worth considering this.
    Maybe you ought to consider ceasing to act like a troll.
    You're a fine one to talk.

    Look at your picture ID and logo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    This is easily resolved. Accelerating an electron in a cathode ray tube involves a large enough number of photons that we should expect statistical equilibrium to occur.

    It's about the law of large numbers. Take a large enough number of die rolls and you will get an approximately equal number of 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's, and 6's. For every random photon that would skew the electron's path to the left, there will be another random photon that skews it to the right, and it doesn't have to be absolutely perfect to within a nanometer anyway, just close enough to hit the right pixel.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    galexander, what are you trying to achieve? You original post is wrong on some fundamental points, but when that was explained to you, instead of learning from the experience, you got defensive. Troll or not, this isn't a productive response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    This is easily resolved. Accelerating an electron in a cathode ray tube involves a large enough number of photons that we should expect statistical equilibrium to occur.

    It's about the law of large numbers. Take a large enough number of die rolls and you will get an approximately equal number of 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's, and 6's. For every random photon that would skew the electron's path to the left, there will be another random photon that skews it to the right, and it doesn't have to be absolutely perfect to within a nanometer anyway, just close enough to hit the right pixel.
    That may apply to direction but what about the magnitude of acceleration?

    Does the electron accelerate in a uniform manner or is its increase in velocity instantaneous when it absorbs a quanta?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    galexander, what are you trying to achieve? You original post is wrong on some fundamental points, but when that was explained to you, instead of learning from the experience, you got defensive. Troll or not, this isn't a productive response.
    For your information the points I raised in my original post have not as yet been addressed properly by any means of the imagination.

    Further what I was getting defensive about was the abusive language aimed in my direction.

    Being called a "Troll" is NOT constructive discussion.

    I also note that GiantEvil's offensive post has been removed in which he accused me of being "F**ktarded".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    I also note that GiantEvil's offensive post has been removed in which he accused me of being "F**ktarded".
    That's your other thread down in psuedo, it's still there.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I also note that GiantEvil's offensive post has been removed in which he accused me of being "F**ktarded".
    He was being restrained and tactful. You can't handle the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    galexander, what are you trying to achieve? You original post is wrong on some fundamental points, but when that was explained to you, instead of learning from the experience, you got defensive. Troll or not, this isn't a productive response.
    For your information the points I raised in my original post have not as yet been addressed properly by any means of the imagination.

    Further what I was getting defensive about was the abusive language aimed in my direction.

    Being called a "Troll" is NOT constructive discussion.

    I also note that GiantEvil's offensive post has been removed in which he accused me of being "F**ktarded".
    The first one and a half replies did directly address your points.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I also note that GiantEvil's offensive post has been removed in which he accused me of being "F**ktarded".
    He was being restrained and tactful. You can't handle the truth.
    It appears DrRocket that you can't make your mind up.

    I am both a "Troll" and (re)-tarded.

    I claim that neither is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I also note that GiantEvil's offensive post has been removed in which he accused me of being "F**ktarded".
    He was being restrained and tactful. You can't handle the truth.
    It appears DrRocket that you can't make your mind up.

    I am both a "Troll" and (re)-tarded.

    I claim that neither is true.
    Anyone can claim anything. The evidence does not support your claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Sorry for the week long silence but I just got back from a short holiday, so the discussion can resume.......

    ..............what little of it there was in the first place!!



    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Sorry for the week long silence but I just got back from a short holiday, so the discussion can resume.......

    ..............what little of it there was in the first place!!



    Don't apologize, we quite enjoyed it. I for one wish you many more long holidays.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    39
    @OP you seem to think linear acceleration means there are no "steps", that an electron would be at every possible velocity in between two velocities when accelerating from one to the other, but there are an infinite amount of velocities in between any two given velocities which can not happen in the universe because then there is no smallest possible change in velocity meaning a change in velocity can't occur. I'm in a hurry and i probably could have worded my response in a more legible way, but hopefully you understood it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    @OP you seem to think linear acceleration means there are no "steps", that an electron would be at every possible velocity in between two velocities when accelerating from one to the other, but there are an infinite amount of velocities in between any two given velocities which can not happen in the universe because then there is no smallest possible change in velocity meaning a change in velocity can't occur. I'm in a hurry and i probably could have worded my response in a more legible way, but hopefully you understood it.
    ridiculous
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    @OP you seem to think linear acceleration means there are no "steps", that an electron would be at every possible velocity in between two velocities when accelerating from one to the other, but there are an infinite amount of velocities in between any two given velocities which can not happen in the universe because then there is no smallest possible change in velocity meaning a change in velocity can't occur. I'm in a hurry and i probably could have worded my response in a more legible way, but hopefully you understood it.
    ridiculous
    Elaborate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    @OP you seem to think linear acceleration means there are no "steps", that an electron would be at every possible velocity in between two velocities when accelerating from one to the other, but there are an infinite amount of velocities in between any two given velocities which can not happen in the universe because then there is no smallest possible change in velocity meaning a change in velocity can't occur. I'm in a hurry and i probably could have worded my response in a more legible way, but hopefully you understood it.
    ridiculous
    Elaborate.
    no need

    If you think you can defend your ridiculous assertion, go right ahead and try.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    no need
    If you think you can defend your ridiculous assertion, go right ahead and try.
    So you believe something can move 1^-google of an inch or absorb/release that much energy in Joules, Watts, Calories, or w/e you please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    no need
    If you think you can defend your ridiculous assertion, go right ahead and try.
    So you believe something can move 1^-google of an inch or absorb/release that much energy in Joules, Watts, Calories, or w/e you please?
    The onus is on YOU to clearly state and defend your premise, not to question me. The question is about YOUR absurd statement.

    We are talking about physics, not beliefs. So make your case in terms of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The onus is on YOU to clearly state and defend your premise, not to question me. The question is about YOUR absurd statement.

    We are talking about physics, not beliefs. So make your case in terms of physics.

    My statement is pretty straight forward, i don't know what you could possibly not understand, which is why I asked you the question, i can't explain to you something if I don't know what it is I need to explain. So tell me, if anything in the universe can increase or decrease in a linear fashion as OP describes it, where would it start? +/- x^n represents this increase or decrease where n can be any real number, so if the length of something is reduced by 1^(-google^google) which is a smaller length than any "basic unit" which makes up the universe in the most prominent theories in physics such as open/closed strings in string theory and the many other "basic units" in other theories. How can you possibly decrease something by less than the smallest unit possible, how can the material that is decreased exist if it's smaller than the smallest unit? now you can speculate that there is no one building block of the universe and that you can keep on discovering smaller units for infinity, but the most prominent theories in physics say it's not so, so for the sake of civilized conversations it's better to base our ideas on these widely accepted theories rather than speculations with no support whatsoever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The onus is on YOU to clearly state and defend your premise, not to question me. The question is about YOUR absurd statement.

    We are talking about physics, not beliefs. So make your case in terms of physics.

    My statement is pretty straight forward, i don't know what you could possibly not understand, which is why I asked you the question, i can't explain to you something if I don't know what it is I need to explain. So tell me, if anything in the universe can increase or decrease in a linear fashion as OP describes it, where would it start? +/- x^n represents this increase or decrease where n can be any real number, so if the length of something is reduced by 1^(-google^google) which is a smaller length than any "basic unit" which makes up the universe in the most prominent theories in physics such as open/closed strings in string theory and the many other "basic units" in other theories. How can you possibly decrease something by less than the smallest unit possible, how can the material that is decreased exist if it's smaller than the smallest unit? now you can speculate that there is no one building block of the universe and that you can keep on discovering smaller units for infinity, but the most prominent theories in physics say it's not so, so for the sake of civilized conversations it's better to base our ideas on these widely accepted theories rather than speculations with no support whatsoever.
    There is no such thing as a "smallest unit" in string theory, no matter what you might have read in the popularizations. Space is not quantized in those theories. They treat spacetime as the usual spacetime crossed with a Calabi-Yau manifold of appropriate dimension to the theory in most cases -- and those are manifolds in the usual sense. Discrete models of spacetime have thus far been failures.

    In any case string theories are not accepted theories of natural phenomena --- yet. For theories that actually predict natural phenomena what you have are general relativity and quantum field theories, and of course the classical theories that serve as appropriate limits.

    In short, there is no basis whatever in either science or mathematics for your statements. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    There is no such thing as a "smallest unit" in string theory, no matter what you might have read in the popularizations. Space is not quantized in those theories. They treat spacetime as the usual spacetime crossed with a Calabi-Yau manifold of appropriate dimension to the theory in most cases -- and those are manifolds in the usual sense. Discrete models of spacetime have thus far been failures.

    In any case string theories are not accepted theories of natural phenomena --- yet. For theories that actually predict natural phenomena what you have are general relativity and quantum field theories, and of course the classical theories that serve as appropriate limits.

    In short, there is no basis whatever in either science or mathematics for your statements. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
    I have seen documentaries which talked about numerous popular theories which describe the basic units of the universe, i saw one documentary, I'll see if i can find it, which described many of the different prominent theories on what space, time and matter are composed of, but my statement does not rely on ideas as controversial as this. It is well known and accepted by almost all physicists that energy come in bundles called quanta, particles gain and lose energy in bundles of quanta, they can't gain 0.1 Quanta but they can gain 1 or 2, meaning the minimum energy they can gain is 1 Quanta.

    Just think about, between any 2 numbers there are an infinite amount of numbers, can you agree with me on that? and so if something were to go from 1 units to 2 units in a linear fashion as OP describes then what would be the first step? there is an infinite amount of possible first steps, it could be 1+1^-1 or 1+1^-google, etc. How would the universe determine where to start? Following OP's logic it would start at the lowest number, but there is no lowest number, it goes on for infinity, which is why it's much more logical that units are quantinized.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    There is no such thing as a "smallest unit" in string theory, no matter what you might have read in the popularizations. Space is not quantized in those theories. They treat spacetime as the usual spacetime crossed with a Calabi-Yau manifold of appropriate dimension to the theory in most cases -- and those are manifolds in the usual sense. Discrete models of spacetime have thus far been failures.

    In any case string theories are not accepted theories of natural phenomena --- yet. For theories that actually predict natural phenomena what you have are general relativity and quantum field theories, and of course the classical theories that serve as appropriate limits.

    In short, there is no basis whatever in either science or mathematics for your statements. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
    I have seen documentaries which talked about numerous popular theories which describe the basic units of the universe, i saw one documentary, I'll see if i can find it, which described many of the different prominent theories on what space, time and matter are composed of, but my statement does not rely on ideas as controversial as this. It is well known and accepted by almost all physicists that energy come in bundles called quanta, particles gain and lose energy in bundles of quanta, they can't gain 0.1 Quanta but they can gain 1 or 2, meaning the minimum energy they can gain is 1 Quanta.

    Just think about, between any 2 numbers there are an infinite amount of numbers, can you agree with me on that? and so if something were to go from 1 units to 2 units in a linear fashion as OP describes then what would be the first step? there is an infinite amount of possible first steps, it could be 1+1^-1 or 1+1^-google, etc. How would the universe determine where to start? Following OP's logic it would start at the lowest number, but there is no lowest number, it goes on for infinity, which is why it's much more logical that units are quantinized.
    Wrong.

    A quantum of light is associated with a given frequency, but the frequency can be any positive real number. A quanta of light is just a different name for a photon. That photon can have any energy.

    Further, the available energies, for say electrons, are discrete only for bound states. The spectrum for free states is continuous. In general the spectrum for an unbounded Hermitian operator (observable) will have both a continuopus and a discrete part.

    Not only are there an infinite number of possible elements in the continuous spectrum, there are an uncountable number.

    There is no evidencve for quantized space. There is no viable theory of quantized space either. There is just some extremely speculative research -- and I am not refering to string thheory.

    Don't bother to look up your documentary. I don't care what you saw in some distorted program aimed at laymen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    There is a constant which quantizes the electromagnetic spectrum, but not spacetime itself.
    Planck's Constant; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    There is a constant which quantizes the electromagnetic spectrum, but not spacetime itself.
    Planck's Constant; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
    Pnanck's constant does not quantize the electromagnetic spectrum.

    simply gives you the relationship between the energy of a photon and the frequency of the photon. That determines the minumum energy associated with a given frequency of light. But it does not quantize the spectrum because can be any positive real number.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    39
    Perhaps i shouldn't have used topics i haven't learned yet as my examples, your knowledge of physics may outweigh mine at this moment, but the fact is that for space not to be quantinized it would have to be infinite for which there are few logical theories (if any) let alone any proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Perhaps i shouldn't have used topics i haven't learned yet as my examples, your knowledge of physics may outweigh mine at this moment, but the fact is that for space not to be quantinized it would have to be infinite for which there are few logical theories (if any) let alone any proof.
    Space is modeled as a manifold in ALL accepted physical theories from Newton through Einstein and quantum field theories. Those theories are not only logical, but are supported by a mountain of experimental data.

    There are NO accepted physical theories that are otherwise.

    That could change in the future, but so far all attempts at discrete models of space have failed or are still in a state of very speculative research.

    Your statement that "the fact is that for space not to be quantinized it would have to be infinite for which there are few logical theories (if any) let alone any proof" is ludicrous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Space is modeled as a manifold in ALL accepted physical theories from Newton through Einstein and quantum field theories. Those theories are not only logical, but are supported by a mountain of experimental data.
    It may be a manifold but that doesn't mean it's infinite, many physicists believe that it is finite.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Your statement that "the fact is that for space not to be quantinized it would have to be infinite for which there are few logical theories (if any) let alone any proof" is ludicrous.
    Really? let's see, if space isn't quantinized then everything is made of something smaller and it goes like that for infinity meaning you can "zoom in" infinitely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Planck, from Wiki
    to interpret UN [the vibrational energy of N oscillators] not as a continuous, infinitely divisible quantity, but as a discrete quantity composed of an integral number of finite equal parts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Prior to Planck's work, it had been assumed that the energy of a body could take on any value whatsoever – that it was a continuous variable.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
    There's lot's more in the article to suggest quantization. I know Wiki's not always right, but I've also heard the same thing from other sources.

    Are you sure about this one Doc?
    I wouldn't try taking you in a science quiz, but QM's not your specialty.
    Do we have a QM pro on the board?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Space is modeled as a manifold in ALL accepted physical theories from Newton through Einstein and quantum field theories. Those theories are not only logical, but are supported by a mountain of experimental data.
    It may be a manifold but that doesn't mean it's infinite, many physicists believe that it is finite.
    A circle is continous but not infinite, so finite doesn't imply discrete.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Your statement that "the fact is that for space not to be quantinized it would have to be infinite for which there are few logical theories (if any) let alone any proof" is ludicrous.
    Really? let's see, if space isn't quantinized then everything is made of something smaller and it goes like that for infinity meaning you can "zoom in" infinitely.
    This doesn't really follow either, but even if it were true, so what? Why is that any worse than discretizing space (which, as DrRocket pointed out) has been tried numerous times and never works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Space is modeled as a manifold in ALL accepted physical theories from Newton through Einstein and quantum field theories. Those theories are not only logical, but are supported by a mountain of experimental data.
    It may be a manifold but that doesn't mean it's infinite, many physicists believe that it is finite.
    You are interpreting "finite" as compact, which is what cosmologists mean by finite.

    But the OP interpreted"infinite" in the set-theoretic sense. Any manifold of dimension greater than zero is uncountably infinite in that sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    ]
    Your statement that "the fact is that for space not to be quantinized it would have to be infinite for which there are few logical theories (if any) let alone any proof" is ludicrous.
    Really? let's see, if space isn't quantinized then everything is made of something smaller and it goes like that for infinity meaning you can "zoom in" infinitely.
    Yes, really.

    So far as is known, that is the case. That is most certainly true of all current physical models.

    However, there is no experimental evidence at extremely small scales, the Planck scale for instance, and theories could be revised in the future.

    Space is not "made" of anything in existing theories.

    Are you really this ignorant of physics ? This is getting silly. You have no idea what in the hell you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleverusername
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The onus is on YOU to clearly state and defend your premise, not to question me. The question is about YOUR absurd statement.

    We are talking about physics, not beliefs. So make your case in terms of physics.

    My statement is pretty straight forward, i don't know what you could possibly not understand, which is why I asked you the question, i can't explain to you something if I don't know what it is I need to explain. So tell me, if anything in the universe can increase or decrease in a linear fashion as OP describes it, where would it start? +/- x^n represents this increase or decrease where n can be any real number, so if the length of something is reduced by 1^(-google^google) which is a smaller length than any "basic unit" which makes up the universe in the most prominent theories in physics such as open/closed strings in string theory and the many other "basic units" in other theories. How can you possibly decrease something by less than the smallest unit possible, how can the material that is decreased exist if it's smaller than the smallest unit? now you can speculate that there is no one building block of the universe and that you can keep on discovering smaller units for infinity, but the most prominent theories in physics say it's not so, so for the sake of civilized conversations it's better to base our ideas on these widely accepted theories rather than speculations with no support whatsoever.
    I think you have missed the point entirely.

    I never claimed that linear acceleration was impossible per se.

    I was only suggesting that in the world of quantum physics it would seem to be theoretically impossible.

    But let me emphasize I AM a quantum physics sceptic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Besides the fact that you don't understand it, why should you be skeptical? If it makes accurate predictions, what else does a physical theory need? (Short answer: Nothing)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Besides the fact that you don't understand it, why should you be skeptical? If it makes accurate predictions, what else does a physical theory need? (Short answer: Nothing)
    Yes, I have heard this "accurate predictions" position but it failed to convince.

    To me it very much comes across as Quantum Physics propaganda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Besides the fact that you don't understand it, why should you be skeptical? If it makes accurate predictions, what else does a physical theory need? (Short answer: Nothing)
    Yes, I have heard this "accurate predictions" position but it failed to convince.

    To me it very much comes across as Quantum Physics propaganda.
    No one can convince a fool. But the truth does not change because of that.

    Being skeptical is wise. Ignoring facts is foolish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Besides the fact that you don't understand it, why should you be skeptical? If it makes accurate predictions, what else does a physical theory need? (Short answer: Nothing)
    Yes, I have heard this "accurate predictions" position but it failed to convince.

    To me it very much comes across as Quantum Physics propaganda.
    That's just being willfully ignorant. The only test of a physical theory, any physical theory, is whether they can accurately predict the outcomes of experiments. This isn't just Quantum Physics, but all of science. Putting the sun at the center of solar system instead of the Earth was accepted because it more accurately predicted the motion of the planets.

    When two particles collide in an accelerator, there is a lot of data collected. QED correctly predicts what that data will be to a very high degree. Much higher than any other theory we have. When electrons flow through nano-scale wires inside the circuits in your computer, QED gives us the tools to reduce interference further than before, letting us make those circuits smaller and more energy efficient.

    Seriously, if "accurate predictions" doesn't matter, what would you judge a theory on? How easy it is to understand? Why should the universe be required to make sense to one particular person?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    That's just being willfully ignorant.
    An excellent characterization of galexander. Beautifully succinct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Besides the fact that you don't understand it, why should you be skeptical? If it makes accurate predictions, what else does a physical theory need? (Short answer: Nothing)
    Yes, I have heard this "accurate predictions" position but it failed to convince.

    To me it very much comes across as Quantum Physics propaganda.
    That's just being willfully ignorant. The only test of a physical theory, any physical theory, is whether they can accurately predict the outcomes of experiments. This isn't just Quantum Physics, but all of science. Putting the sun at the center of solar system instead of the Earth was accepted because it more accurately predicted the motion of the planets.

    When two particles collide in an accelerator, there is a lot of data collected. QED correctly predicts what that data will be to a very high degree. Much higher than any other theory we have. When electrons flow through nano-scale wires inside the circuits in your computer, QED gives us the tools to reduce interference further than before, letting us make those circuits smaller and more energy efficient.

    Seriously, if "accurate predictions" doesn't matter, what would you judge a theory on? How easy it is to understand? Why should the universe be required to make sense to one particular person?
    And, I might add, you have to take the scientist's word for it when they state what they claim to have seen happening in a particle accelerator.

    And you of course are assuming complete honesty on the scientists' part.

    As for the nano-scale wiring, I'm sure the situation is probably open to some interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    And, I might add, you have to take the scientist's word for it when they state what they claim to have seen happening in a particle accelerator.
    Actually, you don't if you are capable of analyzing the data yourself. Even if not, the data is reviewed by scientists who are capable of the necessary analysis, so the pulished results are not merely the word of one person.

    That is why one puts credibility in articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    And you of course are assuming complete honesty on the scientists' part.
    There is no reason to question the honesty of reputable scientists. But even so, one is relying on the peer-review process more so than on any single scientist.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    As for the nano-scale wiring, I'm sure the situation is probably open to some interpretation.
    This makes no sense, about par for galexander.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Consider the case of cold fusion. Some people published some papers saying that they could cause fusion by this specific process. Others didn't "trust their word." They went out and tried it themselves, and guess what, it didn't work, so they published papers saying so.

    Between other academics who can get an easy paper out of debunking a fake and industrial people who would try to use the results for some practical purpose and would be pretty vocal if the results were invalid, there's no particular reason to think such a big, controversial theory (which means lots of people have tried to disprove it) is faked.

    As DrRocket said, peer review works. It's not perfect, but it works.

    And I have to agree that your comment on the wires makes no sense. Using the equations of QED, they make smaller wires in ways that QED predicts will use less energy, and guess what, it uses the amount predicted. What here is open to interpretation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    And, I might add, you have to take the scientist's word for it when they state what they claim to have seen happening in a particle accelerator.
    Actually, you don't if you are capable of analyzing the data yourself. Even if not, the data is reviewed by scientists who are capable of the necessary analysis, so the pulished results are not merely the word of one person.

    That is why one puts credibility in articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    And you of course are assuming complete honesty on the scientists' part.
    There is no reason to question the honesty of reputable scientists. But even so, one is relying on the peer-review process more so than on any single scientist.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    As for the nano-scale wiring, I'm sure the situation is probably open to some interpretation.
    This makes no sense, about par for galexander.
    No pun intended DrRocket but when it comes to peer reviewed journals there must still be a lot of peer pressure involved when it comes to the science that is already established.

    When any new science comes along it is important that it does not challenge the existing science.

    Any new science that does can expect to encounter stiff resistance...........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    For that, you simply need to look at the history of science. Yes, there's some resistance when new science comes along, but that doesn't stop people from publishing papers, or conducting experiments. When enough supporting data is collected (and no contradictions found), scientists will accept the new theory. Matching the data is all that's important. QED matches the data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    No pun intended DrRocket but when it comes to peer reviewed journals there must still be a lot of peer pressure involved when it comes to the science that is already established.

    When any new science comes along it is important that it does not challenge the existing science.

    Any new science that does can expect to encounter stiff resistance...........
    Spoken like a nut case with zero experience in real science.

    New science, by definition ALWAYS challenges existing science. But scientists have the good sense to recognize that accepted science is backed by a mountain of experimental evidence within its domain of validity and that new science must conform to that data base.

    Thus valid new science refines and extends existing science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    For that, you simply need to look at the history of science. Yes, there's some resistance when new science comes along, but that doesn't stop people from publishing papers, or conducting experiments. When enough supporting data is collected (and no contradictions found), scientists will accept the new theory. Matching the data is all that's important. QED matches the data.
    MagiMaster admits that there is SOME resistance to new theories which question the old.

    But how much?

    And he adds:

    When enough supporting data is collected (and no contradictions found), scientists will accept the new theory.
    But after how long a period of time...........in years?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    How long depends on how fast supporting evidence can be collected.

    As DrRocket points out, the correspondence principal says that it must also conform to existing observations/experiments, which quickly rules out most amateur theories (since they usually don't know about those observations to apply them themselves).

    This would be something these forums could help with, but it seems like most people who come here with new theories won't accept that they might be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    How long depends on how fast supporting evidence can be collected.

    As DrRocket points out, the correspondence principal says that it must also conform to existing observations/experiments, which quickly rules out most amateur theories (since they usually don't know about those observations to apply them themselves).

    This would be something these forums could help with, but it seems like most people who come here with new theories won't accept that they might be wrong.
    And it probably also depends on how many scientists are prepared to stick their necks out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Considering the rewards for discovering or verifying something new and correct, there will always be a few people willing to defend a new theory they feel has merit.

    The primary way to defend a theory is to devise a test that has the potential to disprove it, run the test and show that it didn't. That is, collect supporting evidence. Of course, if it does disprove it, that'll still get you some recognition, so people will still do the tests.

    Also, some people will do these tests because they think it will disprove a theory they don't like. If they fail to disprove it, it's more support for the theory.

    Sometimes all this takes a while, but all together this prevents two things:
    - No theory is accepted on purely subjective grounds (defended, maybe; but not generally accepted)
    - No theory is accepted if it doesn't match observational evidence

    QED does match observational evidence very well, so no matter how much some people don't like it, it works and is accepted by the scientific community.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Considering the rewards for discovering or verifying something new and correct, there will always be a few people willing to defend a new theory they feel has merit.

    The primary way to defend a theory is to devise a test that has the potential to disprove it, run the test and show that it didn't. That is, collect supporting evidence. Of course, if it does disprove it, that'll still get you some recognition, so people will still do the tests.

    Also, some people will do these tests because they think it will disprove a theory they don't like. If they fail to disprove it, it's more support for the theory.

    Sometimes all this takes a while, but all together this prevents two things:
    - No theory is accepted on purely subjective grounds (defended, maybe; but not generally accepted)
    - No theory is accepted if it doesn't match observational evidence

    QED does match observational evidence very well, so no matter how much some people don't like it, it works and is accepted by the scientific community.
    Although I don't have a physics laboratory at hand, what do you think I am doing on this forum?

    I am presenting a new scientific interpretation of the facts.

    And just look at all the abuse I get!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    No, you've presented new pseudo-scientific misinterpretations of some facts, ignoring others.

    It's very important in science to accept when you're wrong. If you present an idea, and some one says "experiment X, first preformed 50 years ago, shows that that won't work," the correct response is "back to the drawing board," not "I doubt that experiment is valid." 99% of people who post new theories on these boards go the second route, and lose any credibility they may have had. (At least, it feels like 99%.)

    Here's a partial list of things that will cause a reader to immediately dismiss a theory, and for good reason.
    - It contradicts an already made observation (It's simply wrong; something was misinterpreted or overlooked)
    - It can't be tested, even theoretically (It's not even wrong; this is pseudo-science, or at best, philosophy)

    Here's a list more specific to message boards and amateur theories. Even if the theory has merit, it's hard to take someone seriously when they start throwing up these kind of flags.
    - The poster demonstrates an aversion to math
    - The poster thinks "the scientific establishment" is closed or out to get him
    - The post is nearly unreadable
    - The poster seems ignorant of the basics of the field their theory falls under

    I'm not saying you hit all these points, but I'm putting there here for reference. Avoid these things is you want to be taken seriously. (Honestly, I'm not attacking you by saying this. I want you to take this seriously and avoid making these kind of mistakes that will get you ignored or ridiculed. Everyone would be happier.)

    Now, specific to your first few posts in this thread:
    - You were arguing that the acceleration of an electron in a magnetic field couldn't be linear
    - Several people pointed out that: In classic mechanics, it is, but if you're going to use QM, you have to use QM for everything, and then the details get very complicated and it would only be linear on average (QM being a probabilistic theory).
    - The specific problem with what you posted was in trying to mix the two views, which simply isn't valid.
    - From there, you started in on "the divine laws of science", which is where most people would stop listening.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    No, you've presented new pseudo-scientific misinterpretations of some facts, ignoring others.

    It's very important in science to accept when you're wrong. If you present an idea, and some one says "experiment X, first preformed 50 years ago, shows that that won't work," the correct response is "back to the drawing board," not "I doubt that experiment is valid." 99% of people who post new theories on these boards go the second route, and lose any credibility they may have had. (At least, it feels like 99%.)

    Here's a partial list of things that will cause a reader to immediately dismiss a theory, and for good reason.
    - It contradicts an already made observation (It's simply wrong; something was misinterpreted or overlooked)
    - It can't be tested, even theoretically (It's not even wrong; this is pseudo-science, or at best, philosophy)

    Here's a list more specific to message boards and amateur theories. Even if the theory has merit, it's hard to take someone seriously when they start throwing up these kind of flags.
    - The poster demonstrates an aversion to math
    - The poster thinks "the scientific establishment" is closed or out to get him
    - The post is nearly unreadable
    - The poster seems ignorant of the basics of the field their theory falls under

    I'm not saying you hit all these points, but I'm putting there here for reference. Avoid these things is you want to be taken seriously. (Honestly, I'm not attacking you by saying this. I want you to take this seriously and avoid making these kind of mistakes that will get you ignored or ridiculed. Everyone would be happier.)

    Now, specific to your first few posts in this thread:
    - You were arguing that the acceleration of an electron in a magnetic field couldn't be linear
    - Several people pointed out that: In classic mechanics, it is, but if you're going to use QM, you have to use QM for everything, and then the details get very complicated and it would only be linear on average (QM being a probabilistic theory).
    - The specific problem with what you posted was in trying to mix the two views, which simply isn't valid.
    - From there, you started in on "the divine laws of science", which is where most people would stop listening.
    Well what do you want me to do?

    Show you a quanta of energy actually interacting with an electron under a microscope?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    No. Reread that last paragraph. What you posted in the first post in this thread mixed a classical view of how particles move and a quantum view of the same thing. You can't mix things like that and any conclusions you draw will be invalid. What I want you to do is understand that, and then ask any further questions based on one specific view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    No. Reread that last paragraph. What you posted in the first post in this thread mixed a classical view of how particles move and a quantum view of the same thing. You can't mix things like that and any conclusions you draw will be invalid. What I want you to do is understand that, and then ask any further questions based on one specific view.
    Cough.............cough...............!!!

    Let me politely remind you. There is nothing wrong with classical physics........

    Well sometimes anyway...................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I didn't say there was. I said there was a problem mixing classical physics and QED. Pick one and stick with it.

    BTW, classical physics isn't wrong outside of its domain of validity. An accurate model of the motion of an electron through an electromagnetic field is outside of that domain; however, its well approximated by a linear acceleration in this case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    I didn't say there was. I said there was a problem mixing classical physics and QED. Pick one and stick with it.

    BTW, classical physics isn't wrong outside of its domain of validity. An accurate model of the motion of an electron through an electromagnetic field is outside of that domain; however, its well approximated by a linear acceleration in this case.
    You're using a circular argument though.

    By "sticking" to QED you are assuming that QED is therefore correct.

    Q.E.D. (or perhaps not)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You certainly can't prove it incorrect by applying a classical argument to a non-classical theory.

    And no, I'm not assuming QED is correct. What I'm saying is that you can't mix the two and expect to get a valid answer. Reread that a few times, since you seem to have some trouble understanding it.

    You still haven't answered a question I asked a while back. If we don't judge a theory based on the accuracy of its predictions, what should we judge it on?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You certainly can't prove it incorrect by applying a classical argument to a non-classical theory.

    And no, I'm not assuming QED is correct. What I'm saying is that you can't mix the two and expect to get a valid answer. Reread that a few times, since you seem to have some trouble understanding it.

    You still haven't answered a question I asked a while back. If we don't judge a theory based on the accuracy of its predictions, what should we judge it on?
    In actual fact I did answer that question. The "predictions" have been fixed as well.

    It seems QED is almost like a new religion, you're either a believer or you are not!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    That is not an answer to the question I asked. I'm not talking specifically about QED. I'm talking about all of physics, really all of science. What do you propose we judge a theory on but its ability to predict reality?

    And if you honestly think that every scientist out there is trying to pull one over on the world, you're beyond help. That's squarely into grand conspiracy territory. Ask yourself "Why?" What purpose could that possibly serve? How would nobody go out and simply disprove these things. Not just scientists, but engineers trying to make use of their results. Again, just look at what happened when someone did actually try something like this (cold fusion).

    Anyway, this has nothing to do with belief in QED. Either you believe in all of science, or you don't. QED is a product of the same scientific process that lead to Newtonian mechanics, the standard model, chemistry, special and general relativity, and everything else that I can't be bothered to list right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    That is not an answer to the question I asked. I'm not talking specifically about QED. I'm talking about all of physics, really all of science. What do you propose we judge a theory on but its ability to predict reality?

    And if you honestly think that every scientist out there is trying to pull one over on the world, you're beyond help. That's squarely into grand conspiracy territory. Ask yourself "Why?" What purpose could that possibly serve? How would nobody go out and simply disprove these things. Not just scientists, but engineers trying to make use of their results. Again, just look at what happened when someone did actually try something like this (cold fusion).

    Anyway, this has nothing to do with belief in QED. Either you believe in all of science, or you don't. QED is a product of the same scientific process that lead to Newtonian mechanics, the standard model, chemistry, special and general relativity, and everything else that I can't be bothered to list right now.
    The answer is simple.

    At one time people used to believe the Earth was flat.

    They also believed the Sun orbited the Earth.

    Old beliefs die hard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    This isn't an old belief, and those weren't the product of the scientific process. Newtonian mechanics was, and we still use it to this day, with the understanding that it's only valid at low energies, on macroscopic scales and at low to moderate levels of gravity.

    Also, you ignored another question, or at least provided another non-answer. How is it that you can believe every single scientist and every single engineer on earth that accepts QED does so either blindly or maliciously? If that were the case, someone would have already won a Nobel prize for rigorously pointing out the flaws.

    You're not a skeptic. You're a denialist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You're not a skeptic. You're a denialist.
    Neither; he is a troll, and likely an idiot to boot.

    He has a history of starting threads and misrepresenting fundamental well-proved science and the posts of others out of shear ignorance coupled with an inability to comprehend simple ideas and a desire to stir the pot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    His arguments in this thread suggest either denialist (if he actually believes what he says) or troll (if he doesn't), or both I guess, if he believes, but is posting mainly to stir up trouble.

    From what I can tell, it's actually pretty hard to maintain a facade of ignorance over a long period of time. All of the stories I've heard of people who've tried that say that they couldn't stand it for long and eventually had to tell someone. That means that people who do manage are usually actually ignorant.

    Besides, I think I'd rather deal with a troll than a denialist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Besides, I think I'd rather deal with a troll than a denialist.
    If a denialist is anything like a Lich then your looking at some dead party members.
    As long as you got something that does fire or acid damage then the troll can't regenerate.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    This isn't an old belief, and those weren't the product of the scientific process. Newtonian mechanics was, and we still use it to this day, with the understanding that it's only valid at low energies, on macroscopic scales and at low to moderate levels of gravity.

    Also, you ignored another question, or at least provided another non-answer. How is it that you can believe every single scientist and every single engineer on earth that accepts QED does so either blindly or maliciously? If that were the case, someone would have already won a Nobel prize for rigorously pointing out the flaws.

    You're not a skeptic. You're a denialist.
    But can't you accept the remotest possibility that in the very earliest of days the first scientists may have made some very fundamental errors.

    And that these errors went uncorrected for centuries.

    And then from here even more errors were bound to follow since all the physicists now current have been rigorously schooled in a flawed science.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Besides, I think I'd rather deal with a troll than a denialist.
    If a denialist is anything like a Lich then your looking at some dead party members.
    As long as you got something that does fire or acid damage then the troll can't regenerate.
    More like a demilich. They're immune to just about everything. Unfortunately, denialists aren't undead, so not even holy smite works very well. :wink:

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    This isn't an old belief, and those weren't the product of the scientific process. Newtonian mechanics was, and we still use it to this day, with the understanding that it's only valid at low energies, on macroscopic scales and at low to moderate levels of gravity.

    Also, you ignored another question, or at least provided another non-answer. How is it that you can believe every single scientist and every single engineer on earth that accepts QED does so either blindly or maliciously? If that were the case, someone would have already won a Nobel prize for rigorously pointing out the flaws.

    You're not a skeptic. You're a denialist.
    But can't you accept the remotest possibility that in the very earliest of days the first scientists may have made some very fundamental errors.

    And that these errors went uncorrected for centuries.

    And then from here even more errors were bound to follow since all the physicists now current have been rigorously schooled in a flawed science.

    No.

    No matter how much you want it to be true, there is no such thing as "the scientific establishment." Instead, there are individual scientists and engineers, each looking at things from their own perspectives. Any such fundamental errors would be ripe for study, papers, grants and even Nobel prizes. Moreover, engineers who use this stuff to make actual pieces of equipment would notice such errors very quickly.

    You seriously cannot do science based on bad assumptions. It will simply fail the first time you do an experiment. Some people fudge the data sometimes, but they get caught. To think that everyone (not just the scientists, but the engineers too) fudges the data all the time is beyond ridiculous.

    You need to accept that this is how and why science works and that QED is part of that process.

    BTW, we know QED isn't the whole story. Its domain of validity doesn't cover areas of high gravity for example. There is room for new theories, but those theories will have to make the same predictions as QED does within its own domain. This is called the correspondence principal, and is true of every scientific theory since the advent of the scientific method.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    But can't you accept the remotest possibility that in the very earliest of days the first scientists may have made some very fundamental errors.

    And that these errors went uncorrected for centuries.

    And then from here even more errors were bound to follow since all the physicists now current have been rigorously schooled in a flawed science.

    You have presented zero substantiation for this opinion.

    On the other hand there are mountains of data, based on reproducible and reproduced experiments, and many different theoretical treatments of the fundamental principles of physics -- reviews on top of critical reviews by very competent scientists..

    The latter trumps opinions based on ignorance and ineptitude..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Besides, I think I'd rather deal with a troll than a denialist.
    If a denialist is anything like a Lich then your looking at some dead party members.
    As long as you got something that does fire or acid damage then the troll can't regenerate.
    More like a demilich. They're immune to just about everything. Unfortunately, denialists aren't undead, so not even holy smite works very well. :wink:

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    This isn't an old belief, and those weren't the product of the scientific process. Newtonian mechanics was, and we still use it to this day, with the understanding that it's only valid at low energies, on macroscopic scales and at low to moderate levels of gravity.

    Also, you ignored another question, or at least provided another non-answer. How is it that you can believe every single scientist and every single engineer on earth that accepts QED does so either blindly or maliciously? If that were the case, someone would have already won a Nobel prize for rigorously pointing out the flaws.

    You're not a skeptic. You're a denialist.
    But can't you accept the remotest possibility that in the very earliest of days the first scientists may have made some very fundamental errors.

    And that these errors went uncorrected for centuries.

    And then from here even more errors were bound to follow since all the physicists now current have been rigorously schooled in a flawed science.

    No.

    No matter how much you want it to be true, there is no such thing as "the scientific establishment." Instead, there are individual scientists and engineers, each looking at things from their own perspectives. Any such fundamental errors would be ripe for study, papers, grants and even Nobel prizes. Moreover, engineers who use this stuff to make actual pieces of equipment would notice such errors very quickly.

    You seriously cannot do science based on bad assumptions. It will simply fail the first time you do an experiment. Some people fudge the data sometimes, but they get caught. To think that everyone (not just the scientists, but the engineers too) fudges the data all the time is beyond ridiculous.

    You need to accept that this is how and why science works and that QED is part of that process.

    BTW, we know QED isn't the whole story. Its domain of validity doesn't cover areas of high gravity for example. There is room for new theories, but those theories will have to make the same predictions as QED does within its own domain. This is called the correspondence principal, and is true of every scientific theory since the advent of the scientific method.
    Yes, and I'm sure there is something about how Nobel prizes are handed out as well................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You've clearly fallen into the denialist and/or grand conspiracy theory pit. Only you can pull yourself out. Good luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You've clearly fallen into the denialist and/or grand conspiracy theory pit. Only you can pull yourself out. Good luck.
    With all due respect MagiMaster, I believe that it is you who are the denialist.

    You just won't accept that your physics is flawed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    And you have provided not the least bit of evidence or proof that that is true...

    You just keep repeating that everyone is wrong, without even bothering to frame what you believe.

    To me, that's a troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You've clearly fallen into the denialist and/or grand conspiracy theory pit. Only you can pull yourself out. Good luck.
    With all due respect MagiMaster, I believe that it is you who are the denialist.

    You just won't accept that your physics is flawed.
    Provide me with some evidence and I'll reconsider my position. In the mean time, you need to think long and hard about the things I, and everyone else in this thread, have said. (You might also want to read up on denialism, physics and the scientific method, just for a start.)

    To put it more simply: No, I won't accept that "my" physics is flawed based solely on your dislike of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    And you have provided not the least bit of evidence or proof that that is true...

    You just keep repeating that everyone is wrong, without even bothering to frame what you believe.

    To me, that's a troll.
    I HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED MY EVIDENCE IN THE OPENING POST OF THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!

    PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!

    It is YOU who have not even bothered discussing the evidence I have presented but instead insist on verbally abusing me and in jabbering on about any petty complaints that happen to come to mind. :x
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    And you have provided not the least bit of evidence or proof that that is true...

    You just keep repeating that everyone is wrong, without even bothering to frame what you believe.

    To me, that's a troll.
    I HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED MY EVIDENCE IN THE OPENING POST OF THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!

    PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!

    It is YOU who have not even bothered discussing the evidence I have presented but instead insist on verbally abusing me and in jabbering on about any petty complaints that happen to come to mind. :x
    You have presented no evidence regarding matters scientific. The evidence points to the fact that you are most certainly a troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    From what I can tell, it's actually pretty hard to maintain a facade of ignorance over a long period of time. All of the stories I've heard of people who've tried that say that they couldn't stand it for long and eventually had to tell someone. That means that people who do manage are usually actually ignorant.
    I tried it once on another forum and imploded after about my third post. I just couldn't maintain a constructed belief in what I was arguing for. That is not to say it is not possible, but it would require a different, perhaps sociopathic, psychology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    From what I can tell, it's actually pretty hard to maintain a facade of ignorance over a long period of time. All of the stories I've heard of people who've tried that say that they couldn't stand it for long and eventually had to tell someone. That means that people who do manage are usually actually ignorant.
    I tried it once on another forum and imploded after about my third post. I just couldn't maintain a constructed belief in what I was arguing for. That is not to say it is not possible, but it would require a different, perhaps sociopathic, psychology.
    Again this is just denialism.

    And to this you have added what is clearly abusive language in implying that I am sociopathic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Ophiolite stated that in order to follow a particular behavior (long term trolling), he would need to be sociopathic. If the comment is intended to be a comment about you, he is implying that if you are a troll (which Ophiolite seems to think is not the case), you may be sociopathic. Ophiolite actually seems to think that you are simply ignorant, and thus is probably not implying that you are sociopathic. Assuming there's a genuine attempted insult here, which seems unlikely, this is a very mild, non-profane insult.

    I suggest you grow a thicker skin. If you would think yourself a scientist, let me assure you that what you've experienced does not begin to approach the trials of an actual life in research.

    All of the above aside, I'd like to request that you guys return to the topic at hand. If you feel the topic is exhausted or futile, please let it die. If we're just going to talk the motives and psychology of users, I'll lock the thread because that's not what this forum is about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Ophiolite stated that in order to follow a particular behavior (long term trolling), he would need to be sociopathic. If the comment is intended to be a comment about you, he is implying that if you are a troll (which Ophiolite seems to think is not the case), you may be sociopathic. Ophiolite actually seems to think that you are simply ignorant, and thus is probably not implying that you are sociopathic. Assuming there's a genuine attempted insult here, which seems unlikely, this is a very mild, non-profane insult.

    I suggest you grow a thicker skin. If you would think yourself a scientist, let me assure you that what you've experienced does not begin to approach the trials of an actual life in research.

    All of the above aside, I'd like to request that you guys return to the topic at hand. If you feel the topic is exhausted or futile, please let it die. If we're just going to talk the motives and psychology of users, I'll lock the thread because that's not what this forum is about.

    I very much agree with the last sentiment.

    Well said!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Ophiolite stated that in order to follow a particular behavior (long term trolling), he would need to be sociopathic. If the comment is intended to be a comment about you, he is implying that if you are a troll (which Ophiolite seems to think is not the case), you may be sociopathic. Ophiolite actually seems to think that you are simply ignorant, and thus is probably not implying that you are sociopathic. Assuming there's a genuine attempted insult here, which seems unlikely, this is a very mild, non-profane insult.

    I suggest you grow a thicker skin. If you would think yourself a scientist, let me assure you that what you've experienced does not begin to approach the trials of an actual life in research.

    All of the above aside, I'd like to request that you guys return to the topic at hand. If you feel the topic is exhausted or futile, please let it die. If we're just going to talk the motives and psychology of users, I'll lock the thread because that's not what this forum is about.
    However I'm not so sure about moving the thread to Pseudoscience.

    Quantum Physics is a bit pseudo itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •