The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general relativity
Ilja Schmelzer
Some quotes:
-----------------------------------
The idea of building analog models of, and possibly for, general
relativity is currently attracting considerable attention. []
Numerous rather different physical systems have now been seen to be
useful for developing analog models of general relativity:
1. Dielectric media ...
2. Acoustics in flowing fluids ...
....
12. Other condensed-matter approaches that don't quite fit ...
A literature search as of April 2001 finds well over a hundred
scientific articles devoted to one or another aspect of analog gravity
and effective metric techniques. [] The sheer number of different
physical situations lending themselves to an "effective metric"
description strongly suggests that there is something deep and
fundamental going on.
-----------------------------------
"Analog models for general relativity" means that some condensed
matter theory (the analog model) can be used to describe general
relativity. Thus, essentially, it is simply another name for ether
theory.
In this context, the article shows that ether theory is a quite modern
domain of research and part of the scientific mainstream.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Joe Fischer
:
: gr-qc/0104001
:
: Some quotes:
:
: -----------------------------------
: The idea of building analog models of, and possibly for, general
: relativity is currently attracting considerable attention. []
: Numerous rather different physical systems have now been seen to be
: useful for developing analog models of general relativity:
:
: 1. Dielectric media ...
: 2. Acoustics in flowing fluids ...
: ....
: 12. Other condensed-matter approaches that don't quite fit ...
And you really liked the content, huh? :-)
Note that this is exactly what I was complaining
about the other day, people who apparently know
nothing about General Relativity write papers
about things that can't possibly be involved.
Is that a preprint, or was somebody dumb
enough to print it?
: A literature search as of April 2001 finds well over a hundred
: scientific articles devoted to one or another aspect of analog gravity
: and effective metric techniques. [] The sheer number of different
: physical situations lending themselves to an "effective metric"
: description strongly suggests that there is something deep and
: fundamental going on.
: -----------------------------------
: "Analog models for general relativity" means that some condensed
: matter theory (the analog model) can be used to describe general
: relativity. Thus, essentially, it is simply another name for ether
: theory.
Where do the quotes begin and end? What is your
contribution to this confusion?
: In this context, the article shows that ether theory is a quite modern
: domain of research and part of the scientific mainstream.
: Ilja
Or that General Relativity is over the head
of the authors and if it was published, others as well.
If you can tell me how any of the above can
relate rationally to the Principle of Equivalence,
I will not call the whole idea "dumber than dumb".
And at the same time I apologize, I have been
trying to leave you alone, but when you hard sell the
unworkable tonic, in carnivals in the US it is called
"snake oil".
Joe Fischer
--
3
Stephen Speicher
> gr-qc/0104001
>
> Some quotes:
>
> -----------------------------------
> The idea of building analog models of, and possibly for, general
> relativity is currently attracting considerable attention. []
> Numerous rather different physical systems have now been seen to be
> useful for developing analog models of general relativity:
>
> 1. Dielectric media ...
> 2. Acoustics in flowing fluids ...
> ....
> 12. Other condensed-matter approaches that don't quite fit ...
>
> A literature search as of April 2001 finds well over a hundred
> scientific articles devoted to one or another aspect of analog gravity
> and effective metric techniques. [] The sheer number of different
> physical situations lending themselves to an "effective metric"
> description strongly suggests that there is something deep and
> fundamental going on.
> -----------------------------------
> "Analog models for general relativity" means that some condensed
> matter theory (the analog model) can be used to describe general
> relativity. Thus, essentially, it is simply another name for ether
> theory.
>
I do not think that continuum condensed matter physics can
reasonably be taken as being synonymous with "ether theory." Here
is a quote from the leadoff paper in the October 2000 _Analog
Models of General Relativity Workshop_, titled "Analog models for
General Relativity: Introduction and Survey," by Matt Visser.
"The common theme in all these analog models is the
presence of a second 'effective' Lorentzian metric that
governs the propagation of perturbative fluctuations
and/or quasi-particles. This effective metric forces
the fluctuations to exhibit many of the kinematic
features of general relativity, though dynamic features
[those specifically based on the Einstein-Hilbert
action] typically do not carry over. It seems
plausible that we might be able to construct analog
horizons in the laboratory in the not too distant
future. Such analog horizons are expected to exhibit
Hawking radiation, but possibly without any analog of
Bekenstein entropy. Analog models of general relativity
are useful probes of Hawking radiation: Because the
short-distance physics is explicitly known (atomic
physics), the cutoff is physically understood---this
helps clarify the role of trans-Planckian frequencies
in general relativity black holes, which in these
condensed-matter analogs are replaced by
'trans-Bohrian' physics."
> In this context, the article shows that ether theory is a quite
> modern domain of research and part of the scientific
> mainstream.
>
Not really. It shows that a small group of (mostly) condensed
matter physicists are interested in seeing if condensed matter
physics can "mimic aspects of general relativity," which is
stated as the "main issue" of the Workshop. Personally I find
this work to be very interesting, but it is a _major_ stretch to
liken this to "ether theory," at least in any form which the
ether has been known historically.
You can get a sense of the sort of papers being referenced at URL
http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/Analog/talks.html
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
shuba
[re: gr-qc/0104001]
> Note that this is exactly what I was complaining
> about the other day, people who apparently know
> nothing about General Relativity write papers
> about things that can't possibly be involved.
C'mon Joe, it is you who regularly provides inaccuracies and
misleading information about GR.
> Is that a preprint, or was somebody dumb
> enough to print it?
Keep digging, the redshift is nearly measureable.
[..]
> Or that General Relativity is over the head
> of the authors and if it was published, others as well.
>
> If you can tell me how any of the above can
> relate rationally to the Principle of Equivalence,
> I will not call the whole idea "dumber than dumb".
Okay, put the shovel down. For someone claiming to have a lifelong
interest in gravity, you seem thoughourly uninterested in much of
the subject. Whatever the shortcomings or merits of Ilja's ideas,
he does strive to present them within an acceptable framework of
mathematical modeling. Your attempts to promote divergent matter
don't come close. Statements like yours are just as knee-jerked
and just as hostile to the honest endeavor of physics as those
from the typical kook who posts non-science nonsense. To determine
who might be in way over his head, or equivalently, who might be
able to learn from whom, try taking a peek at the works of one of
the authors you have denigrated.
http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/publish.html
---Tim Shuba---
Joe Fischer
:
:
: [re: gr-qc/0104001]
:
:> Note that this is exactly what I was complaining
:> about the other day, people who apparently know
:> nothing about General Relativity write papers
:> about things that can't possibly be involved.
:
: C'mon Joe, it is you who regularly provides inaccuracies and
: misleading information about GR.
Would it be too much to ask you to be specific,
and address that misleading information when posted,
and not make generalized statements about individuals.
There are people who post here that can refute
things I say, I invite them to do so.
:> Is that a preprint, or was somebody dumb
:> enough to print it?
:
: Keep digging, the redshift is nearly measureable.
What redshift, the mainstream ether redshift?
It could very well be the dozen ethernuts that post
here are the only ones in the world, but I bet you
hope those that post here are not representative of
any others that may exist.
: [..]
:
:> Or that General Relativity is over the head
:> of the authors and if it was published, others as well.
:>
:> If you can tell me how any of the above can
:> relate rationally to the Principle of Equivalence,
:> I will not call the whole idea "dumber than dumb".
:
: Okay, put the shovel down. For someone claiming to have a lifelong
: interest in gravity, you seem thoughourly uninterested in much of
: the subject.
If you can tell me how any of the above can
relate rationally to the Principle of Equivalence,
I will not call the whole idea "dumber than dumb".
: Whatever the shortcomings or merits of Ilja's ideas,
: he does strive to present them within an acceptable
: framework of mathematical modeling.
I haven't criticized the modeling, just the
idea that any particle or medium _or_ field that
"exerts forces" might be workable.
I will ask you, like I ask the others,
do you know what inertial motion freefall is,
and can inertial motion require "forces exerted"?
: Your attempts to promote divergent matter
: don't come close.
No, and I don't even get an E for effort.
I put enough of Divergent Matter on paper in 1964
to give anyone interested an outline of the model,
and it is a model that builds itself, it doesn't
require "modeling", mathematical or otherwise,
it is a unique exercise in relativity physics,
requiring logical thought.
: Statements like yours are just as knee-jerked
: and just as hostile to the honest endeavor of
: physics as those from the typical kook who posts
: non-science nonsense.
And you are going to claim "ether is mainstream"?
: To determine who might be in way over his head,
: or equivalently, who might be able to learn from whom,
: try taking a peek at the works of one of
: the authors you have denigrated.
:
: http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/publish.html
: ---Tim Shuba---
No thanks. And I didn't "denigrate" anyone.
Frankly, I think there is a madness going around,
but I only base that on what I read posted here.
After Einstein bashing ether in dozens of
technical papers with solid arguments and math,
there are people who take the alleged translated
words of one lecture where he mentions ether and
GR in the same sentence and try to make money on
the concept.
I stated I would not say more if anyone
can describe how particles, a medium, or a field
exerting "forces" can relate to the Principle of
Equivalence.
And all of you do nothing but complain
that I "do a poor job of promoting Divergent
Matter".
I would like to revive the efforts of
the Gravity Research Foundation, but with this
type of response to a legitimate challenge of
a claim that "ether is mainstream GR", it doesn't
seem like a good idea.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Ilja Schmelzer
>> "Analog models for general relativity" means that some condensed
>> matter theory (the analog model) can be used to describe general
>> relativity. Thus, essentially, it is simply another name for ether
>> theory.
> I do not think that continuum condensed matter physics can
> reasonably be taken as being synonymous with "ether theory."
What else is "ether theory" if not using equations/models of usual
condensed matter theory to modelize gravity?
> "The common theme in all these analog models is the
> presence of a second 'effective' Lorentzian metric that
> governs the propagation of perturbative fluctuations
> and/or quasi-particles. This effective metric forces
> the fluctuations to exhibit many of the kinematic
> features of general relativity, though dynamic features
> [those specifically based on the Einstein-Hilbert
> action] typically do not carry over.
Yep. They have problems to reach their aim. But to be able to
modelize gravity using condensed matter is their aim.
>> In this context, the article shows that ether theory is a quite
>> modern domain of research and part of the scientific
>> mainstream.
> Not really. It shows that a small group of (mostly) condensed
> matter physicists are interested in seeing if condensed matter
> physics can "mimic aspects of general relativity," which is
> stated as the "main issue" of the Workshop.
Yep. What else is ether theory if not the idea that we can mimic
general relativity using condensed matter models?
> Personally I find
> this work to be very interesting, but it is a _major_ stretch to
> liken this to "ether theory," at least in any form which the
> ether has been known historically.
Please explain the differences. Of course, any modern ether theoretic
will use modern methods and not the methods used a century ago.
> You can get a sense of the sort of papers being referenced at URL
> http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/Analog/talks.html
I know.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> gr-qc/0104001
>> Some quotes:
>> -----------------------------------
>> The idea of building analog models of, and possibly for, general
>> relativity is currently attracting considerable attention. []
>> Numerous rather different physical systems have now been seen to be
>> useful for developing analog models of general relativity:
>>
>> 1. Dielectric media ...
>> 2. Acoustics in flowing fluids ...
>> ....
>> 12. Other condensed-matter approaches that don't quite fit ...
>
> And you really liked the content, huh? :-)
Yep.
> Note that this is exactly what I was complaining
> about the other day, people who apparently know
> nothing about General Relativity write papers
> about things that can't possibly be involved.
These guys know general relativity much better than you. One of the
guys who have initiated that business is Unruh (gr-qc/9409008) -
the guy mentioned in "Unruh radiation" and "Unruh vacuum".
> Is that a preprint, or was somebody dumb enough to print it?
Its mainstream work. If you try to publish an ether theory, you will
be forced by the referees to explain the differences, else your paper
will be rejected not because its false but because its nothing new.
To quote such a referee:
-------------------------------------
The authors should definitely address the relation between his
proposals and the main stream of works on acoustic geometries already
published. In particular the standard derivation of the acoustic
metric (the same one re-derived in this paper) is based on the study
of the propagation of perturbations of a given condensed matter system
on a given background (see e.g. the recent paper by Barcelo et al.
gr-qc/0104001).
-------------------------------------
> Where do the quotes begin and end?
There have been two horizontal lines in this posting, one for the
begin, the other for the end. I hope you can find out which is which.
> If you can tell me how any of the above can relate rationally to the
> Principle of Equivalence, I will not call the whole idea "dumber
> than dumb".
Read the paper.
Ilja Schmelzer
> I stated I would not say more if anyone
> can describe how particles, a medium, or a field
> exerting "forces" can relate to the Principle of
> Equivalence.
You are the first who has used "forces". I don't care about them,
the mainstream researchers I have quoted too.
If you want a derivation of the EEP starting from ether axioms, see
gr-qc/0104013
shuba
> : [re: gr-qc/0104001]
> :
> :> Note that this is exactly what I was complaining
> :> about the other day, people who apparently know
> :> nothing about General Relativity write papers
> :> about things that can't possibly be involved.
> :
> : C'mon Joe, it is you who regularly provides inaccuracies and
> : misleading information about GR.
>
> Would it be too much to ask you to be specific,
> and address that misleading information when posted,
> and not make generalized statements about individuals.
No need to look beyond this thread for specifics. You are claiming
here that a highly respected expert on gravitation knows nothing.
And you have the audacity to take me to task for "generalized
statements about individuals"? I have read enough of your posts
to conclude there is almost nothing of value for learning about
gravity or relativity, that's all. It's commonly said that those
who are unable to do physics problems really do not understand
the subject. Your willful avoidance of even attempting to follow
the logical flow of such problems leads to what I consider a very
bad and contradictory attitude toward GR. On the one hand, you
often will talk about how great GR is, on the other you fail to
give due credence to many of the ideas implicit in GR, e.g.
gravitational radiation or curvature singularities.
> I will ask you, like I ask the others,
> do you know what inertial motion freefall is,
> and can inertial motion require "forces exerted"?
Unlike you, I don't claim to be able to reduce physics to simple
sound bytes while ignoring the mathematics completely. Inertia
has been shown to be a subtle and model dependent idea, and no, I
don't have a particularly good understanding of the complexities
involved. Classical GR does not model gravity as a force, but GR
does not exist as an entity divorced from other models of the
natural world. Much theoretical work is being done, and it is
necessarily on a higher level of mathematics than translates to
sound byte answers, except at the level of potentially misleading
(though often extremely useful) approximations and analogies.
> And you are going to claim "ether is mainstream"?
Certainly not. But, as always, it depends upon the semantic
meanings given to 'ether' or 'mainstream'. An important defining
characteristic of a healthy physics environment is that alternate
formulations, unifications and even devil's advocate skepticism
all enter into strenthening what I would consider the mainstream
points of view.
> : try taking a peek at the works of one of
> : the authors you have denigrated.
> :
> : http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/publish.html
> No thanks.
The "candle in the dark" metaphor implies that the candle is lit.
[..]
> I would like to revive the efforts of
> the Gravity Research Foundation, [..]
Apparently without reading or knowing about one of the physicists
who has actively participated and collaborated in it. Sorry to be
so blunt, but I do find your approach to physics to be short-sighted,
provincial, and completely antithetical to the way I see science. It
is almost totally analogous to way I see the antirelativists; you
are boxed in by your own preconceptions and are unable to rise above
them and consider that the universe may be more subtle, amazing, and
intriguing than you have ever even tried to imagine.
---Tim Shuba---
Joe Fischer
:
: Joe Fischer wrote:
:> I stated I would not say more if anyone
:> can describe how particles, a medium, or a field
:> exerting "forces" can relate to the Principle of
:> Equivalence.
:
: You are the first who has used "forces". I don't care about them,
No, you can't get off that easy, just how does
your magical fog produce freefall "acceleration",
or coordinate displacement as a function of time?
Frankly, I was hoping you would proffer some
rational discussion about the Principle of Equivalence,
but as usual, etherist all have nothing to offer.
: the mainstream researchers I have quoted too.
I take it you mean (in English) the mainstream
researchers don't care about forces either.
As far as I know, the only possible basis
for considering anything as tenuous as an ether is
to provide "forces" to mimmick Newtonian gravitation.
: If you want a derivation of the EEP starting from ether axioms, see
: gr-qc/0104013
:
: Ilja
I prefer my version of the Principle of Equivalence,
and when you say EEP I am not sure but that you may mean
some other equivalence such as mass and energy, etc.
If you aren't willing to discuss the most basic
part of General Relativity, and that part which is most
used in designing modern experiments to test General
Relativity, then I withdraw and you win by default.
Everybody wants to talk at a level that supposedly
impresses the lurking reader, and for a change it would be
nice to just discuss gravity without the complex math, field
theory, Lorentz transforms, and other baggage that is not
needed to consider the basics.
It is like trying to speak French using only
the original Latin.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
>
> > I do not think that continuum condensed matter physics can
> > reasonably be taken as being synonymous with "ether theory."
>
> What else is "ether theory" if not using equations/models of
> usual condensed matter theory to modelize gravity?
> ...
> > Personally I find this work to be very interesting, but it is
> > a _major_ stretch to liken this to "ether theory," at least
> > in any form which the ether has been known historically.
>
> Please explain the differences. Of course, any modern ether
> theoretic will use modern methods and not the methods used a
> century ago.
>
The difference is that the theoretics in condensed matter physics
is based on real physical properties of real physical entities,
not the fantasy world of the ghost-like ether. When they
investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein condensates,
these are real behaviors which are experimentally reproduced in
the laboratory. The historical ether concept is naught but fluff,
and any attempt to liken the two is an attempt to mix science
with magic.
Joe Fischer
:> :Joe Fischer wrote:
:> :> Note that this is exactly what I was complaining
:> :> about the other day, people who apparently know
:> :> nothing about General Relativity write papers
:> :> about things that can't possibly be involved.
:> :
:> : C'mon Joe, it is you who regularly provides inaccuracies and
:> : misleading information about GR.
:>
:> Would it be too much to ask you to be specific,
:> and address that misleading information when posted,
:> and not make generalized statements about individuals.
:
: No need to look beyond this thread for specifics.
I have been posting on Usenet for 8 years and
on Fidonet and Rime for 6 or more years before that,
and you claim everything I said can be found in this
thread?
: You are claiming
: here that a highly respected expert on gravitation knows nothing.
I wasn't specific, and I said I was complaining
about "people who know nothing about General Relativity
writing books about General Relativity.
I have no idea who the expert is that you refer to.
: And you have the audacity to take me to task for "generalized
: statements about individuals"?
Yes, because I have been clear about how I feel
about ether, wormholes, and other hypothetical fantasies.
: I have read enough of your posts
: to conclude there is almost nothing of value for learning about
: gravity or relativity, that's all.
You are welcome to your opinion, and you can
continue to think Newtonian with ether confusion.
: It's commonly said that those
: who are unable to do physics problems really do not understand
: the subject.
What problem has been presented? What I see here,
is mostly a bunch of egotists trying to impress readers with
high school math.
The only reason you are able to attack my knowledge
is because I truthfully said I do not know GR math, but gee,
I read papers every day about General Relativity, and I have
many good textbooks that have GR math in them.
Now, if you don't want to discuss gravity or relativity
physics, please don't address any messages to me or quote me.
: Your willful avoidance of even attempting to follow
: the logical flow of such problems leads to what I consider a very
: bad and contradictory attitude toward GR.
What problems are those, invisible ether theory,
invisible black hole problems, invisible singularity problems,
invisible wormhole problems, FTL problems, SR is wrong problems,
antigravity problems?
If so, you are right, and if General Relativity
depended on any of this nonsense, it would not have the
track record it has in success in expermental results.
: On the one hand, you
: often will talk about how great GR is, on the other you fail to
: give due credence to many of the ideas implicit in GR, e.g.
: gravitational radiation or curvature singularities.
I do no give credence to hypotheticals, and
I don't know why you think good physicists do either.
:> I will ask you, like I ask the others,
:> do you know what inertial motion freefall is,
:> and can inertial motion require "forces exerted"?
:
: Unlike you, I don't claim to be able to reduce physics to simple
: sound bytes while ignoring the mathematics completely.
Well, if you could visualize kinematics and
dynamics in 4-D you might be able to.
I don't ignore the mathematics completely,
but I am not impressed by what those who post here
write. I appreciate not only the accuracy of
higher math, but also the capability to work problems
that cannot be worked any other way.
But frankly, my interest is in correctly
modeling how two bowling balls can appear to be
attracted toward each other without action at a distance.
: Inertia
: has been shown to be a subtle and model dependent idea, and no, I
: don't have a particularly good understanding of the complexities
: involved.
Well, at least you have that partly right.
: Classical GR does not model gravity as a force, but GR
: does not exist as an entity divorced from other models of the
: natural world.
Then it should be well defined as to what it is,
and what it is not. Haven't you read what the Ph.D's
here had to say about "forces" in General Relativity?
: Much theoretical work is being done, and it is
: necessarily on a higher level of mathematics than translates to
: sound byte answers, except at the level of potentially misleading
: (though often extremely useful) approximations and analogies.
All presentations should begin with either
a basic groundwork of definitions, premises and
terminology, and advanced work should mention
either prequisites or prior work.
If I chose to criticize or avoid certain
models, I will.
:> And you are going to claim "ether is mainstream"?
:
: Certainly not. But, as always, it depends upon the semantic
: meanings given to 'ether' or 'mainstream'. An important defining
: characteristic of a healthy physics environment is that alternate
: formulations, unifications and even devil's advocate skepticism
: all enter into strenthening what I would consider the mainstream
: points of view.
The mainstream of today may turn out to be
the backwater of tomorrow.
The part of General Relativity that I support
is the core, which is proven to the point that there
is confidence it will survive any test.
Now, in my case, the reason I support the core
built around the Principle of Equivalence, is that it
relates to a solid and non-contradictory presentation
of gravity and inertia.
Blackholes _depend_ on "attraction" as the
mode of operation of gravity, and ignore the fact
that inertia is intimately involved in gravitational
effects.
I am not sure that General Relativity has every
loose end tied up, but it is the only game with a usable
playing field.
I feel that gravitational radiation "effects" may
be measurable, but I do not think anything propagates.
Why would I accept anything hypothetical until
the apparatus built to detect it does detect it?
I think it would be boring if everything worked
as planned or envisioned. Nature is much stranger
than fiction, sometimes very unfortunately.
:> : try taking a peek at the works of one of
:> : the authors you have denigrated.
:> :
:> : http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/publish.html
:
:> No thanks.
:
: The "candle in the dark" metaphor implies that the candle is lit.
No, it is just that I get more papers than
I can read and respond to from all over the world,
and I don't care for another read that leaves me with
nothing tangible.
I got tired of superstrings many years ago,
have never like black holes, and have followed gravity
waves with interest, always being disappointed even
more than with cold fusion and magnetic contained fusion.
: [..]
:
:> I would like to revive the efforts of
:> the Gravity Research Foundation, [..]
:
: Apparently without reading or knowing about one of the physicists
: who has actively participated and collaborated in it.
Which one is that, I was in the process of
making all the prize winning papers available on my
homepage until a nut threw cold water on my personal
activities.
: Sorry to be
: so blunt, but I do find your approach to physics to be short-sighted,
: provincial, and completely antithetical to the way I see science. It
: is almost totally analogous to way I see the antirelativists; you
: are boxed in by your own preconceptions and are unable to rise above
: them and consider that the universe may be more subtle, amazing, and
: intriguing than you have ever even tried to imagine.
:
: ---Tim Shuba---
Be as blunt as you are wrong, I don't mind,
if you know anybody else who has the broad understanding
of physics and technology, it would be fun to have a
general knowledge contest.
I think I have a pretty good handle on how amazing
the universe can be, it would be difficult to use large
telescopes, visit Mt. Wilson and Palomar, and accumulate
a large personal library on astronomy, gravity and relativity,
and be as dull as you seem to think.
You confuse gullibility with capability.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101101...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On 18 Oct 2001, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>
> > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
> >
> > > I do not think that continuum condensed matter physics can
> > > reasonably be taken as being synonymous with "ether theory."
> >
> > What else is "ether theory" if not using equations/models of
> > usual condensed matter theory to modelize gravity?
> > ...
> > > Personally I find this work to be very interesting, but it is
> > > a _major_ stretch to liken this to "ether theory," at least
> > > in any form which the ether has been known historically.
> >
> > Please explain the differences. Of course, any modern ether
> > theoretic will use modern methods and not the methods used a
> > century ago.
> >
>
> The difference is that the theoretics in condensed matter physics
> is based on real physical properties of real physical entities,
> not the fantasy world of the ghost-like ether. When they
> investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein condensates,
> these are real behaviors which are experimentally reproduced in
> the laboratory. The historical ether concept is naught but fluff,
> and any attempt to liken the two is an attempt to mix science
> with magic.
i.e. with philosophy ;-)
Dirk Vdm
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On 18 Oct 2001, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>
>> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
>>
>> > I do not think that continuum condensed matter physics can
>> > reasonably be taken as being synonymous with "ether theory."
>>
>> What else is "ether theory" if not using equations/models of
>> usual condensed matter theory to modelize gravity?
>> ...
>> > Personally I find this work to be very interesting, but it is
>> > a _major_ stretch to liken this to "ether theory," at least
>> > in any form which the ether has been known historically.
>>
>> Please explain the differences. Of course, any modern ether
>> theoretic will use modern methods and not the methods used a
>> century ago.
>>
>
> The difference is that the theoretics in condensed matter physics
> is based on real physical properties of real physical entities,
> not the fantasy world of the ghost-like ether.
Do we see an irrational bias here? What physical properties has
been posited that an aether possess that have not been seen in
"real world". While you're at it, tell everyone the difference
between a virtual photon and the 'ghost-like ether'...
> When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
> condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
> reproduced in the laboratory.
Good, let's look at this first go look at page 198 Fig. a of
Simpson's "Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field..." (reproduced
from "On the Physical Lines of Force" from 1861) and then a
photograph of BEC at:
http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/
Somehow your objections ring very hollow indeed...
> The historical ether concept is naught but fluff, and any attempt
> to liken the two is an attempt to mix science with magic.
Spoken like a true religious fanatic...
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts
> What physical properties has
> been posited that an aether possess that have not been seen in
> "real world".
1. That the aether itself is unobservable.
That is, that it is impossible to determine the local rest frame
of the ether by experimental means. For _every_ other medium
which supports waves, it is dead easy to determine the rest frame
of the medium; not so for the aether. The aether is unobservable
(at least so far) in other ways: there are no measurements of its
mass density, viscosity, elasticity, chemical composition, etc.
2. That objects in motion wrt the aether are themselves affected by the
motion, in that they shrink in size and their temporal processes
slow down.
3. That objects in motion wrt the aether are themselves affected by the
motion, but the aether _itself_ is unaffected.
> While you're at it, tell everyone the difference
> between a virtual photon and the 'ghost-like ether'...
A virtual photon is a mathematical factor in an integral; the 'ghost-like
ether' is supposed to be a physical entity. The ether is supposed to
be a material medium for waves; a virtual photon _is_ a "wave" (in
a rather different sense).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.om
Stephen Speicher
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.101101...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Oct 2001, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> > I do not think that continuum condensed matter physics can
> >> > reasonably be taken as being synonymous with "ether theory."
> >>
> >> What else is "ether theory" if not using equations/models of
> >> usual condensed matter theory to modelize gravity?
> >> ...
> >> > Personally I find this work to be very interesting, but it is
> >> > a _major_ stretch to liken this to "ether theory," at least
> >> > in any form which the ether has been known historically.
> >>
> >> Please explain the differences. Of course, any modern ether
> >> theoretic will use modern methods and not the methods used a
> >> century ago.
> >>
> >
> > The difference is that the theoretics in condensed matter physics
> > is based on real physical properties of real physical entities,
> > not the fantasy world of the ghost-like ether.
>
> Do we see an irrational bias here?
No. Not at all. I have simply identified some facts which you
clearly dislike. However, your own adequately demonstrated
eagerness to embrace the bizarre wherever it is found, in lieu of
science, does indeed demonstrate "an irrational bias" on your
part.
> What physical properties has been posited that an aether
> possess that have not been seen in "real world".
When you learn what existence, observation and experiment means
in the context of actual science, then, and only then, will you
have no need to put "real world" in scare quotes, and then you
can finally stop believing in ghosts.
> While you're at it, tell everyone the difference between a
> virtual photon and the 'ghost-like ether'...
>
First, note that you are (intentionally) mixing categories -- a
virtual photon is not a part of the Einsteinian relativity of SR
and GR, whereas your promotion of the ether is your attempt to
make your own version of relativity work. However, anyway, in
the standard theory a virtual photon is posited as a mathematical
and pictorial abstraction invented in order to make Feynman
diagrams work. (Personally I believe Feynman diagrams exactly
capture the physics involved, but that requires another theory).
By contrast, the ether is meant to be taken as something real
which interacts with real rods and clocks. Only problem is, it is
unobservable.
> > When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
> > condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
> > reproduced in the laboratory.
>
> Good, let's look at this first go look at page 198 Fig. a of
> Simpson's "Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field..." (reproduced
> from "On the Physical Lines of Force" from 1861) and then a
> photograph of BEC at:
>
> http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/
>
> Somehow your objections ring very hollow indeed...
>
You know, Paul, if you give me your phone number I can try to
arrange an appearance for you on the Art Bell radio show. The
Area 51 crowd, and the bug-eyed alien grays believers will just
eat up your cartoon approach to physics. Think it over, Paul. It
could become an actual living for you.
> > The historical ether concept is naught but fluff, and any attempt
> > to liken the two is an attempt to mix science with magic.
>
> Spoken like a true religious fanatic...
>
Paul, you really need to get your own shtick and stop stealing mine.
Simon Clark
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
[snip]
> You know, Paul, if you give me your phone number I can try to
> arrange an appearance for you on the Art Bell radio show. The
> Area 51 crowd, and the bug-eyed alien grays believers will just
> eat up your cartoon approach to physics. Think it over, Paul. It
> could become an actual living for you.
Well, you walked right into -that- one!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*alien*+author:pstowe%40ix.netcom.com&hl=en&scoring=d
Now if you'll excuse me I have some tinfoil to fold...
--
Simon Clark
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > You know, Paul, if you give me your phone number I can try to
> > arrange an appearance for you on the Art Bell radio show. The
> > Area 51 crowd, and the bug-eyed alien grays believers will just
> > eat up your cartoon approach to physics. Think it over, Paul. It
> > could become an actual living for you.
>
> Well, you walked right into -that- one!
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*alien*+author:pstowe%40ix.netcom.com&hl=en&scoring=d
>
First Winn, and now Stowe. You are robbing me of all my heroes,
Simon.
Well, at least now I have an idea about what happened to Winn's
assistant, Milford. After being transferred because of the
scientist's conspiracy to stop Winn's relativistic experiments,
Milford clearly became a part of Paul's alien autopsy. But the
question is: Which part?
>
> Now if you'll excuse me I have some tinfoil to fold...
>
I hope you conform to the accepted standards. Have you seen the
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie web site?
shuba
> I wasn't specific, and I said I was complaining
> about "people who know nothing about General Relativity
> writing books about General Relativity.
> I have no idea who the expert is that you refer to.
Had you checked either the preprint or the link I keep giving
you would know whose ideas you keep calling "dumber than dumb".
http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/publish.html
Pretty fair output for someone intellectually inferior to Joe Fischer
in the area of GR, wouldn't you say?
> : It's commonly said that those
> : who are unable to do physics problems really do not understand
> : the subject.
>
> What problem has been presented? What I see here,
> is mostly a bunch of egotists trying to impress readers with
> high school math.
Textbooks contain various problems, i.e. exercises, you know those
funny little things with the horrible Greek, Latin, numeric and other
symbolic stuff that kooks say have nothing to do with physics. The
truth is that modern physics is necessarily mathematical, and most
of the math that gets posted here is meant to convey physical ideas
in the most precise manner. It's a shame how many people refuse to
consider the deep connections between math and physics, and end up
with bitter resentment and myopic worldviews.
> The only reason you are able to attack my knowledge
> is because I truthfully said I do not know GR math, but gee,
> I read papers every day about General Relativity, and I have
> many good textbooks that have GR math in them.
So I recommend you work through as many mathematical problems
as possible, or as I said before, at least try to follow the logical
flow. Your failure to do that is probably what leads to your making
many imprecise or inaccurate statements about GR, in my opinion.
Here is a concrete example. Had you taken the time to study exercise
L-13 from T & W Spacetime_Physics (pages 117-8 in the second
edition), you would not make the mistake of assuming that the
equivalence principle implies that changes in gravity are instantaneous
(from the thread "Speed of Gravity"). You are so hung up on the
equivalence principle that you refuse to consider what GR is really
about, and end up demeaning the people who do understand this highly
mathematical theory.
> But frankly, my interest is in correctly
> modeling how two bowling balls can appear to be
> attracted toward each other without action at a distance.
Then I'd recommend trying to learn about our best theories, and how
they might be modified or expanded in the future. This puts the onus
on you to learn some of the mathematics involved. And, assuming you
are also interested in the phenomena of gravity at the limits where
the balls are either extremely dense or made up of small numbers of
elementary particles, you might find that the question becomes so
complicated that a correct model requires the precision and power
of completely different or unexpected mathematical techniques.
> The part of General Relativity that I support
> is the core, which is proven to the point that there
> is confidence it will survive any test.
> Now, in my case, the reason I support the core
> built around the Principle of Equivalence, is that it
> relates to a solid and non-contradictory presentation
> of gravity and inertia.
As I said, you are so completely wrapped up in the PoE that you do
not realize that it is only the starting point of GR. The field
equations are the heart of GR. It took Einstein several years to
get from the PoE to the EFE, so it might make sense for you to
consider the central importance of the field equations. But I
suspect you'll continue to ignore the challenging parts and focus
on a limited set of immutable preconceptions.
> I feel that gravitational radiation "effects" may
> be measurable, but I do not think anything propagates.
How nice. You reject the conclusions of Einstein's theory of
gravitation because of feelings. That does give you sufficient
justification for not learning about local field theory, so I
guess it meets your goals. Very typical for this newsgroup.
> Why would I accept anything hypothetical until
> the apparatus built to detect it does detect it?
That's how science works, Joe. All theory begins with hypotheses,
also called postulates. Experiment and observation is the final
judge. This still leaves room for interpretational issues, though.
> I think I have a pretty good handle on how amazing
> the universe can be, it would be difficult to use large
> telescopes, visit Mt. Wilson and Palomar, and accumulate
> a large personal library on astronomy, gravity and relativity,
> and be as dull as you seem to think.
It's not dullness. I agree that you do have an interest in
gravity and other physical matters. I do think you have an
insufficient appreciation for the role of mathematics, a trait
you share with many antirelativity cranks. This leads to errors
in your presentation of GR concepts, as well as unfair attacks
on theories such as Ilja's, based not on the guts of the theory,
but rather on the interpretation given to the mathematics. There
is no valid excuse for attacking GET from a position of ignorance
of GR. I object strongly to you doing so. Well, maybe not all
that strongly, since pretense is a traditional usenet art.
---Tim Shuba---
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
:> I wasn't specific, and I said I was complaining
:> about "people who know nothing about General Relativity
:> writing books about General Relativity.
:> I have no idea who the expert is that you refer to.
:
: Had you checked either the preprint or the link I keep giving
: you would know whose ideas you keep calling "dumber than dumb".
:
: http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/publish.html
And you could type the author(s) name in less
characters. Frankly, I am not interested though.
: Pretty fair output for someone intellectually inferior to Joe Fischer
: in the area of GR, wouldn't you say?
Every author has written things I both agree and
disagree with, so it isn't a big deal.
:> : It's commonly said that those
:> : who are unable to do physics problems really do not understand
:> : the subject.
:>
:> What problem has been presented? What I see here,
:> is mostly a bunch of egotists trying to impress readers with
:> high school math.
:
: Textbooks contain various problems, i.e. exercises, you know those
: funny little things with the horrible Greek, Latin, numeric and other
: symbolic stuff that kooks say have nothing to do with physics.
And they all do not follow a standard, or at
least didn't all along.
: The
: truth is that modern physics is necessarily mathematical, and most
: of the math that gets posted here is meant to convey physical ideas
: in the most precise manner. It's a shame how many people refuse to
: consider the deep connections between math and physics, and end up
: with bitter resentment and myopic worldviews.
I have stated my respect for mathematics, so
you can move on.
:> The only reason you are able to attack my knowledge
:> is because I truthfully said I do not know GR math, but gee,
:> I read papers every day about General Relativity, and I have
:> many good textbooks that have GR math in them.
:
: So I recommend you work through as many mathematical problems
: as possible, or as I said before, at least try to follow the logical
: flow.
Perhaps I did 20 or 30 years before you were born,
and I have a _casual_ interest in "one model" of gravitation,
and only use General Relativity as a check on reality.
: Your failure to do that is probably what leads to your making
: many imprecise or inaccurate statements about GR, in my opinion.
You keep saying that, parrot, and have not offered
a specific case you are willing to argue.
: Here is a concrete example. Had you taken the time to study exercise
: L-13 from T & W Spacetime_Physics (pages 117-8 in the second
: edition), you would not make the mistake of assuming that the
: equivalence principle implies that changes in gravity are instantaneous
: (from the thread "Speed of Gravity"). You are so hung up on the
: equivalence principle that you refuse to consider what GR is really
: about, and end up demeaning the people who do understand this highly
: mathematical theory.
Sorry, i don't have the second edition, I have
had the first edition since the 1960's and fear seeing
blackholes if I buy the second.
:> But frankly, my interest is in correctly
:> modeling how two bowling balls can appear to be
:> attracted toward each other without action at a distance.
:
: Then I'd recommend trying to learn about our best theories, and how
: they might be modified or expanded in the future. This puts the onus
: on you to learn some of the mathematics involved.
Why don't you discuss it with Chris hillman
or somebody equally capable.
: And, assuming you
: are also interested in the phenomena of gravity at the limits where
: the balls are either extremely dense or made up of small numbers of
: elementary particles, you might find that the question becomes so
: complicated that a correct model requires the precision and power
: of completely different or unexpected mathematical techniques.
If it requires particles or a physical field
or a medium, I am not interested until and unless some
experiment supports that view.
:> The part of General Relativity that I support
:> is the core, which is proven to the point that there
:> is confidence it will survive any test.
:> Now, in my case, the reason I support the core
:> built around the Principle of Equivalence, is that it
:> relates to a solid and non-contradictory presentation
:> of gravity and inertia.
:
: As I said, you are so completely wrapped up in the PoE that you do
: not realize that it is only the starting point of GR.
And you are not J.L. Synge.
: The field equations are the heart of GR.
I have a paper by Einstein that says different.
: It took Einstein several years to
: get from the PoE to the EFE, so it might make sense for you to
: consider the central importance of the field equations.
There are probably 100,000 people who have
or are doing that, I will leave it to them.
: But I
: suspect you'll continue to ignore the challenging parts and focus
: on a limited set of immutable preconceptions.
Time will tell, maybe sooner than you think,
I was hoping for detection of gravitational radiation
in 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and now
I just wait for the next disappointment.
:> I feel that gravitational radiation "effects" may
:> be measurable, but I do not think anything propagates.
:
: How nice. You reject the conclusions of Einstein's theory of
: gravitation because of feelings.
I can quote Einstein saying something about
those who do not reject propagation of a field will
accept the equations.
: That does give you sufficient
: justification for not learning about local field theory, so I
: guess it meets your goals. Very typical for this newsgroup.
There are plenty of people here who are proficient
at different levels with the equations, one more won't matter.
:> Why would I accept anything hypothetical until
:> the apparatus built to detect it does detect it?
:
: That's how science works, Joe. All theory begins with hypotheses,
: also called postulates. Experiment and observation is the final
: judge. This still leaves room for interpretational issues, though.
Like I said, 1965, 1970, ...............
:> I think I have a pretty good handle on how amazing
:> the universe can be, it would be difficult to use large
:> telescopes, visit Mt. Wilson and Palomar, and accumulate
:> a large personal library on astronomy, gravity and relativity,
:> and be as dull as you seem to think.
:
: It's not dullness. I agree that you do have an interest in
: gravity and other physical matters. I do think you have an
: insufficient appreciation for the role of mathematics, a trait
: you share with many antirelativity cranks. This leads to errors
: in your presentation of GR concepts, as well as unfair attacks
: on theories such as Ilja's, based not on the guts of the theory,
: but rather on the interpretation given to the mathematics. There
: is no valid excuse for attacking GET from a position of ignorance
: of GR. I object strongly to you doing so. Well, maybe not all
: that strongly, since pretense is a traditional usenet art.
: ---Tim Shuba---
I agree, but I wasn't aware I "attacked GET",
I don't know GET, I never claimed to know GET, most
readers here probably don't know GET, and I am not
sure you know GET.
I did object to calling "ether theory"
mainstream physics.
I would hope ether theory will fade away just
as it did 80 or 90 years ago.
Joe Fischer
--
3
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.101101...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
>> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On 18 Oct 2001, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > I do not think that continuum condensed matter physics can
>> >> > reasonably be taken as being synonymous with "ether theory."
>> >>
>> >> What else is "ether theory" if not using equations/models of
>> >> usual condensed matter theory to modelize gravity?
>> >> ...
>> >> > Personally I find this work to be very interesting, but it is
>> >> > a _major_ stretch to liken this to "ether theory," at least
>> >> > in any form which the ether has been known historically.
>> >>
>> >> Please explain the differences. Of course, any modern ether
>> >> theoretic will use modern methods and not the methods used a
>> >> century ago.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The difference is that the theoretics in condensed matter physics
>> > is based on real physical properties of real physical entities,
>> > not the fantasy world of the ghost-like ether.
>>
>> Do we see an irrational bias here?
>
> No. Not at all. I have simply identified some facts which you
> clearly dislike.
ROTFLMAO...
> However, your own adequately demonstrated eagerness to embrace the
> bizarre wherever it is found, in lieu of science, does indeed
> demonstrate "an irrational bias" on your part.
Do you mean the aether hypothesis??? This is what I'm talking about
here.
>> What physical properties has been posited that an aether
>> possess that have not been seen in "real world".
>
> When you learn what existence, observation and experiment means
> in the context of actual science, then, and only then, will you
> have no need to put "real world" in scare quotes, and then you
> can finally stop believing in ghosts.
Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition, unobservable.
They are posited specifically to do the job earlier ascribed to the
aether. Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
Oh I'm sure you'll not want to take my word for this so how about:
http://physics.about.com/library/dict/bldefvirtualparticle.htm
So when you can tell me that the virtual particles are 'observable'
you just might have achived the 'high ground', otherwise you'll
just being a sanctimonious hypocritical blow-hard.
>> While you're at it, tell everyone the difference between a
>> virtual photon and the 'ghost-like ether'...
>>
>
> First, note that you are (intentionally) mixing categories -- a
> virtual photon is not a part of the Einsteinian relativity of SR
> and GR, whereas your promotion of the ether is your attempt to
> make your own version of relativity work.
Huh?
1. I thought Ilja was talking about condensed matter modeling
gravity.
2. Aether theory does not impose artificial boundaries IT IS
all prevasive and thus encompasses all physical processes.
> However, anyway, in the standard theory a virtual photon is posited
> as a mathematical and pictorial abstraction invented in order to
> make Feynman diagrams work. (Personally I believe Feynman diagrams
> exactly capture the physics involved, but that requires another
> theory). By contrast, the ether is meant to be taken as something
> real which interacts with real rods and clocks. Only problem is, it
> is unobservable.
If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they are superflous
and not required. If they ARE required, then they do have physical
attributes necessary 'to make' the theory work, and are added 'ad hoc' in
a vain attempt to circumvent saying that that ghostly ether medium is
required. They perform the very same function.
>> > When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
>> > condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
>> > reproduced in the laboratory.
>>
>> Good, let's look at this first go look at page 198 Fig. a of
>> Simpson's "Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field..." (reproduced
>> from "On the Physical Lines of Force" from 1861) and then a
>> photograph of BEC at:
>>
>> http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/
>>
>> Somehow your objections ring very hollow indeed...
>>
> You know, Paul, if you give me your phone number I can try to
> arrange an appearance for you on the Art Bell radio show. The
> Area 51 crowd, and the bug-eyed alien grays believers will just
> eat up your cartoon approach to physics. Think it over, Paul. It
> could become an actual living for you.
Now here is a relevant response to the topic under discussion. Are
you a politician? You know what they say, if the facts are on your
side argues the facts, if law is on your side argue the law, if
neither is in your favor distract them by pounding the table and
loudly attack the person character. What I believe is irrelevant,
one need only look for themselves which, BTW,is all I said to do.
>> > The historical ether concept is naught but fluff, and any attempt
>> > to liken the two is an attempt to mix science with magic.
>>
>> Spoken like a true religious fanatic...
>>
> Paul, you really need to get your own shtick and stop stealing mine.
I's hard to steal that which you do not have.
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > You know, Paul, if you give me your phone number I can try to
> > arrange an appearance for you on the Art Bell radio show. The
> > Area 51 crowd, and the bug-eyed alien grays believers will
> > just eat up your cartoon approach to physics. Think it over,
> > Paul. It could become an actual living for you.
>
> Now here is a relevant response to the topic under discussion.
>
What I wrote was a humorous projection of my growing sense that,
for you, science is just another way to express your own
subjectivity, your own disdain for real achievement, and for you
to indulge in the irrational and bizarre. I had no idea just how
relevant it was when I originally wrote it.
Thanks to Simon Clark, I learned that my Art Bell type projection
of you was right on the money, including alien autopsies,
Roswell, and alien UFOs. Your pretense of rational concern for
science has been duly noted, and my sense of you as a bizarre
loony has been justified. Welcome to the
Androcles-Winn-eleaticus-etc. class. You will be treated
accordingly -- ignored or ridiculed.
Matthew Nobes
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
[snip]
> >> What physical properties has been posited that an aether
> >> possess that have not been seen in "real world".
> >
> > When you learn what existence, observation and experiment means
> > in the context of actual science, then, and only then, will you
> > have no need to put "real world" in scare quotes, and then you
> > can finally stop believing in ghosts.
>
> Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition,
> unobservable. They are posited specifically to do the job
> earlier ascribed to the aether.
Paul, why do you want to strut your ignorance of quantum field
theory? You don't ``posit'' virtual particles in QFT, the notion
of a virtual particle appears naturally when you try to do a
perturbative approximation in QFT. There's a *BIG* difference
there.
> Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
??? Call them whatever you want, they're just terms in a
perturbation series. If you understood QFT you'd have already
known that.
> Oh I'm sure you'll not want to take my word for this so how about:
>
> http://physics.about.com/library/dict/bldefvirtualparticle.htm
That's a miserable, watered down, account. Try reading a quantum
field theory textbook.
> So when you can tell me that the virtual particles are
> 'observable' you just might have achived the 'high ground',
> otherwise you'll just being a sanctimonious hypocritical
> blow-hard.
No he's not. I suspect he understands QFT far better then you
do, and understands that virtual particles are mathematical
artifacts of a certain method of approximation. For example in
my field we use a different method of approximation, and virtual
particles never appear.
[snip]
> > However, anyway, in the standard theory a virtual photon is posited
> > as a mathematical and pictorial abstraction invented in order to
> > make Feynman diagrams work.
Look Paul, this is correct.
> > (Personally I believe Feynman diagrams
> > exactly capture the physics involved, but that requires another
> > theory).
Umm, question to Stephen, how would you capture non-perturbative
effects (say quark confinement?)
> > By contrast, the ether is meant to be taken as something
> > real which interacts with real rods and clocks. Only problem is, it
> > is unobservable.
>
> If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they
> are superflous and not required.
They aren't. Schwinger formulated QED in a way which avoided all
of this stuff.
> If they ARE required, then they do have physical attributes
> necessary 'to make' the theory work, and are added 'ad hoc'
> in a vain attempt to circumvent saying that that ghostly
> ether medium is required.
Paul, seriously read what you are saying. Then ask yourself how
much quantum field theory you've studied. Virtual particles are
not added ``ad hoc''. They arise from a particular way of
ordering a perturbation theory.
One could say that the whole apparatus of Feynamn diagrams is
required to make perturbation theory *PRACTICAL*, but it isn't
nescessary in principle (again see Schwinger's work).
> They perform the very same function.
You need to do some learning before you make statements like
that.
> >> > When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
> >> > condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
> >> > reproduced in the laboratory.
> >>
> >> Good, let's look at this first go look at page 198 Fig. a of
> >> Simpson's "Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field..." (reproduced
> >> from "On the Physical Lines of Force" from 1861) and then a
> >> photograph of BEC at:
> >>
> >> http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/
> >>
> >> Somehow your objections ring very hollow indeed...
> >>
> > You know, Paul, if you give me your phone number I can try to
> > arrange an appearance for you on the Art Bell radio show. The
> > Area 51 crowd, and the bug-eyed alien grays believers will just
> > eat up your cartoon approach to physics. Think it over, Paul. It
> > could become an actual living for you.
>
> Now here is a relevant response to the topic under discussion.
I gather that he's mocking you. Youre arguement appears to be
``look at the pictures''. That doesn't cut it in physics.
[snip]
--
``We may feel that at last, unlike all previous generations, we
have found certitude. They thought so too'' -Robert Conquest
Matthew Nobes, c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada, http://www.sfu.ca/~manobes
Stephen Speicher
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
> > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > (Personally I believe Feynman diagrams
> > > exactly capture the physics involved, but that requires another
> > > theory).
>
> Umm, question to Stephen, how would you capture non-perturbative
> effects (say quark confinement?)
>
Sure, I was speaking most generally. Non-perturbative QCD is a
tough problem, though I understand some to believe that color
confinement is susceptible to the gauge theory on a lattice, with
expansions minus perturbation theory. Is this your field,
Matthew? Do you work on long-range properties of QCD? This is
much more difficult than the short-distance regime, where
perturbative methods mostly work for QCD. I really need to learn
more about lattice QCD.
> > > You know, Paul, if you give me your phone number I can try to
> > > arrange an appearance for you on the Art Bell radio show. The
> > > Area 51 crowd, and the bug-eyed alien grays believers will just
> > > eat up your cartoon approach to physics. Think it over, Paul. It
> > > could become an actual living for you.
> >
> > Now here is a relevant response to the topic under discussion.
>
> I gather that he's mocking you. Youre arguement appears to be
> ``look at the pictures''. That doesn't cut it in physics.
>
Yes, Paul seems to have a cartoon approach to physics, one which
extends even beyond the realm of pictures, which is all he
appealed to right here. I'm afraid he has demonstrated that he
sees whatever he wants both in pictures and theory, which
approach should not be confused with science.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> You are the first who has used "forces". I don't care about them,
> No, you can't get off that easy, just how does your magical fog
> produce freefall "acceleration", or coordinate displacement as a
> function of time?
You have the equations of the theory - compute it, it follows.
> Frankly, I was hoping you would proffer some rational discussion
> about the Principle of Equivalence, but as usual, etherist all have
> nothing to offer.
The modern version about this principle is rather simple: if you have
a metric theory of gravity with Lagrangian
L = L_gravity(g_mn) + L_matter(g_mn,matter fields)
so that the matter Lagrangian is covariant, then the EEP is
fulfilled. The gravity Lagrangian may depend on some background.
>> the mainstream researchers I have quoted too.
> I take it you mean (in English) the mainstream
> researchers don't care about forces either.
> As far as I know, the only possible basis
> for considering anything as tenuous as an ether is
> to provide "forces" to mimmick Newtonian gravitation.
That you are not up to date about ether theory and unwilling to learn
we already know.
>> If you want a derivation of the EEP starting from ether axioms, see
>> gr-qc/0104013
> I prefer my version of the Principle of Equivalence, and when you
> say EEP I am not sure but that you may mean some other equivalence
> such as mass and energy, etc.
ROTFL.
> If you aren't willing to discuss the most basic
> part of General Relativity, and that part which is most
> used in designing modern experiments to test General
> Relativity, then I withdraw and you win by default.
Do you have any problem with my claim about metric theories of
gravity?
> Everybody wants to talk at a level that supposedly impresses the
> lurking reader, and for a change it would be nice to just discuss
> gravity without the complex math, field theory, Lorentz transforms,
> and other baggage that is not needed to consider the basics.
Does it mean you don't understand modern GR language? No problem,
aks if you don't understand something.
> It is like trying to speak French using only the original Latin.
Ilja
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> I do not think that continuum condensed matter physics can
>>> reasonably be taken as being synonymous with "ether theory."
>> What else is "ether theory" if not using equations/models of usual
>> condensed matter theory to modelize gravity?
>>> Personally I find this work to be very interesting, but it is a
>>> _major_ stretch to liken this to "ether theory," at least in any
>>> form which the ether has been known historically.
>> Please explain the differences. Of course, any modern ether
>> theoretic will use modern methods and not the methods used a
>> century ago.
> The difference is that the theoretics in condensed matter physics
> is based on real physical properties of real physical entities,
> not the fantasy world of the ghost-like ether.
Of course there are a lot of cranks with fantasy worlds who don't
understand relativity and post ether nonsense. But that's not the
fault of the good old Lorentz ether concept.
> When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
> condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
> reproduced in the laboratory. The historical ether concept is naught
> but fluff, and any attempt to liken the two is an attempt to mix
> science with magic.
Name-calling, not argumentation.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> What physical properties has
>> been posited that an aether possess that have not been seen in
>> "real world".
> 1. That the aether itself is unobservable.
> That is, that it is impossible to determine the local rest frame
> of the ether by experimental means.
That's the typical feature for observations restricted to the field
excitations considered in analog gravity.
> For _every_ other medium
> which supports waves, it is dead easy to determine the rest frame
> of the medium;
With external means.
> 2. That objects in motion wrt the aether are themselves affected by the
> motion, in that they shrink in size and their temporal processes
> slow down.
That's typical for these excitations.
> 3. That objects in motion wrt the aether are themselves affected by the
> motion, but the aether _itself_ is unaffected.
That's the typical approximation used in these considerations.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
>> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>>> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >>> Personally I find this work to be very interesting, but it is a
> >>> _major_ stretch to liken this to "ether theory," at least in any
> >>> form which the ether has been known historically.
>
> >> Please explain the differences. Of course, any modern ether
> >> theoretic will use modern methods and not the methods used a
> >> century ago.
>
> > The difference is that the theoretics in condensed matter physics
> > is based on real physical properties of real physical entities,
> > not the fantasy world of the ghost-like ether.
>
> Of course there are a lot of cranks with fantasy worlds who don't
> understand relativity and post ether nonsense. But that's not the
> fault of the good old Lorentz ether concept.
>
> > When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
> > condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
> > reproduced in the laboratory. The historical ether concept is naught
> > but fluff, and any attempt to liken the two is an attempt to mix
> > science with magic.
>
> Name-calling, not argumentation.
>
Well then, let me put it in the form of a question to you. Can
you provide for your ether what is provided for condensed matter
physics? Can you experimentally reproduce in the laboratory real
behaviors based on real physical properties of a real physical
ether? Can you take your metric off of the paper and bring it
into a laboratory and manipulate the properties of waves
traveling through your ether, as is done, for instance , for a
Bose-Einstein condensate?
Matthew Nobes
followups there...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Stephen Speicher wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Matthew Nobes wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
> > > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (Personally I believe Feynman diagrams
> > > > exactly capture the physics involved, but that requires another
> > > > theory).
> >
> > Umm, question to Stephen, how would you capture non-perturbative
> > effects (say quark confinement?)
> >
>
> Sure, I was speaking most generally. Non-perturbative QCD is
> a tough problem, though I understand some to believe that
> color confinement is susceptible to the gauge theory on a
> lattice, with expansions minus perturbation theory.
Umm that's not how I'd put it. Typically a lattice simulation
generates an approximation to the exact solution of the problem,
perturbative and non-perturbative parts are not separated.
In fact one of the things my supervisor works on is trying to
use monte carlo simulations to generate just the perturbative
part. The idea is that you run your simulation at an extremely
small coupling constant, and the results you get should agree
with analytic perturbation theory.
On another not, confinement is indeed seen in numerical
simulations, this was one of the early triumphs of the lattice
method.
> Is this your field, Matthew?
Sort of. Actually I do analytic perturbation theory (i.e.
writing down Feyman diagrams and evaluating them), using a
lattice cutoff.
Why? Well since you asked...
A central problem in lattice field theory simulations is reducing
errors due to the finite lattice spacing. The ``standard''
action that is (was) used in monte--carlo simulations (the Wilson
action) is only accurate to second order in the lattice spacing.
At ``typical'' spacings that people run at this produces ~10%
errors.
Now in order to reduce the errors you can do one of two things:
1) you can run at a smaller lattice spacing. The problem with
this is that computer time scales like:
-6
a
where a is the spacing. So even a small reduction in the spacing
costs a lot of computer time.
2) you can use a better action, one with smaller errors.
We are working on practical ways to implement method (2). The
thing is the actions needed to apply option (2) have been known
for ~20 years, but there was always a serious problem with using
them. The problem is that they have to be ``matched'' to
continuum QCD at high energy. This requires the use of
perturbation theory.
However, perturbtation theory on the lattice is, naively,
extremely poorly convergent. This basically means that these
improved actions aren't very good, because you'd need to go to a
very high order of perturbation theory in order to use them.
However in a revolutionary paper from 1992 (hep-lat/9209022)
Lepage and Mackenzie showed how to ``correct'' lattice
perturbation theory. This has breathed new life into the field.
However... lattice perturbation theory is still extremely
difficult to do, from a practical standpoint. So dispite the
fact that it has been known how to implement these new actions
for ~10 years, there is still a lot to be done. What we are
doing is trying to create a suite of tools that makes
lattice perturbation theory as automatic as possible. I cannot
resist pitching our contribution to the latest lattice
conference, which you can read at hep-lat/0110051 (also see
hep-lat/0110147).
> Do you work on long-range properties of QCD?
Well, the issue for me is actually the short range behaviour.
This is where we can fix the coefficents in these improved
actions. Once that's done to some specific accuracy the
simulaton people can use them.
> This is much more difficult than the short-distance regime,
> where perturbative methods mostly work for QCD. I really need
> to learn more about lattice QCD.
Well, for a short (but dated) introduction try,
Micheal Creutz, *Quarks, Gluons and Lattices*
Then to get this more ``modern'' perspective Peter Lepage's
lecture notes (hep-lat/9807076) are very good. Actually if you
know quantum field theory already you could probably just read
those, and follow the references from there.
If you want to switch fields and do research in lattice QCD you
must read
Montvay and Munster, *Quantum Fields on a Lattice*
Which is the most complete textbook treatment.
shuba
> : http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/publish.html
>
> And you could type the author(s) name in less
> characters. Frankly, I am not interested though.
Obviously.
> I have stated my respect for mathematics, so
> you can move on.
Your actions indicate otherwise, and I for one have no respect
for your shallow approach to physics.
---Tim Shuba---
Joe Fischer
:Joe Fischer wrote:
:
:> : http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/publish.html
:>
:> And you could type the author(s) name in less
:> characters. Frankly, I am not interested though.
:
: Obviously.
You seem disturbed by my refusal to follow
your link, but sorry, I would have to run windoze.
:> I have stated my respect for mathematics, so
:> you can move on.
:
: Your actions indicate otherwise, and I for one have no respect
: for your shallow approach to physics.
: ---Tim Shuba---
Can you say "gravity"? General Relativity
does treat gravity problems, but General Relativity
is not gravity.
I suppose you are awed by the Ph.Ds arguing
the "Speed of Gravity" thread, please, join them
and leave me to my thoughts of gravity.
But if you are interested, I will try to
type in a quote by Einstein about the EFE.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Joe Fischer
: for your shallow approach to physics.
Document 22, Volume 6, The Collected Papers of
"On the General Theory of Relativity (Addendum)" by Albert Einstein
11 November, 1915
Page 109, lines 1, 2, 3.
"Whoever does not categorically reject the possibility
that gravitational fields could constitute an _essential_
part of matter will find powerful support for this conception
in the following."
Unquote!
This is followed by the section
"Derivation of the Field Equations".
--
3
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
>>> condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
>>> reproduced in the laboratory. The historical ether concept is naught
>>> but fluff, and any attempt to liken the two is an attempt to mix
>>> science with magic.
>> Name-calling, not argumentation.
> Well then, let me put it in the form of a question to you. Can you
> provide for your ether what is provided for condensed matter
> physics? Can you experimentally reproduce in the laboratory real
> behaviors based on real physical properties of a real physical
> ether? Can you take your metric off of the paper and bring it into a
> laboratory and manipulate the properties of waves traveling through
> your ether, as is done, for instance , for a Bose-Einstein
> condensate?
Let's see. I provide for the ether a general Lagrangian. This
Lagrangian fixes the theory of gravity, and can be tested. Especially
I predict the EEP (as a real property of the real physical ether),
which can be tested in the laboratory. Moreover I predict all the
general-relativistic effects, which can be observed. Moreover I
predict a flat universe and some dark matter terms.
A difference to condensed matter theory is that experiments are not
yet able to observe atomic effects. Thus, similar to the situation
before the success of atomic theory. Do you want to argue that before
this time condensed matter theory has not been science?
BTW, I don't understand how your question is related to your
name-calling against the historical ether concept. Based on this
historical ether concept essentially all formulas of special
relativity have been developed. How it is related to magic I don't
understand.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
> >>> When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
> >>> condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
> >>> reproduced in the laboratory. The historical ether concept is naught
> >>> but fluff, and any attempt to liken the two is an attempt to mix
> >>> science with magic.
>
> >> Name-calling, not argumentation.
>
> > Well then, let me put it in the form of a question to you. Can you
> > provide for your ether what is provided for condensed matter
> > physics? Can you experimentally reproduce in the laboratory real
> > behaviors based on real physical properties of a real physical
> > ether? Can you take your metric off of the paper and bring it into a
> > laboratory and manipulate the properties of waves traveling through
> > your ether, as is done, for instance , for a Bose-Einstein
> > condensate?
>
> Let's see. I provide for the ether a general Lagrangian. This
> Lagrangian fixes the theory of gravity, and can be tested. Especially
> I predict the EEP (as a real property of the real physical ether),
> which can be tested in the laboratory. Moreover I predict all the
> general-relativistic effects, which can be observed. Moreover I
> predict a flat universe and some dark matter terms.
>
Get back to me when you bring your ether into the laboratory and
demonstrate experimentally a predicition you make different from
general relativity. Or, in the meantime, you will have my ear if
your ether explains the world in a better manner than I grasp it
today. In lieu of either of these, your ether remains as it
always has been; unobservable, and therefore indistinguishable
from magic.
>
> BTW, I don't understand how your question is related to your
> name-calling against the historical ether concept. Based on this
> historical ether concept essentially all formulas of special
> relativity have been developed. How it is related to magic I don't
> understand.
>
This subject has been beaten to death on this newsgroup before
and I am reluctant to spend more time on it now. Suffice it to
say that Einstein opened his 1905 paper with an explicit
rejection of the ether.
"The introduction of a 'light ether' will prove superfluous..."
Tom Roberts has repeatedly demonstrated here the equivalence
class of ether theories for which the ether is unobservable. I
note you have argued this point with him before, and I do not
care to re-argue it again. To me, that which by its nature is
unobservable is indistinguishable from magic. Formally it may be
a viable theory, but practically it is magic.
Robert Karl Stonjek
laboratory and demonstrate experimentally a predication you make different
from general relativity. Or, in the meantime, you will have my ear if your
ether explains the world in a better manner than I grasp it today. In lieu
of either of these, your ether remains as it always has been; unobservable,
and therefore indistinguishable from magic."
RKS: Who says physics can't be entertaining? Sometimes, we get ring side
seats to watch Paul Lutus come out with his 'hay makers', Daryl McCullough's
persistent efforts to outlast the kooks, or Stephen Speicher's carefully
placed jabs.
I want to know if they intend to preserve your ear in a jar of ether?
I must say, I don't have anything against magic - but in the physics lab?
Keep the rabbits in the hat until the stage performance when, right out of
the 'ether' - Rabbits!!! (we all applaud and then make our way back to the
lab).
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.
Paul Stowe
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
>> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> >
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> What physical properties has been posited that an aether
>> >> possess that have not been seen in "real world".
>> >
>> > When you learn what existence, observation and experiment means
>> > in the context of actual science, then, and only then, will you
>> > have no need to put "real world" in scare quotes, and then you
>> > can finally stop believing in ghosts.
>>
>> Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition,
>> unobservable. They are posited specifically to do the job
>> earlier ascribed to the aether.
>
> Paul, why do you want to strut your ignorance of quantum field
> theory? You don't ``posit'' virtual particles in QFT, the notion
> of a virtual particle appears naturally when you try to do a
> perturbative approximation in QFT. There's a *BIG* difference
> there.
Of course there is a 'force carrier' but one must then 'interpret'
this as something... Per page 78 of "QED and the Men Who Made It..."
we see:
"1. The description of the interaction between charged
particles as mediated by the exchange of photons (Bethe
and Fermi 1932) Quantum field theory gave rise to a new
view of how forces are generated between particles. It
led to a conceptualization of the interaction between
two particles as arising not from the creation of
(continuous) electromagnetic fields that act on one
another as in the classical description, but from the
exchange of photons, which continually are "passed"
from one another. In absorbing or emitting a photon,
the momentum of a charged particle is altered; it is
precisely this change per unit time of the momentum of
the charged particle that is called a force. Similarly,
other kinds of forces can be produced by exchanging
other kinds of "virtual" particles; thus the exchange
of gravitons (spin 2, mass 0 quanta) account for the
gravitational interaction."
But then we have from Davies's "The New Physics" the definition:
"Virtual Particle - A quantum particle that exists
only temporarily, for example while being exchanged
between other particles. Because of Heisenberg's
uncertainty relation a virtual particle need not
satisfy the usual relationship between energy,
momentum, and mass.
Then of course Asimov says,
“...The particle, which is emitted and re-absorbed
too quickly 'to be detected', is a virtual
particle. Reasoning shows it can exist but no
system of measurement can detect it.”
Pg 244, Vol III of “Understanding Physics”
Well, what is the big difference? You need a force carrier, be it a
ghostly aether, virtual particles, Little Blue Fairies, Green Turtles
or something else, all of which, by the definition of so-called
science, no system of measurement can detect...
It's self centered sanctimonious arrogance that anyone would climb up
on a soapbox and claim that the concept of aether is fallacious because
no system of measurement can detect it yet accept and try to defend
the virtue of, and claim superiority in, the idea of virtual particles.
These both are requirements of their perspective theoretical concepts
and both are equally unobservable.
>> Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Fairies...
>
>??? Call them whatever you want, they're just terms in a
> perturbation series. If you understood QFT you'd have already
> known that.
Again if these terms have no physical consequences they're superfluous,
but we both know that they must have physical consequence, and it's the
question as to 'why' these terms must be, and what they must physically
represent that goes to the core issue. That one chooses to say these
terms represent virtual particles verses the aethereal medium is simply
calling the rose by another name, just to avoid acknowledging the rose
was there all along. Edmund Whittaker speaks to this also:
"A word might be said about the title Aether and Electricity.
As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the
physics of the nineteenth century; but in the first decade
of the twentieth, chiefly as a result of the failure of
attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to the
aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such
attempts must always fail, the word "aether" fell out of
favour, and it became customary to refer to the
interplanetary spaces as "vacuous"; the vacuum being
conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except
that of propagating electromagnetic waves. But with the
development of quantum electrodynamics, the vacuum has come
to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point" oscillations
of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point"
fluctuations of electric charge and current, and of a
"polarisation" corresponding to a dielectric constant
different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name
"vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and
the historical word "aether" may fitly be retained..."
-- Preface to "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" --
>> Oh I'm sure you'll not want to take my word for this so how about:
>>
>> http://physics.about.com/library/dict/bldefvirtualparticle.htm
>
> That's a miserable, watered down, account. Try reading a quantum
> field theory textbook.
Yes, stripped down to the bare essence of concept virtual particles as
generally presented are a rather cartoonish concept, aren't they? They
even have to be kind of clairvoyant, don't they?
>> So when you can tell me that the virtual particles are
>> 'observable' you just might have achieved the 'high ground',
>> otherwise you'll just being a sanctimonious hypocritical
>> blow-hard.
>
> No he's not. I suspect he understands QFT far better then you
> do, and understands that virtual particles are mathematical
> artifacts of a certain method of approximation. For example in
> my field we use a different method of approximation, and virtual
> particles never appear.
I have to ask, what are the force carriers then?
>[snip]
>> > However, anyway, in the standard theory a virtual photon is
>> > posited as a mathematical and pictorial abstraction invented
>> > in order to make Feynman diagrams work.
>
> Look Paul, this is correct.
So?
>> > (Personally I believe Feynman diagrams
>> > exactly capture the physics involved, but that requires another
>> > theory).
>
> Umm, question to Stephen, how would you capture non-perturbative
> effects (say quark confinement?)
>
>> > By contrast, the ether is meant to be taken as something
>> > real which interacts with real rods and clocks. Only problem
>> > is, it is unobservable.
For the aether envisioned by Maxwell, the so-called rest frame issue
was never even a consideration. The entire foundation was Faraday's
lines of force (which in subsequent fluid dynamics is termed
streamlines) and their behavior and characteristics which Maxwell
set out to mathematically describe. It is only in the narrow
view of myopic close-minded individuals that the only property
an aether possesses is a somehow physically uniqueness in a rest
frame. Clearly Maxwell had no such conception.
>> If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they
>> are superflous and not required.
>
>They aren't. Schwinger formulated QED in a way which avoided all
>of this stuff.
>
>> If they ARE required, then they do have physical attributes
>> necessary 'to make' the theory work, and are added 'ad hoc'
>> in a vain attempt to circumvent saying that that ghostly
>> ether medium is required.
>
> Paul, seriously read what you are saying. Then ask yourself how
> much quantum field theory you've studied. Virtual particles are
> not added ``ad hoc''. They arise from a particular way of
> ordering a perturbation theory.
As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory. Is the point driven home yet?
> One could say that the whole apparatus of Feynamn diagrams is
> required to make perturbation theory *PRACTICAL*, but it isn't
> nescessary in principle (again see Schwinger's work).
>
>> They perform the very same function.
>
> You need to do some learning before you make statements like
> that.
>
>> >> > When they investigate Lorentzian geometries from Bose-Einstein
>> >> > condensates, these are real behaviors which are experimentally
>> >> > reproduced in the laboratory.
>> >>
>> >> Good, let's look at this first go look at page 198 Fig. a of
>> >> Simpson's "Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field..." (reproduced
>> >> from "On the Physical Lines of Force" from 1861) and then a
>> >> photograph of BEC at:
>> >>
>> >> http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/
>> >>
>> >> Somehow your objections ring very hollow indeed...
>> >>
>> > You know, Paul, if you give me your phone number I can try to
>> > arrange an appearance for you on the Art Bell radio show. The
>> > Area 51 crowd, and the bug-eyed alien grays believers will just
>> > eat up your cartoon approach to physics. Think it over, Paul. It
>> > could become an actual living for you.
>>
>> Now here is a relevant response to the topic under discussion.
>
> I gather that he's mocking you. Youre argument appears to be
> ``look at the pictures''. That doesn't cut it in physics.
The point was, look at what Maxwell predicted and envisioned the atomic
vortex field lattice should look like in 1861 (when, you must admit,
there was absolutely no way to even conceive of attempting to image it)
and how a very recent image of an actual super-fluid vortex lattice.
The readers can see for themselves whether Maxwell 'got it right' or
not. In Maxwell's time there was not even a glimmer of the concept of
a 'phonon' and it analogy to the behavior and characteristics of the
photon.
Are you going to say that this formation is not a prediction of Maxwell?
My point is, and has always been, the aether is there and quite
observable. That one deliberately chooses a half dozen different terms
to try to obscure this by call it virtual particles, ZPE, Higg's field,
Electric Field, Magnetic Field, ... etc. does not in any way change this
underlying basic fact.
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher: "Get back to me when you bring your ether
> into the laboratory and demonstrate experimentally a
> predication you make different from general relativity. Or, in
> the meantime, you will have my ear if your ether explains the
> world in a better manner than I grasp it today. In lieu of
> either of these, your ether remains as it always has been;
> unobservable, and therefore indistinguishable from magic."
>
> RKS: Who says physics can't be entertaining? Sometimes, we get
> ring side seats to watch Paul Lutus come out with his 'hay
> makers', Daryl McCullough's persistent efforts to outlast the
> kooks, or Stephen Speicher's carefully placed jabs.
>
Just to be clear regarding any "jabs" towards Ilja: Nothing ever
said to him is meant in the same vein as what is said to the
kooks on this group. I believe Ilja to be mistaken
philosophically, but he certainly knows how to add 2 + 2, unlike
our resident kooks.
> I want to know if they intend to preserve your ear in a jar of
> ether?
>
What? What did you say? I can't ear you. <groan>
Ilja Schmelzer
>>>>> ... these are real behaviors which are experimentally
>>>>> reproduced in the laboratory. The historical ether concept is naught
>>>>> but fluff, and any attempt to liken the two is an attempt to mix
>>>>> science with magic.
> Get back to me when you bring your ether into the laboratory and
> demonstrate experimentally a predicition you make different from
> general relativity.
There exists a non-ether theory which makes the same prediction as
ether theory named "general relativity"? Fine.
How is this related to the claim that ether theory is magic, does
nothing which can be tested in a laboratory? I would conclude, once
we cannot distinguish ether theory and GR in the laboratory today,
that general relativity is is naught but fluff (whatever this means,
my dictionary does not translate them) and magic.
You do not agree? Get back to me when you bring your general
relativity into the laboratory and demonstrate experimentally a
predicition you make different from ether theory. Something like
causal loops, wormholes or similar magic.
> Or, in the meantime, you will have my ear if your ether explains the
> world in a better manner than I grasp it today.
No problem, see the derivation of the EEP.
The axioms are rather simple: Lagrangian, continuity and Euler
equation, their relation via Noethers theorem.
>> How it is related to magic I don't understand.
> This subject has been beaten to death on this newsgroup before
> and I am reluctant to spend more time on it now. Suffice it to
> say that Einstein opened his 1905 paper with an explicit
> rejection of the ether.
>
> "The introduction of a 'light ether' will prove superfluous..."
So what? If we introduce Einstein's axioms, a 'light ether' will be
superfluous. If we introduce an ether, Einstein's axioms will prove
superfluous.
> Tom Roberts has repeatedly demonstrated here the equivalence class
> of ether theories for which the ether is unobservable.
> I note you have argued this point with him before, and I do not care
> to re-argue it again. To me, that which by its nature is
> unobservable is indistinguishable from magic. Formally it may be a
> viable theory, but practically it is magic.
You have not understood the difference between "different states of
the ether are indistinguishable in this approximation" and "the ether
is unobservable".
Matthew Nobes
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.30.011021...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
> >> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >> What physical properties has been posited that an aether
> >> >> possess that have not been seen in "real world".
> >> >
> >> > When you learn what existence, observation and experiment means
> >> > in the context of actual science, then, and only then, will you
> >> > have no need to put "real world" in scare quotes, and then you
> >> > can finally stop believing in ghosts.
> >>
> >> Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition,
> >> unobservable. They are posited specifically to do the job
> >> earlier ascribed to the aether.
> >
> > Paul, why do you want to strut your ignorance of quantum field
> > theory? You don't ``posit'' virtual particles in QFT, the notion
> > of a virtual particle appears naturally when you try to do a
> > perturbative approximation in QFT. There's a *BIG* difference
> > there.
>
> Of course there is a 'force carrier' but one must then
> 'interpret' this as something...
No. You don't have to ``interpret'' it as anything. There is a
field, period.
> Per page 78 of "QED and the Men Who Made It..."
> we see:
>
> "1. The description of the interaction between charged
> particles as mediated by the exchange of photons (Bethe
> and Fermi 1932) Quantum field theory gave rise to a new
> view of how forces are generated between particles. It
> led to a conceptualization of the interaction between
> two particles as arising not from the creation of
> (continuous) electromagnetic fields that act on one
> another as in the classical description, but from the
> exchange of photons, which continually are "passed"
> from one another. In absorbing or emitting a photon,
> the momentum of a charged particle is altered; it is
> precisely this change per unit time of the momentum of
> the charged particle that is called a force. Similarly,
> other kinds of forces can be produced by exchanging
> other kinds of "virtual" particles; thus the exchange
> of gravitons (spin 2, mass 0 quanta) account for the
> gravitational interaction."
Sigh. This is Schweber relating the *history* of the idea.
As I pointed out in my ``question to Stephen'' there are
processes that *cannot* be reasonably described in this way.
> But then we have from Davies's "The New Physics" the definition:
>
[snip pop sci definition]
>
> Then of course Asimov says,
>
[snip pop sci exposition]
Let's see what *textbooks* say shall we?
Weinberg, in his derivation of the Feynman rules nowhere uses the
term virtual particle.
Griffth's when describing the derivation of the Feynman rules
says...
"Please understand: these Feynman diagrams are purely symbolic"
Most modern textbooks don't talk about virtual particles at all.
Perhaps more enlightening, in this vain, are the opinions of
philosophers. In his ``Interpretive Introduction to Quantum
Field Theory'', Paul Teller says while discussing the standard
`virtual particle'' interpretation of Feynman diagrams:
``I counsel resistance to this way of thinking, which I take to
be misleading in the extreme.'' (see his discussion on page 137).
After providing a couple of different ``deep'' justifications for
this position Teller arrives at:
``we must also remember that the expansion we have been
discussing is only the second-order contribution in an
approximation scheme.''
This is precisely the point I am trying to make. You can, for
example, use lattice field theory to approximate the answer, then
virtual particles never appear.
Note that Sunny Auyang makes a similar point in his ``How is
Quantum Field Theory Possible?'', perhaps less stridently.
> Pg 244, Vol III of "Understanding Physics"
>
> Well, what is the big difference? You need a force carrier,
> be it a ghostly aether, virtual particles, Little Blue
> Fairies, Green Turtles or something else, all of which, by
> the definition of so-called science, no system of measurement
> can detect...
Except you want to add *TWO* layers of interpretation instead of
one. You can formulate the theory soley in terms of quantum
fields. Why does one then need to postulate an ether upon which
the quantum fields live?
> It's self centered sanctimonious arrogance that anyone would
> climb up on a soapbox and claim that the concept of aether is
> fallacious because no system of measurement can detect it yet
> accept and try to defend the virtue of, and claim superiority
> in, the idea of virtual particles. These both are
> requirements of their perspective theoretical concepts and
> both are equally unobservable.
Except nobody (at least nobody who is serious) attributes
``exsistence'' to virtual particles in anywhere near the way you
do to the ether.
> >> Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Fairies...
> >
> > ??? Call them whatever you want, they're just terms in a
> > perturbation series. If you understood QFT you'd have already
> > known that.
>
> Again if these terms have no physical consequences they're
> superfluous, but we both know that they must have physical
> consequence, and it's the question as to 'why' these terms
> must be, and what they must physically represent that goes to
> the core issue.
No no no. There is no ``issue'', the terms don't have to
represent anything physical at all. They are merely nice ways of
writing down a sucessive approximation to the exact answer. The
terms in the perturbation series have no physical consequences in
and of themselves.
> That one chooses to say these terms represent virtual
> particles verses the aethereal medium is simply calling the
> rose by another name, just to avoid acknowledging the rose
> was there all along. Edmund Whittaker speaks to this also:
>
[snip Whittaker quote]
>
> -- Preface to "A History of the Theories of Aether and
> Electricity" --
A book written 50 years ago. Paul, we've learned a lot about the
structure of quantum field theories since then. Back in the day,
the only way to do *ANYTHING* with quantum field theory was to
use perturbation theory. Naturally this lead to a lot of people
taking perturbation theory very seriously. Now these people knew
what they were doing, but they introduced sloppy langauge, which
still presists in pop-sci treatments.
> >> Oh I'm sure you'll not want to take my word for this so how about:
> >>
> >> http://physics.about.com/library/dict/bldefvirtualparticle.htm
> >
> > That's a miserable, watered down, account. Try reading a quantum
> > field theory textbook.
>
> Yes, stripped down to the bare essence of concept virtual
> particles as generally presented are a rather cartoonish
> concept, aren't they?
Umm, until you actually encounter ``virtual particles as
generally presented'' [i.e. in a field theory textbook] you might
want to reserve judgement.
> They even have to be kind of clairvoyant, don't they?
No.
> >> So when you can tell me that the virtual particles are
> >> 'observable' you just might have achieved the 'high ground',
> >> otherwise you'll just being a sanctimonious hypocritical
> >> blow-hard.
> >
> > No he's not. I suspect he understands QFT far better then you
> > do, and understands that virtual particles are mathematical
> > artifacts of a certain method of approximation. For example in
> > my field we use a different method of approximation, and virtual
> > particles never appear.
>
> I have to ask, what are the force carriers then?
The field. It's a quantum *FIELD* theory.
> >[snip]
> >> > However, anyway, in the standard theory a virtual photon is
> >> > posited as a mathematical and pictorial abstraction invented
> >> > in order to make Feynman diagrams work.
> >
> > Look Paul, this is correct.
>
> So?
So it speaks to the ignroence of your statements regarding
virtual particles being ``posited''.
> >> > (Personally I believe Feynman diagrams
> >> > exactly capture the physics involved, but that requires another
> >> > theory).
> >
> > Umm, question to Stephen, how would you capture non-perturbative
> > effects (say quark confinement?)
> >
> >> > By contrast, the ether is meant to be taken as something
> >> > real which interacts with real rods and clocks. Only problem
> >> > is, it is unobservable.
>
> For the aether envisioned by Maxwell, the so-called rest
> frame issue was never even a consideration. The entire
> foundation was Faraday's lines of force (which in subsequent
> fluid dynamics is termed streamlines) and their behavior and
> characteristics which Maxwell set out to mathematically
> describe. It is only in the narrow view of myopic
> close-minded individuals that the only property an aether
> possesses is a somehow physically uniqueness in a rest frame.
> Clearly Maxwell had no such conception.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but until you can
reproduce QED with Maxwell's ether it amounts to nothing at all.
> >> If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they
> >> are superflous and not required.
> >
**********************************************************
*> >They aren't. Schwinger formulated QED in a way which*
*> > avoided all of this stuff. *
**********************************************************
I just thought I'd higlight that to illustrate that virtual
particles are in no way nesscessary to Quantum Field Theory.
> >> If they ARE required, then they do have physical attributes
> >> necessary 'to make' the theory work, and are added 'ad hoc'
> >> in a vain attempt to circumvent saying that that ghostly
> >> ether medium is required.
> >
> > Paul, seriously read what you are saying. Then ask yourself how
> > much quantum field theory you've studied. Virtual particles are
> > not added ``ad hoc''. They arise from a particular way of
> > ordering a perturbation theory.
>
> As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory. Is the point
> driven home yet?
Huh? The aether ``arises from a particular way of ordering a
perturbation theory.'' That doesn't seem very physical to me.
Of course I am. To say Maxwell predicted superfluidity in any
meaningful way is simply nonsense. For example: did Maxwell
predict the critical temperature? The order of the phase
transition? The quantum mechanical behaviour of the fluid? The
fact that the particles invovled obey Bose-Enstein statistics?
He predicted *NOTHING* about a superfluid, besides apparently
drawing a picture which looks simliar.
Please Paul, this is really weak.
> My point is, and has always been, the aether is there and
> quite observable. That one deliberately chooses a half dozen
> different terms to try to obscure this by call it virtual
> particles, ZPE, Higg's field, Electric Field, Magnetic Field,
> ... etc. does not in any way change this underlying basic
> fact.
Now you just want to play semantic games. The ether is an extra
layer of interpretation, which is not needed.
Paul Stowe
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.4.30.011021...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
>> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
>> >> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition,
>> >> unobservable. They are posited specifically to do the job
>> >> earlier ascribed to the aether.
>> >
>> > Paul, why do you want to strut your ignorance of quantum field
>> > theory? You don't ``posit'' virtual particles in QFT, the notion
>> > of a virtual particle appears naturally when you try to do a
>> > perturbative approximation in QFT. There's a *BIG* difference
>> > there.
>>
>> Of course there is a 'force carrier' but one must then
>> 'interpret' this as something...
>
> No. You don't have to ``interpret'' it as anything. There is a
> field, period.
And this field is 'physically' what??? Does it, or does it not have
qualities that must physically exist? That has been, is, and will
continue to be the very observable aspect of the underlying medium.
The air can be considered a 'field', described mathematically as
several 'fields'. Pressure, temperature, ...etc. If 'fields' MUST
exist to complete the physical picture, then the ether must exist,
since that is in essence, what it is.
Fine, where does the 'lattice' physically come from? What is
responsible for its existence?
> Note that Sunny Auyang makes a similar point in his ``How is
> Quantum Field Theory Possible?'', perhaps less stridently.
>
>> Pg 244, Vol III of "Understanding Physics"
>>
>> Well, what is the big difference? You need a force carrier,
>> be it a ghostly aether, virtual particles, Little Blue
>> Fairies, Green Turtles or something else, all of which, by
>> the definition of so-called science, no system of measurement
>> can detect...
>
> Except you want to add *TWO* layers of interpretation instead of
> one. You can formulate the theory soley in terms of quantum
> fields. Why does one then need to postulate an ether upon which
> the quantum fields live?
No, I want to do exactly the reverse. I want to remove the layer
of quantum fields and say that the medium characteristics result
in the behavior we are calling quantum fields. Why does one 'need
it', because it may well provide the missing mechanism(s) that gives
rise to the basic quantum nature, that's why. Instead of *TWO*
layers we have one that results in the basic behavior of the other.
But if we refuse to even consider the possiblity of this we get stuck
by not attempting to see if the is, or can be, a causative foundation
giving rise to quantum phenomena.
>> It's self centered sanctimonious arrogance that anyone would
>> climb up on a soapbox and claim that the concept of aether is
>> fallacious because no system of measurement can detect it yet
>> accept and try to defend the virtue of, and claim superiority
>> in, the idea of virtual particles. These both are
>> requirements of their perspective theoretical concepts and
>> both are equally unobservable.
>
> Except nobody (at least nobody who is serious) attributes
> ``exsistence'' to virtual particles in anywhere near the way you
> do to the ether.
No one that is serious thinks that fields possess physical qualities
and can act on physical systems?
>> >> Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Fairies...
>> >
>> > ??? Call them whatever you want, they're just terms in a
>> > perturbation series. If you understood QFT you'd have already
>> > known that.
>>
>> Again if these terms have no physical consequences they're
>> superfluous, but we both know that they must have physical
>> consequence, and it's the question as to 'why' these terms
>> must be, and what they must physically represent that goes to
>> the core issue.
>
> No no no. There is no ``issue'', the terms don't have to
> represent anything physical at all. They are merely nice ways of
> writing down a sucessive approximation to the exact answer. The
> terms in the perturbation series have no physical consequences in
> and of themselves.
Ah, the exponential series,
1 - x + x^2/2! - x^3/3! + x^4/4! ...
is another way of writing
e^-x
and at least, these 'terms' converge on an answer. But, if I
were to ask how and why the process of ionizing radiation transport
through matter follows the general form above, these formulations
tell me nothing, the terms give no enlightenment. Yet it is easy
to describe narratively what happens, and why the form above results.
But if you can get it back from just this equation I'd love to see
how.
>> That one chooses to say these terms represent virtual
>> particles verses the aethereal medium is simply calling the
>> rose by another name, just to avoid acknowledging the rose
>> was there all along. Edmund Whittaker speaks to this also:
>>
>[snip Whittaker quote]
>>
>> -- Preface to "A History of the Theories of Aether and
>> Electricity" --
>
> A book written 50 years ago. Paul, we've learned a lot about the
> structure of quantum field theories since then. Back in the day,
> the only way to do *ANYTHING* with quantum field theory was to
> use perturbation theory. Naturally this lead to a lot of people
> taking perturbation theory very seriously. Now these people knew
> what they were doing, but they introduced sloppy langauge, which
> still presists in pop-sci treatments.
I think they were trying to descibe a way to 'visualize' the process.
>> >> Oh I'm sure you'll not want to take my word for this so how about:
>> >>
>> >> http://physics.about.com/library/dict/bldefvirtualparticle.htm
>> >
>> > That's a miserable, watered down, account. Try reading a quantum
>> > field theory textbook.
>>
>> Yes, stripped down to the bare essence of concept virtual
>> particles as generally presented are a rather cartoonish
>> concept, aren't they?
>
> Umm, until you actually encounter "virtual particles as generally
> presented" [i.e. in a field theory textbook] you might want to
> reserve judgement.
>
>> They even have to be kind of clairvoyant, don't they?
>
> No.
>
>> >> So when you can tell me that the virtual particles are
>> >> 'observable' you just might have achieved the 'high ground',
>> >> otherwise you'll just being a sanctimonious hypocritical
>> >> blow-hard.
>> >
>> > No he's not. I suspect he understands QFT far better then you
>> > do, and understands that virtual particles are mathematical
>> > artifacts of a certain method of approximation. For example in
>> > my field we use a different method of approximation, and virtual
>> > particles never appear.
>>
>> I have to ask, what are the force carriers then?
>
> The field. It's a quantum *FIELD* theory.
Yes, the field.
>> >[snip]
>> >> > However, anyway, in the standard theory a virtual photon is
>> >> > posited as a mathematical and pictorial abstraction invented
>> >> > in order to make Feynman diagrams work.
>> >
>> > Look Paul, this is correct.
>>
>> So?
>
> So it speaks to the ignorance of your statements regarding
> virtual particles being ``posited''.
But I thought you said that modern texts have stopped using the term.
Are you saying that the formulations that gave rise to the concept
was wrong? If not, the a re-interpetation of the very same equations
in which VPs aren't required would suggest otherwise, right?
>> >> > (Personally I believe Feynman diagrams
>> >> > exactly capture the physics involved, but that requires another
>> >> > theory).
>> >
>> > Umm, question to Stephen, how would you capture non-perturbative
>> > effects (say quark confinement?)
>> >
>> >> > By contrast, the ether is meant to be taken as something
>> >> > real which interacts with real rods and clocks. Only problem
>> >> > is, it is unobservable.
>>
>> For the aether envisioned by Maxwell, the so-called rest
>> frame issue was never even a consideration. The entire
>> foundation was Faraday's lines of force (which in subsequent
>> fluid dynamics is termed streamlines) and their behavior and
>> characteristics which Maxwell set out to mathematically
>> describe. It is only in the narrow view of myopic
>> close-minded individuals that the only property an aether
>> possesses is a somehow physically uniqueness in a rest frame.
>> Clearly Maxwell had no such conception.
>
> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but until you can
> reproduce QED with Maxwell's ether it amounts to nothing at all.
But in Maxwell's theory the vortex lattice he required could
well be the very same lattice you mentioned above.
>> >> If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they
>> >> are superflous and not required.
>> >
> **********************************************************
> *> >They aren't. Schwinger formulated QED in a way which*
> *> > avoided all of this stuff. *
> **********************************************************
>
> I just thought I'd higlight that to illustrate that virtual
> particles are in no way necessary to Quantum Field Theory.
Good, IMO a step in the right direction.
>> >> If they ARE required, then they do have physical attributes
>> >> necessary 'to make' the theory work, and are added 'ad hoc'
>> >> in a vain attempt to circumvent saying that that ghostly
>> >> ether medium is required.
>> >
>> > Paul, seriously read what you are saying. Then ask yourself how
>> > much quantum field theory you've studied. Virtual particles are
>> > not added ``ad hoc''. They arise from a particular way of
>> > ordering a perturbation theory.
>>
>> As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory. Is the point
>> driven home yet?
>
> Huh? The aether ``arises from a particular way of ordering a
> perturbation theory.'' That doesn't seem very physical to me.
You got it bass-ackward, in any ether theory the quantum field
arises from and is decribed by a particular way of ordering a
perturbation theory.
>> > One could say that the whole apparatus of Feynamn diagrams is
>> > required to make perturbation theory *PRACTICAL*, but it isn't
>> > nescessary in principle (again see Schwinger's work).
>> >
>> >> They perform the very same function.
>> >
>> > You need to do some learning before you make statements like
>> > that.
>> >
Why?
> For example: did Maxwell predict the critical temperature?
Did he even think there should be one? He was envisioning a particular
kind of fluid system that had the requisite properties to give rise
to Faraday's observations. He found some of these requisite properties
to be incredulous. However, subsequent observations have shown that
super-fluids do contain Maxwell's required properties.
> The order of the phase transition? The quantum mechanical
> behaviour of the fluid?
OK, look at Maxwell's fluid as he describes it while attempting to see
cross time and ask if Maxwell's fluid would have quantum mechanical
properties.
> The fact that the particles involved obey Bose-Enstein statistics?
> He predicted *NOTHING* about a superfluid, besides apparently
> drawing a picture which looks simliar.
You're right of course, Maxwell lack several crucial pieces of
foundational information to complete the puzzle. But such is the
nature of ground breaking pioneers.
> Please Paul, this is really weak.
>
>> My point is, and has always been, the aether is there and
>> quite observable. That one deliberately chooses a half dozen
>> different terms to try to obscure this by call it virtual
>> particles, ZPE, Higg's field, Electric Field, Magnetic Field,
>> ... etc. does not in any way change this underlying basic
>> fact.
>
> Now you just want to play semantic games. The ether is an extra
> layer of interpretation, which is not needed.
Ilja captured the essence quite succintly when he said:
"You have not understood the difference between "different
states of the ether are indistinguishable in this
approximation" and "the ether is unobservable".
IOW all physical manifestations are states, properties, and attributes
of just one thing, the etherial medium itself (field). If otherwise
you quickly see why claiming that there are distinctly different
fields is like saying that pressure field in air and the density
field in air are some how distinctly separate and unrelated. Thus
how such a statement as "The ether is an extra layer of interpretation,
which is not needed." is like saying we don't need to know the nature
of air, the pressure field and all of the other measurable properties
that can be described as separate fields is all that is needed...
Paul Stowe
Matthew Nobes
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.4.30.011024...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <Pine.GSO.4.30.011021...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> >> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition,
> >> >> unobservable. They are posited specifically to do the
> >> >> job earlier ascribed to the aether.
> >> >
> >> > Paul, why do you want to strut your ignorance of quantum
> >> > field theory? You don't ``posit'' virtual particles in
> >> > QFT, the notion of a virtual particle appears naturally
> >> > when you try to do a perturbative approximation in QFT.
> >> > There's a *BIG* difference there.
> >>
> >> Of course there is a 'force carrier' but one must then
> >> 'interpret' this as something...
> >
> > No. You don't have to ``interpret'' it as anything. There
> > is a field, period.
>
> And this field is 'physically' what??? Does it, or does it
> not have qualities that must physically exist?
Yes, asymototic states, for example, exist. They can be
measured.
I would go further and say that the underlying field exists, but
attempts to visualize it as a buch of exchanged particles is
flawed.
> That has been, is, and will continue to be the very
> observable aspect of the underlying medium. The air can be
> considered a 'field', described mathematically as several
> 'fields'. Pressure, temperature, ...etc. If 'fields' MUST
> exist to complete the physical picture, then the ether must
> exist, since that is in essence, what it is.
Fine, call it what you want. I take objection to two things
though, first, your claim that this has any connection to the
historical ether. This is just silly. And second claiming that
calling a quantum field ``the ether'' means anything. Who cares
what you call it, unless you can demonstrate and observable
effect differing from the standard theory, you're just playing
word games.
[big snip]
> > Perhaps more enlightening, in this vain, are the opinions of
> > philosophers. In his ``Interpretive Introduction to Quantum
> > Field Theory'', Paul Teller says while discussing the
> > standard `virtual particle'' interpretation of Feynman
> > diagrams:
> >
> > "I counsel resistance to this way of thinking, which I
> > take to be misleading in the extreme."
> >
> > (see his discussion on page 137).
> >
> > After providing a couple of different ``deep'' justifications for
> > this position Teller arrives at:
> >
> > "we must also remember that the expansion we have been
> > discussing is only the second-order contribution in an
> > approximation scheme."
> >
> > This is precisely the point I am trying to make. You can,
> > for example, use lattice field theory to approximate the
> > answer, then virtual particles never appear.
>
> Fine, where does the 'lattice' physically come from? What is
> responsible for its existence?
Nothing, it's an approximation scheme as well (do you understand
what that means?). You missed my point. The point is virtual
particles don't appear in a lattice simulation.
> > Note that Sunny Auyang makes a similar point in his ``How is
> > Quantum Field Theory Possible?'', perhaps less stridently.
> >
> >> Pg 244, Vol III of "Understanding Physics"
> >>
> >> Well, what is the big difference? You need a force
> >> carrier, be it a ghostly aether, virtual particles, Little
> >> Blue Fairies, Green Turtles or something else, all of which,
> >> by the definition of so-called science, no system of
> >> measurement can detect...
> >
> > Except you want to add *TWO* layers of interpretation
> > instead of one. You can formulate the theory soley in terms
> > of quantum fields. Why does one then need to postulate an
> > ether upon which the quantum fields live?
>
> No, I want to do exactly the reverse. I want to remove the
> layer of quantum fields and say that the medium
> characteristics result in the behavior we are calling quantum
> fields. Why does one 'need it', because it may well provide
> the missing mechanism(s) that gives rise to the basic quantum
> nature, that's why.
Wait, hold up. You're saying that a *classical* medium can give
rise to quantum field theory? That's just silly.
> Instead of *TWO* layers we have one that results in the basic
> behavior of the other. But if we refuse to even consider the
> possiblity of this we get stuck by not attempting to see if
> the is, or can be, a causative foundation giving rise to
> quantum phenomena.
Nobody is ``refusing to consider'' anything, since there is
nothing substantive to consider. I'll repeat my challenge, come
up with some *specific* predictions, then there will be something
to talk about. Relativistic QFT has many successes, have you
duplicated any of them?
> >> It's self centered sanctimonious arrogance that anyone
> >> would climb up on a soapbox and claim that the concept of
> >> aether is fallacious because no system of measurement can
> >> detect it yet accept and try to defend the virtue of, and
> >> claim superiority in, the idea of virtual particles.
Just to jump in here, it is hardly arrogant to claim superiority
for QFT. Indeed if one looks at the number of experiments
explained sucessfully in the past 75 years such a conclusion is
unavoidable.
> >> These both are requirements of their perspective theoretical
> >> concepts and both are equally unobservable.
> >
> > Except nobody (at least nobody who is serious) attributes
> > ``exsistence'' to virtual particles in anywhere near the way
> > you do to the ether.
>
> No one that is serious thinks that fields possess physical
> qualities and can act on physical systems?
I didn't say that. I was talking about the specific mental
device of virtual particles.
> >> >> Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue
> >> >> Fairies...
> >> >
> >> > ??? Call them whatever you want, they're just terms in a
> >> > perturbation series. If you understood QFT you'd have
> >> > already known that.
> >>
> >> Again if these terms have no physical consequences they're
> >> superfluous, but we both know that they must have physical
> >> consequence, and it's the question as to 'why' these terms
> >> must be, and what they must physically represent that goes
> >> to the core issue.
> >
> > No no no. There is no ``issue'', the terms don't have to
> > represent anything physical at all. They are merely nice
> > ways of writing down a sucessive approximation to the exact
> > answer. The terms in the perturbation series have no
> > physical consequences in and of themselves.
>
> Ah, the exponential series,
>
> 1 - x + x^2/2! - x^3/3! + x^4/4! ...
>
> is another way of writing
>
> e^-x
>
> and at least, these 'terms' converge on an answer.
??? First off the perturbative series for a typical QFT
(anything realistic) doesn't converge (this is one *BIG* problem
with the notion of virtual particles). Second how does this
address my point? Even if the series did converge the individual
terms don't have to have any particular physical meaning.
> But, if I were to ask how and why the process of ionizing
> radiation transport through matter follows the general form
> above, these formulations tell me nothing, the terms give no
> enlightenment. Yet it is easy to describe narratively what
> happens, and why the form above results. But if you can get
> it back from just this equation I'd love to see how.
You lost me.
> >> That one chooses to say these terms represent virtual
> >> particles verses the aethereal medium is simply calling the
> >> rose by another name, just to avoid acknowledging the rose
> >> was there all along. Edmund Whittaker speaks to this also:
> >>
> >[snip Whittaker quote]
> >>
> >> -- Preface to "A History of the Theories of Aether and
> >> Electricity" --
> >
> > A book written 50 years ago. Paul, we've learned a lot
> > about the structure of quantum field theories since then.
> > Back in the day, the only way to do *ANYTHING* with quantum
> > field theory was to use perturbation theory. Naturally this
> > lead to a lot of people taking perturbation theory very
> > seriously. Now these people knew what they were doing, but
> > they introduced sloppy langauge, which still presists in
> > pop-sci treatments.
>
> I think they were trying to descibe a way to 'visualize' the
> process.
Yes, and like all ``visualizations'' it has it's flaws.
[snip]
> >> >[snip]
> >> >> > However, anyway, in the standard theory a virtual
> >> >> > photon is posited as a mathematical and pictorial
> >> >> > abstraction invented in order to make Feynman diagrams
> >> >> > work.
> >> >
> >> > Look Paul, this is correct.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> > So it speaks to the ignorance of your statements regarding
> > virtual particles being ``posited''.
>
> But I thought you said that modern texts have stopped using
> the term.
They have, but to the extent that the concept still persists it's
correct as Stephen stated it.
> Are you saying that the formulations that gave rise to the concept
> was wrong?
No, you have completely misunderstood what I have said.
> If not, the a re-interpetation of the very same equations in
> which VPs aren't required would suggest otherwise, right?
ARRGH, VIRTUAL PARTICLES WERE NEVER ``REQUIRED''. THEY WERE A
****NAME**** GIVEN TO A PARTICULAR PIECE OF A FEYNAMN DIAGRAM.
[snip]
> >> For the aether envisioned by Maxwell, the so-called rest
> >> frame issue was never even a consideration. The entire
> >> foundation was Faraday's lines of force (which in subsequent
> >> fluid dynamics is termed streamlines) and their behavior and
> >> characteristics which Maxwell set out to mathematically
> >> describe. It is only in the narrow view of myopic
> >> close-minded individuals that the only property an aether
> >> possesses is a somehow physically uniqueness in a rest frame.
> >> Clearly Maxwell had no such conception.
> >
> > I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but until you can
> > reproduce QED with Maxwell's ether it amounts to nothing at all.
>
> But in Maxwell's theory the vortex lattice he required could
> well be the very same lattice you mentioned above.
Well that lattice is an approximation scheme. Also you dodged
the issue. The central point is you cannot reproduce any of QED
with a classical aether theory.
Results count Paul, and there are a lot of them to agree with.
> >> >> If virtual particles have no physical attributes then
> >> >> they are superflous and not required.
> >> >
> > **********************************************************
> > *> >They aren't. Schwinger formulated QED in a way which*
> > *> > avoided all of this stuff. *
> > **********************************************************
> >
> > I just thought I'd higlight that to illustrate that virtual
> > particles are in no way necessary to Quantum Field Theory.
>
> Good, IMO a step in the right direction.
Did you read ``QED and the Men Who Made it''? If so you should
have known all this. It's not a ``step'', it was a consquence of
Schwinger's way of formulating the problem.
> >> >> If they ARE required, then they do have physical
> >> >> attributes necessary 'to make' the theory work, and are
> >> >> added 'ad hoc' in a vain attempt to circumvent saying
> >> >> that that ghostly ether medium is required.
> >> >
> >> > Paul, seriously read what you are saying. Then ask
> >> > yourself how much quantum field theory you've studied.
> >> > Virtual particles are not added ``ad hoc''. They arise
> >> > from a particular way of ordering a perturbation theory.
> >>
> >> As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory. Is the point
> >> driven home yet?
> >
> > Huh? The aether ``arises from a particular way of ordering
> > a perturbation theory.'' That doesn't seem very physical to
> > me.
>
> You got it bass-ackward,
'fraid not, read the exchange, I said
``they arise from a particular way of ordering a perturbation
theory''
to which you responded
``As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory''
> in any ether theory the quantum field arises from and is
> decribed by a particular way of ordering a perturbation
> theory.
Very bizzare. So if I ordered the perturbation theory a
different way, I'd get a different field theory?
[snip]
> >> The point was, look at what Maxwell predicted and
> >> envisioned the atomic vortex field lattice should look like
> >> in 1861 (when, you must admit, there was absolutely no way
> >> to even conceive of attempting to image it) and how a very
> >> recent image of an actual super-fluid vortex lattice. The
> >> readers can see for themselves whether Maxwell 'got it
> >> right' or not. In Maxwell's time there was not even a
> >> glimmer of the concept of a 'phonon' and it analogy to the
> >> behavior and characteristics of the photon.
> >>
> >> Are you going to say that this formation is not a
> >> prediction of Maxwell?
> >
> > Of course I am. To say Maxwell predicted superfluidity in
> > any meaningful way is simply nonsense.
>
> Why?
I gave you a number of reasons. The central theme was that
Maxwell predicted none of the things that define a superfluid.
> > For example: did Maxwell predict the critical temperature?
>
> Did he even think there should be one?
Well it's kind of an importent property of a superfluid.
> He was envisioning a particular kind of fluid system that had
> the requisite properties to give rise to Faraday's
> observations. He found some of these requisite properties to
> be incredulous. However, subsequent observations have shown
> that super-fluids do contain Maxwell's required properties.
What properties? Show me the mathmatics.
> > The order of the phase transition? The quantum mechanical
> > behaviour of the fluid?
>
> OK, look at Maxwell's fluid as he describes it while
> attempting to see cross time and ask if Maxwell's fluid would
> have quantum mechanical properties.
Sigh. Paul you have no conception of how science is done. Can
you point me to a *PREDICTION* of a relvent property of a
superfluid, such as one of the ones I pointed out?
> > The fact that the particles involved obey Bose-Enstein
> > statistics? He predicted *NOTHING* about a superfluid,
> > besides apparently drawing a picture which looks simliar.
>
> You're right of course, Maxwell lack several crucial pieces of
> foundational information to complete the puzzle. But such is the
> nature of ground breaking pioneers.
``several crucial pieces''? Try the whole bloody thing.
> > Please Paul, this is really weak.
> >
> >> My point is, and has always been, the aether is there and
> >> quite observable. That one deliberately chooses a half dozen
> >> different terms to try to obscure this by call it virtual
> >> particles, ZPE, Higg's field, Electric Field, Magnetic Field,
> >> ... etc. does not in any way change this underlying basic
> >> fact.
> >
> > Now you just want to play semantic games. The ether is an extra
> > layer of interpretation, which is not needed.
>
> Ilja captured the essence quite succintly when he said:
>
> "You have not understood the difference between "different
> states of the ether are indistinguishable in this
> approximation" and "the ether is unobservable".
He was talking about his theory, which is wholley quantum from
the begining. In that case I can see how the idea that a
condensed matter system can exhibit long range conintuum
behaviour that looks like classical GR plus the standard model.
> IOW all physical manifestations are states, properties, and
> attributes of just one thing, the etherial medium itself
> (field). If otherwise you quickly see why claiming that
> there are distinctly different fields is like saying that
> pressure field in air and the density field in air are some
> how distinctly separate and unrelated. Thus how such a
> statement as "The ether is an extra layer of interpretation,
> which is not needed." is like saying we don't need to know
> the nature of air, the pressure field and all of the other
> measurable properties that can be described as separate
> fields is all that is needed...
Now you sound like Dennis...
Serious Paul, if such a unfication can be acheived where are the
results? So far all we've got are your confident assertions,
that doesn't cut it...
Bilge
[...]
>
>Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition, unobservable.
>They are posited specifically to do the job earlier ascribed to the
>aether. Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
do the job''. Explain how you think a virtual photon and a propagating
photon differ.
>
>Oh I'm sure you'll not want to take my word for this so how about:
Good guess.
>
>So when you can tell me that the virtual particles are 'observable'
>you just might have achived the 'high ground', otherwise you'll
>just being a sanctimonious hypocritical blow-hard.
Read any paper that describes bremmstrahlung from internal
lines. I'd suggest the experimental ones.
[...]
[...]
>If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they are
>superflous
Then it's a good thing that virtual particles do have
physical attributes.
greywolf42
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9tlsb...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> pst...@ix.netcom.com said some stuff about
> [...]
> >
> >Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition, unobservable.
>
> Oh, really? Explain inner bremmstrahlung.
Right after you explain magnetic attractive force.
> >They are posited specifically to do the job earlier ascribed to the
> >aether. Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
>
> Virtual particles are most certainly not merely ``posited to
> do the job''. Explain how you think a virtual photon and a propagating
> photon differ.
A propagating photon is real. The virtual photon is imaginary.
The question is why one would be virtual in the first place. Aetherists
don't need to explain that which they don't need. The difference between
pp's and vp's is your problem.
{snip}
> >If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they are
> >superflous
>
> Then it's a good thing that virtual particles do have
> physical attributes.
How do you know if you can't see one?
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Bilge
> less understanding on the subject of Re: The mainstream name
>of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>
>"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrn9tlsb...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> pst...@ix.netcom.com said some stuff about
>> [...]
>> >
>> >Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition, unobservable.
>>
>> Oh, really? Explain inner bremmstrahlung.
>
>Right after you explain magnetic attractive force.
In other words, you aren't interested in discovering that one can
observe the virtual particles in an interaction directly and so you want
to change the subject, so that when I explain magnetic forces with virtual
photons, you can start your argument all over again by claiming they can't
be observed. I'm not going to play. If you want to argue that virtual
photons are not a valid way to describe something, first you prove there
is something wrong with the evidence I just gave you to justify the
conceptual problem you have.
>> >They are posited specifically to do the job earlier ascribed to the
>> >aether. Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
>>
>> Virtual particles are most certainly not merely ``posited to
>> do the job''. Explain how you think a virtual photon and a propagating
>> photon differ.
>
>A propagating photon is real. The virtual photon is imaginary.
I asked how, not for a summary of your opinon.
>The question is why one would be virtual in the first place. Aetherists
>don't need to explain that which they don't need. The difference between
>pp's and vp's is your problem.
Then you agree it's not a problem, since I don't have a problem with
the concept. I can quantify the effects.
>{snip}
>
>> >If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they are
>> >superflous
>>
>> Then it's a good thing that virtual particles do have
>> physical attributes.
>
>How do you know if you can't see one?
I consider experiments designed to resolve interactions at < 10^-15 m
to be better than my eyes at those distances, since my eyes have a limit
of about 4 x 10^-10 m.
So, according to you, nothing exists that you can't see directly,
is that correct? Does sound work by magic, then? I can't see air.
How about ultrasound? How about radar. Maybe you have better K-band
and X-band vision than I do, since I have to wait until I see the
person holding the radar gun.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>pst...@ix.netcom.com said some stuff about
>[...]
> >
> >Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition, unobservable.
>
> Oh, really? Explain inner bremmstrahlung.
OK, During the beta decay process, the beta particle is accelerated,
and consequently, a small amount of bremsstrahlung (braking radiation)
is emitted. This has nothing to say at all about virtual particles
observability.
> > They are posited specifically to do the job earlier ascribed to the
> > aether. Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
>
> Virtual particles are most certainly not merely ``posited to do the job''.
> Explain how you think a virtual photon and a propagating photon differ.
One is observable, and has been given the term photon, the other is
much more a ghost than is the (aghast) aether.
> >
> > Oh I'm sure you'll not want to take my word for this so how about:
>
> Good guess.
>
> > So when you can tell me that the virtual particles are 'observable'
> > you just might have achived the 'high ground', otherwise you'll
> > just being a sanctimonious hypocritical blow-hard.
>
> Read any paper that describes bremmstrahlung from internal
> lines. I'd suggest the experimental ones.
So, please reference one that describes how one observes the virtual
entities. I do understand Bremsstrahlung (ever heard of accelerating
charges emit radiation???). Hell this isn't even a quantum concept
it's pure Maxwellian.
>[...]
>
>[...]
> > If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they are
> > superflous
>
> Then it's a good thing that virtual particles do have physical attributes.
And the observable physical attributes are???
God I just love being able to turn the table and reflect back EXACTLY
what they have dished out to others.
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <Pine.GSO.4.30.011024...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
>> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Paul Stowe wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <Pine.GSO.4.30.011021...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
>> >> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >[snip]
>> >>
>> >> Of course there is a 'force carrier' but one must then
>> >> 'interpret' this as something...
>> >
>> > No. You don't have to ``interpret'' it as anything. There
>> > is a field, period.
>>
>> And this field is 'physically' what??? Does it, or does it
>> not have qualities that must physically exist?
>
> Yes, asymptotic states, for example, exist. They can be
> measured.
>
> I would go further and say that the underlying field exists, but
> attempts to visualize it as a bunch of exchanged particles is
> flawed.
On this we agree.
>> That has been, is, and will continue to be the very
>> observable aspect of the underlying medium. The air can be
>> considered a 'field', described mathematically as several
>> 'fields'. Pressure, temperature, ...etc. If 'fields' MUST
>> exist to complete the physical picture, then the ether must
>> exist, since that is in essence, what it is.
>
> Fine, call it what you want. I take objection to two things
> though, first, your claim that this has any connection to the
> historical ether.
Fine, but why? If you study history, the essence of the term
aether is that which is what we now call fields. Many have
attempted to zero in on the particular nature of this ether and
define its properties, but, that does not affect the basic
underlying (starting) nature.
> This is just silly. And second claiming that calling a quantum
> field ``the ether'' means anything.
Please understand, philosophically the founding principle of
the aether idea is that all fields are just different properties
of just one aether medium. The luminiferous aether is also the
gravitic aether which is also the material aether... etc.
> Who cares what you call it,
All who want to give credit to those for which credit is due.
> unless you can demonstrate and observable effect differing from
> the standard theory, you're just playing word games.
Is this not a chicken verse egg debate? The ether concept of
fields came first, and has digressed to what is now called
'standard theory' the history of which shows us that the terms
now coined were DUE to overt denial of, and a conscious refusal
to do what you just did, acknowledge that there is no meaningful
difference between the concepts.
>[big snip]
>> > Perhaps more enlightening, in this vain, are the opinions of
>> > philosophers. In his ``Interpretive Introduction to Quantum
>> > Field Theory'', Paul Teller says while discussing the
>> > standard `virtual particle'' interpretation of Feynman
>> > diagrams:
>> >
>> > "I counsel resistance to this way of thinking, which I
>> > take to be misleading in the extreme."
>> >
>> > (see his discussion on page 137).
>> >
>> > After providing a couple of different ``deep'' justifications for
>> > this position Teller arrives at:
>> >
>> > "we must also remember that the expansion we have been
>> > discussing is only the second-order contribution in an
>> > approximation scheme."
>> >
>> > This is precisely the point I am trying to make. You can,
>> > for example, use lattice field theory to approximate the
>> > answer, then virtual particles never appear.
>>
>> Fine, where does the 'lattice' physically come from? What is
>> responsible for its existence?
>
> Nothing, it's an approximation scheme as well (do you understand
> what that means?). You missed my point. The point is virtual
> particles don't appear in a lattice simulation.
OK, let me be sure I got it right. To eliminate the conceptual need
for VPs you 'need' posit something else, in this case, a lattice field
theory. Thus the lattice is a necessary component, and therefore has
a physical meaning within the framework of this rendering. This begs
the question WHY is the lattice a necessary element. It must represent
something physically 'real' or its presence would not be required.
Are we to assume then that this 'something' (the presence of the lattice)
comes from nothing? Isn't such an assumption tantamount to religious
faith or belief in magic.
>> > Note that Sunny Auyang makes a similar point in his ``How is
>> > Quantum Field Theory Possible?'', perhaps less stridently.
>> >
>> >> Pg 244, Vol III of "Understanding Physics"
>> >>
>> >> Well, what is the big difference? You need a force
>> >> carrier, be it a ghostly aether, virtual particles, Little
>> >> Blue Fairies, Green Turtles or something else, all of which,
>> >> by the definition of so-called science, no system of
>> >> measurement can detect...
>> >
>> > Except you want to add *TWO* layers of interpretation
>> > instead of one. You can formulate the theory solely in terms
>> > of quantum fields. Why does one then need to postulate an
>> > ether upon which the quantum fields live?
>>
>> No, I want to do exactly the reverse. I want to remove the
>> layer of quantum fields and say that the medium
>> characteristics result in the behavior we are calling quantum
>> fields. Why does one 'need it', because it may well provide
>> the missing mechanism(s) that gives rise to the basic quantum
>> nature, that's why.
>
> Wait, hold up. You're saying that a *classical* medium can give
> rise to quantum field theory? That's just silly.
Why? Classical mediums can support vorticity. Vorticity leads to
conditions that can be described in a quantized fashion.
>> Instead of *TWO* layers we have one that results in the basic
>> behavior of the other. But if we refuse to even consider the
>> possibility of this we get stuck by not attempting to see if
>> the is, or can be, a causative foundation giving rise to
>> quantum phenomena.
>
> Nobody is ``refusing to consider'' anything, since there is
> nothing substantive to consider. I'll repeat my challenge, come
> up with some *specific* predictions, then there will be something
> to talk about. Relativistic QFT has many successes, have you
> duplicated any of them?
I have had several predictions from my particular concept. One was
a component of light that had a signature speed of Sqrt(3)c.
Another was charge has units of kg/sec. This lead to at least one
prediction that I cannot find experimental evidence for or against.
That is, an electron will have a signature thermal frequency emission
Of he/3km; where e is elemental charge, m is the electron mass, k
Boltzmann's constant, and h Planck's constant.
>> >> It's self centered sanctimonious arrogance that anyone
>> >> would climb up on a soapbox and claim that the concept of
>> >> aether is fallacious because no system of measurement can
>> >> detect it yet accept and try to defend the virtue of, and
>> >> claim superiority in, the idea of virtual particles.
>
> Just to jump in here, it is hardly arrogant to claim superiority
> for QFT. Indeed if one looks at the number of experiments
> explained successfully in the past 75 years such a conclusion is
> unavoidable.
Let's be clear, as I think you know I was, and am not talking about
the mathematics of QED. I AM talking about exactly what I say,
the aether 'concept' and the virtual particle 'concept'.
>> >> These both are requirements of their perspective theoretical
>> >> concepts and both are equally unobservable.
>> >
>> > Except nobody (at least nobody who is serious) attributes
>> > ``existence'' to virtual particles in anywhere near the way
>> > you do to the ether.
>>
>> No one that is serious thinks that fields possess physical
>> qualities and can act on physical systems?
>
> I didn't say that. I was talking about the specific mental
> device of virtual particles.
>
>> >> Again if these terms have no physical consequences they're
>> >> superfluous, but we both know that they must have physical
>> >> consequence, and it's the question as to 'why' these terms
>> >> must be, and what they must physically represent that goes
>> >> to the core issue.
>> >
>> > No no no. There is no ``issue'', the terms don't have to
>> > represent anything physical at all. They are merely nice
>> > ways of writing down a sucessive approximation to the exact
>> > answer. The terms in the perturbation series have no
>> > physical consequences in and of themselves.
>>
>> Ah, the exponential series,
>>
>> 1 - x + x^2/2! - x^3/3! + x^4/4! ...
>>
>> is another way of writing
>>
>> e^-x
>>
>> and at least, these 'terms' converge on an answer.
>
>??? First off the perturbative series for a typical QFT
>(anything realistic) doesn't converge (this is one *BIG* problem
>with the notion of virtual particles).
Which is why I said “and at least, these 'terms' converge”.
> Second how does this address my point? Even if the series did
> converge the individual terms don't have to have any particular
> physical meaning.
That's simply because I left x physically undefined. In radiation
transport x = ut where u is the linear attenuation coefficient and
t is the travel distance.
>> But, if I were to ask how and why the process of ionizing
>> radiation transport through matter follows the general form
>> above, these formulations tell me nothing, the terms give no
>> enlightenment. Yet it is easy to describe narratively what
>> happens, and why the form above results. But if you can get
>> it back from just this equation I'd love to see how.
>
> You lost me.
Perhaps, but the point was you cannot mine the exponential series
and determine the physical nature of the process it describes in
isolation.
>> >> That one chooses to say these terms represent virtual
>> >> particles verses the aethereal medium is simply calling the
>> >> rose by another name, just to avoid acknowledging the rose
>> >> was there all along. Edmund Whittaker speaks to this also:
>> >>
>> >[snip Whittaker quote]
>> >>
>> >> -- Preface to "A History of the Theories of Aether and
>> >> Electricity" --
>> >
>> > A book written 50 years ago. Paul, we've learned a lot
>> > about the structure of quantum field theories since then.
>> > Back in the day, the only way to do *ANYTHING* with quantum
>> > field theory was to use perturbation theory. Naturally this
>> > lead to a lot of people taking perturbation theory very
>> > seriously. Now these people knew what they were doing, but
>> > they introduced sloppy language, which still persists in
>> > pop-sci treatments.
>>
>> I think they were trying to describe a way to 'visualize' the
>> process.
>
> Yes, and like all ``visualizations'' it has it's flaws.
If not correct in nature, yes...
>[snip]
>> >> >[snip]
>> >> So?
>> >
>> > So it speaks to the ignorance of your statements regarding
>> > virtual particles being ``posited''.
>>
>> But I thought you said that modern texts have stopped using
>> the term.
>
> They have, but to the extent that the concept still persists it's
> correct as Stephen stated it.
>
>> Are you saying that the formulations that gave rise to the concept
>> was wrong?
>
> No, you have completely misunderstood what I have said.
Let's try again then. You have a formulation in which there are terms,
these in turn give rise to the visualization we call virtual particles.
Now how is the particular visualization not 'ad hoc', since as you say,
One does not truly 'need' it?
>> If not, the a re-interpetation of the very same equations in
>> which VPs aren't required would suggest otherwise, right?
>
> ARRGH, VIRTUAL PARTICLES WERE NEVER ``REQUIRED''. THEY WERE A
> ****NAME**** GIVEN TO A PARTICULAR PIECE OF A FEYNAMN DIAGRAM.
Along with a distinct concept, yes.
>[snip]
>> >> For the aether envisioned by Maxwell, the so-called rest
>> >> frame issue was never even a consideration. The entire
>> >> foundation was Faraday's lines of force (which in subsequent
>> >> fluid dynamics is termed streamlines) and their behavior and
>> >> characteristics which Maxwell set out to mathematically
>> >> describe. It is only in the narrow view of myopic
>> >> close-minded individuals that the only property an aether
>> >> possesses is a somehow physically uniqueness in a rest frame.
>> >> Clearly Maxwell had no such conception.
>> >
>> > I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but until you can
>> > reproduce QED with Maxwell's ether it amounts to nothing at all.
>>
>> But in Maxwell's theory the vortex lattice he required could
>> well be the very same lattice you mentioned above.
>
> Well that lattice is an approximation scheme. Also you dodged
> the issue. The central point is you cannot reproduce any of QED
> with a classical aether theory.
I cannot, no. But to demand that any one person reproduce all of
the work of hundreds over a seventy year period in one felled
swoop is a bit over the top don't you think. Especially when one
is dealing with a perspective view which, as you acknowledged above
is just another way of looking at the same processes.
> Results count Paul, and there are a lot of them to agree with.
>
>> >> >> If virtual particles have no physical attributes then
>> >> >> they are superflous and not required.
>> >> >
>> > **********************************************************
>> > *> >They aren't. Schwinger formulated QED in a way which*
>> > *> > avoided all of this stuff. *
>> > **********************************************************
>> >
>> > I just thought I'd highlight that to illustrate that virtual
>> > particles are in no way necessary to Quantum Field Theory.
>>
>> Good, IMO a step in the right direction.
>
> Did you read ``QED and the Men Who Made it''? If so you should
> have known all this. It's not a ``step'', it was a consequence of
> Schwinger's way of formulating the problem.
>
>> >> As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory. Is the point
>> >> driven home yet?
>> >
>> > Huh? The aether ``arises from a particular way of ordering
>> > a perturbation theory.'' That doesn't seem very physical to
>> > me.
>>
>> You got it bass-ackward,
>
> 'fraid not, read the exchange, I said
>
> ``they arise from a particular way of ordering a perturbation
> theory''
>
> to which you responded
>
> ``As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory''
I think we have a problem of details here. I responded that
if a specific ordering a perturbation is needed or necessary to
mathematically describe a physical process it must be because of
something about the physical process itself. This is exactly
the same as what Maxwell claimed, IOW the vortex nature WAS a
requirement and the consequence of this was the formulations
we call Maxwell's theory.
>> in any ether theory the quantum field arises from and is
>> decribed by a particular way of ordering a perturbation
>> theory.
>
> Very bizzare. So if I ordered the perturbation theory a
> different way, I'd get a different field theory?
Yes, but does this match observations? Just because one can play
with variation in mathematics it does not automatically constitute
physics.
>[snip]
>> >> The point was, look at what Maxwell predicted and
>> >> envisioned the atomic vortex field lattice should look like
>> >> in 1861 (when, you must admit, there was absolutely no way
>> >> to even conceive of attempting to image it) and how a very
>> >> recent image of an actual super-fluid vortex lattice. The
>> >> readers can see for themselves whether Maxwell 'got it
>> >> right' or not. In Maxwell's time there was not even a
>> >> glimmer of the concept of a 'phonon' and it analogy to the
>> >> behavior and characteristics of the photon.
>> >>
>> >> Are you going to say that this formation is not a
>> >> prediction of Maxwell?
>> >
>> > Of course I am. To say Maxwell predicted superfluidity in
>> > any meaningful way is simply nonsense.
>>
>> Why?
>
> I gave you a number of reasons. The central theme was that
> Maxwell predicted none of the things that define a superfluid.
>
>> > For example: did Maxwell predict the critical temperature?
>>
>> Did he even think there should be one?
>
> Well it's kind of an important property of a superfluid.
>
>> He was envisioning a particular kind of fluid system that had
>> the requisite properties to give rise to Faraday's
>> observations. He found some of these requisite properties to
>> be incredulous. However, subsequent observations have shown
>> that super-fluids do contain Maxwell's required properties.
>
> What properties? Show me the mathematics.
>
>> > The order of the phase transition? The quantum mechanical
>> > behavior of the fluid?
>>
>> OK, look at Maxwell's fluid as he describes it while
>> attempting to see cross time and ask if Maxwell's fluid would
>> have quantum mechanical properties.
>
> Sigh. Paul you have no conception of how science is done. Can
> you point me to a *PREDICTION* of a relevant property of a
> superfluid, such as one of the ones I pointed out?
>
>> > The fact that the particles involved obey Bose-Enstein
>> > statistics? He predicted *NOTHING* about a superfluid,
>> > besides apparently drawing a picture which looks simliar.
>>
>> You're right of course, Maxwell lack several crucial pieces of
>> foundational information to complete the puzzle. But such is the
>> nature of ground breaking pioneers.
>
>``several crucial pieces''? Try the whole bloody thing.
>
>> > Please Paul, this is really weak.
>> >
>> >> My point is, and has always been, the aether is there and
>> >> quite observable. That one deliberately chooses a half dozen
>> >> different terms to try to obscure this by call it virtual
>> >> particles, ZPE, Higg's field, Electric Field, Magnetic Field,
>> >> ... etc. does not in any way change this underlying basic
>> >> fact.
>> >
>> > Now you just want to play semantic games. The ether is an extra
>> > layer of interpretation, which is not needed.
>>
>> Ilja captured the essence quite succinctly when he said:
>>
>> "You have not understood the difference between "different
>> states of the ether are indistinguishable in this
>> approximation" and "the ether is unobservable".
>
> He was talking about his theory, which is wholly quantum from
> the beginning. In that case I can see how the idea that a
> condensed matter system can exhibit long range continuum
> behavior that looks like classical GR plus the standard model.
>
>> IOW all physical manifestations are states, properties, and
>> attributes of just one thing, the etherial medium itself
>> (field). If otherwise you quickly see why claiming that
>> there are distinctly different fields is like saying that
>> pressure field in air and the density field in air are some
>> how distinctly separate and unrelated. Thus how such a
>> statement as "The ether is an extra layer of interpretation,
>> which is not needed." is like saying we don't need to know
>> the nature of air, the pressure field and all of the other
>> measurable properties that can be described as separate
>> fields is all that is needed...
>
> Now you sound like Dennis...
Alas, the point is similar to some Dennis was attempting to make,
namely if one chooses not to look at a problem from a certain
perspective and is satisfied with disparate multiple fields to
describe nature then they'll stop at that level. For them, there
truly is no need to attempt to even see if there is an underlying
nature.
> Serious Paul, if such a unification can be achieved where are the
> results? So far all we've got are your confident assertions,
> that doesn't cut it...
Can be achieved and has been achieved are to very different situations.
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>general relativity to usenet:
> ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>
>>pst...@ix.netcom.com said some stuff about
>>[...]
>> >
>> >Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition, unobservable.
>>
>> Oh, really? Explain inner bremmstrahlung.
>
>OK, During the beta decay process, the beta particle is accelerated,
>and consequently, a small amount of bremsstrahlung (braking radiation)
>is emitted. This has nothing to say at all about virtual particles
>observability.
it really clear and look at beta decay procesess.
You would picture beta decay like:
(I) n--->pe-\nubar
But how about this one:
e- \nubar
\ /
V
pi_- .~~~. pi_0
.~ ~.
(II) n--+-- p ---+--->p
You have a neutron -> virtual pi_- /virtual_proton, the virtual pi_-
decays to e-\nubar \virtual pi_0 which is absorbed and leaves a
propagating proton. That is distictly different than:
pi_0
.~~~.
.~ ~.
(III) n-+-n--.--p-+---p->
^
/ \
/ \
e- \nubar
(II) predicts the weak decay of a real pi_- into a real
pi_0 e-\nubar. But that's not all. These diagrams are a very
rigid test of the standard model. They predict, without mitigation,
that ALL fermi decays yield the same lifetime once the kinematics
are factored out and matrix elements are factored out. In other words,
the the energy available for the decay of the particular nucleus
and the selection rules are satisfies (e.g., 0 +-> 0+ for a
superallowed decay). The topic "superallowed fermi transition" or
"superallowed fermi decay", should bring up more than you care
to know, which is probably a safe bet if it were a single article.
"Conserved Vector Current" will also do it.
>> > They are posited specifically to do the job earlier ascribed to the
>> > aether. Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
>>
>> Virtual particles are most certainly not merely
>>``posited to do the job''. Explain how you think a virtual
>> photon and a propagating photon differ.
>
>One is observable, and has been given the term photon, the other is
>much more a ghost than is the (aghast) aether.
No wonder you don't like the idea. Perhaps you should read up
on the concept some more.
[...]
>
>So, please reference one that describes how one observes the virtual
>entities. I do understand Bremsstrahlung (ever heard of accelerating
>charges emit radiation???). Hell this isn't even a quantum concept
>it's pure Maxwellian.
From a virtual charge?
[...]
>>
>> Then it's a good thing that virtual particles do have physical
>> attributes.
>
>And the observable physical attributes are???
The same as the propagating particles apart from being off mass-shell.
What do you think prompted people to try and measure the W and Z masses
and see if it matched what was suggested from beta decay data, where the
W,Z are virtual? The W and Z were predicted long before an accelerator
could produce one. If a virtual photon didn't have the almost identical
properties as that of a propagating photon, no one would have thought
to refer to the construct as such. Simply put, a propagating photon has 4
polarization states with the longitudinal and scalar parts each identically
zero so the polarizations are transverse. A virtual photon (one which is
not on mass-shell) can have longitudnal polarization and a scalar
polarization. The longitudinal part is the momentum transferred and
the scalar is coulomb interaction. In order to conserve charge, those
must make equal and opposite contibutions in the interaction, hence you
still have two overall polarizations, both transverse.
It's really a lot better if do this yourself, since it's not
paricularly easy to make the explanation concise and do it justice
in ascii. But I'm sure that will be more effort than simply
having some new excuses.
>God I just love being able to turn the table and reflect back EXACTLY
>what they have dished out to others.
Try a different newsgroup and maybe you'll get your chance.
Ken H. Seto
"Tom Roberts" <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in message
news:3BD19823...@avenew.com...
> > "real world".
>
> 1. That the aether itself is unobservable.
> That is, that it is impossible to determine the local rest frame
> which supports waves, it is dead easy to determine the rest frame
> (at least so far) in other ways: there are no measurements of its
> mass density, viscosity, elasticity, chemical composition, etc.
This is not true. You ignored the fact that the following proposed
experiment will defect the rest frame of the ether.
___________________________________________________
A Proposed Experiment to Detect the Aether Frame:
This proposed experiment is based on a new description
of space and time. It is based on the assumption that all objects in
the observer's frame are in a state of absolute motion in a stationary
aether and that this motion is detectable by this proposed experiment. The
detection of absolute motion would refute the claims of Special Theory of
Relativity (STR). Specifically it would refute the claim that all
inertial frames of reference are equivalent and that no single frame
is preferred. Also it would refute the claim that even if a preferred
aether frame exists it is redundant and not detectable experimentally.
The step-by-step procedure for this proposed experiment is as follows:
1. Two sets of cesium clocks A1, A2 and B1, B2 are located at the A
location on one end of a 100 meter long rigid rod. The 100-meter
distance is pre-determined using Einstein's procedure for measuring
distance. Also, Clocks A1 and B1 are each equiped with a light pulse
counter
2. Clocks A1 and B1 are not running and clocks A2 and B2 are running
and are synchronized.
3. Clocks B1 and B2 are slowly transported to the other end of the rod
(B's location).
4. A laser light source is at A's location and it emits a continuous
light beam and a light pulse beam. It is equipped with a shutter. The
opening and closing of the shutter will allow the continuous beam to
activate and de-activates the clocks A1 and B1. The detection areas
for the light beams at A1 and B1 are exactly 4 mm in diameter.
5. Clock A1 is activated and de-activated by the continuous beam for
exactly one second and identifies this value as Ta . The number of
pulses detected during this period is recorded and identifies this
value as Na . Clock B1 is activated and de-activated by the
continuous beam and identifies this elapsed time as Tb. The number of
pulses detected B1during this period is recorded and identifies this
value as Nb.
6. Repeat steps 1 through 5 at different times of the day.
7. Rotate the assembly to a different direction and repeat steps 1 to
6. This is designed to illustrate that the speed of light is the same
in all directions.
8. After all the experiments are completed, slow transport the B
clocks (B1 and B2) to back to the A location and compare clocks A2
and B2 to see if they are still synchronized.
The STR predictions for these proposed experiments are as follows:
Ta=Tb=1 second
Na=Nb
Clocks A2 and B2 are still synchronized.
If the aether frame exists the predictions for these proposed
experiments are as follows:
Ta=1 second and Tb<1 second
Na>Nb
Clocks A2 and B2 are still synchronized.
The relationship between Ta and Tb is as follows:
Tb=Ta*Sqrt(1-V^2/c^2).............(2.19)
Where V is the absolute motion of clock B1. After the value of Tb is
determined, the absolute motion of clock B1 can be calculated as
follows:
V=c*Sqrt((1-Tb^2/Ta^2).................(2.20)
The relationship between Na and Nb is as follows:
Nb = NaSqrt(1-V^2/c^2)............ (2.21)
Where V is the absolute motion of clock B1. After the value of is
determined, the absolute motion of clock B1 can be calculated as
follows:
V=c*Sqrt(1-Nb^2/Na^2)............... (2.24)
For a more detail description of my theory, please visit my website:
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
Ken Seto
_________________________________________________________
Matthew Nobes
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.30.01102...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <Pine.GSO.4.30.011024...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> >> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <Pine.GSO.4.30.011021...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> >> >> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course there is a 'force carrier' but one must then
> >> >> 'interpret' this as something...
> >> >
> >> > No. You don't have to ``interpret'' it as anything. There
> >> > is a field, period.
> >>
> >> And this field is 'physically' what??? Does it, or does it
> >> not have qualities that must physically exist?
> >
> > Yes, asymptotic states, for example, exist. They can be
> > measured.
> >
> > I would go further and say that the underlying field exists, but
> > attempts to visualize it as a bunch of exchanged particles is
> > flawed.
>
> On this we agree.
Then I'm not sure why you keep missing my point.
> >> That has been, is, and will continue to be the very
> >> observable aspect of the underlying medium. The air can be
> >> considered a 'field', described mathematically as several
> >> 'fields'. Pressure, temperature, ...etc. If 'fields' MUST
> >> exist to complete the physical picture, then the ether must
> >> exist, since that is in essence, what it is.
> >
> > Fine, call it what you want. I take objection to two things
> > though, first, your claim that this has any connection to the
> > historical ether.
>
> Fine, but why?
Becasue nothing about the historical ether would ever suggest
quantum mechanics.
> If you study history, the essence of the term
> aether is that which is what we now call fields.
*classical* fields, not *quantum* fields.
> Many have attempted to zero in on the particular nature of
> this ether and define its properties, but, that does not
> affect the basic underlying (starting) nature.
The higlighted words above change the starting nature radically.
> > This is just silly. And second claiming that calling a quantum
> > field ``the ether'' means anything.
>
> Please understand, philosophically the founding principle of
> the aether idea is that all fields are just different
> properties of just one aether medium. The luminiferous
> aether is also the gravitic aether which is also the material
> aether... etc.
Fine that's a wonderful *idea*. Trouble is nobody has made it
*work*. I would say Ilja's effort is the closest I've seen, but
he still doesn't have an actual *media* theory. (Of course he
has shown, that on general ground GR is not incompatible with
such a theory).
> > Who cares what you call it,
>
> All who want to give credit to those for which credit is due.
Who hasn't got credit? Maxwell? He is typically revered as the
third greatest theorist ever. Lorentz? Again, people know who
he is.
> > unless you can demonstrate and observable effect differing from
> > the standard theory, you're just playing word games.
>
> Is this not a chicken verse egg debate? The ether concept of
> fields came first, and has digressed to what is now called
> 'standard theory' the history of which shows us that the
> terms now coined were DUE to overt denial of, and a conscious
> refusal to do what you just did, acknowledge that there is no
> meaningful difference between the concepts.
There is a meaningful difference between a quantum field and the
classical ether. All I said was you can call a quantum field
whatever you want.
> >[big snip]
> >> > Perhaps more enlightening, in this vain, are the opinions of
> >> > philosophers. In his ``Interpretive Introduction to Quantum
> >> > Field Theory'', Paul Teller says while discussing the
> >> > standard `virtual particle'' interpretation of Feynman
> >> > diagrams:
> >> >
> >> > "I counsel resistance to this way of thinking, which I
> >> > take to be misleading in the extreme."
> >> >
> >> > (see his discussion on page 137).
> >> >
> >> > After providing a couple of different ``deep'' justifications for
> >> > this position Teller arrives at:
> >> >
> >> > "we must also remember that the expansion we have been
> >> > discussing is only the second-order contribution in an
> >> > approximation scheme."
> >> >
> >> > This is precisely the point I am trying to make. You can,
> >> > for example, use lattice field theory to approximate the
> >> > answer, then virtual particles never appear.
> >>
> >> Fine, where does the 'lattice' physically come from? What is
> >> responsible for its existence?
> >
> > Nothing, it's an approximation scheme as well (do you understand
> > what that means?). You missed my point. The point is virtual
> > particles don't appear in a lattice simulation.
>
> OK, let me be sure I got it right.
No, you missed my point again.
> To eliminate the conceptual need
> for VPs you 'need' posit something else, in this case, a lattice field
> theory. Thus the lattice is a necessary component, and therefore has
> a physical meaning within the framework of this rendering. This begs
> the question WHY is the lattice a necessary element. It must represent
> something physically 'real' or its presence would not be required.
> Are we to assume then that this 'something' (the presence of the lattice)
> comes from nothing? Isn't such an assumption tantamount to religious
> faith or belief in magic.
No. Come on Paul, surely you recognize the difference between an
approximation scheme and a physical theory?
The physical quantum field theory is defined by the path integral
/
Z = | D[fields] exp(-iS)
/
That's where the physics is, the approximation scheme is just
that, a way of evaluating the approximate value of Z.
Perhaps you're asking why we must use an approximation scheme?
> >> > Note that Sunny Auyang makes a similar point in his ``How is
> >> > Quantum Field Theory Possible?'', perhaps less stridently.
> >> >
> >> >> Pg 244, Vol III of "Understanding Physics"
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, what is the big difference? You need a force
> >> >> carrier, be it a ghostly aether, virtual particles, Little
> >> >> Blue Fairies, Green Turtles or something else, all of which,
> >> >> by the definition of so-called science, no system of
> >> >> measurement can detect...
> >> >
> >> > Except you want to add *TWO* layers of interpretation
> >> > instead of one. You can formulate the theory solely in terms
> >> > of quantum fields. Why does one then need to postulate an
> >> > ether upon which the quantum fields live?
> >>
> >> No, I want to do exactly the reverse. I want to remove the
> >> layer of quantum fields and say that the medium
> >> characteristics result in the behavior we are calling quantum
> >> fields. Why does one 'need it', because it may well provide
> >> the missing mechanism(s) that gives rise to the basic quantum
> >> nature, that's why.
> >
> > Wait, hold up. You're saying that a *classical* medium can give
> > rise to quantum field theory? That's just silly.
>
> Why? Classical mediums can support vorticity. Vorticity leads to
> conditions that can be described in a quantized fashion.
Partial analogies don't cut it here. Serious, just looking at
something and saying ``this is suggestive of a media theory'' is
not enough. You have to show how that media theory reduces to
the SM in some appropriate (likely long range) limit.
> >> Instead of *TWO* layers we have one that results in the basic
> >> behavior of the other. But if we refuse to even consider the
> >> possibility of this we get stuck by not attempting to see if
> >> the is, or can be, a causative foundation giving rise to
> >> quantum phenomena.
> >
> > Nobody is ``refusing to consider'' anything, since there is
> > nothing substantive to consider. I'll repeat my challenge, come
> > up with some *specific* predictions, then there will be something
> > to talk about. Relativistic QFT has many successes, have you
> > duplicated any of them?
>
> I have had several predictions from my particular concept.
Like the MMA?
> One was a component of light that had a signature speed of
> Sqrt(3)c.
This grossly violates QED.
> Another was charge has units of kg/sec. This lead to at
> least one prediction that I cannot find experimental evidence
> for or against. That is, an electron will have a signature
> thermal frequency emission Of he/3km; where e is elemental
> charge, m is the electron mass, k Boltzmann's constant, and h
> Planck's constant.
??? That's a *huge* effect by the standards of QED. I'm betting
something like that is ruled out by expeirments in the forties.
Before you made that prediction did you consider what effect it
whould have on the spectrum of Hydrogen?
> >> >> It's self centered sanctimonious arrogance that anyone
> >> >> would climb up on a soapbox and claim that the concept of
> >> >> aether is fallacious because no system of measurement can
> >> >> detect it yet accept and try to defend the virtue of, and
> >> >> claim superiority in, the idea of virtual particles.
> >
> > Just to jump in here, it is hardly arrogant to claim superiority
> > for QFT. Indeed if one looks at the number of experiments
> > explained successfully in the past 75 years such a conclusion is
> > unavoidable.
>
> Let's be clear, as I think you know I was, and am not talking about
> the mathematics of QED. I AM talking about exactly what I say,
> the aether 'concept' and the virtual particle 'concept'.
Execpt virtual particles aren't a ``concept''. They are a
convienient way of thinking about a perturbation theory
approximation.
[snip]
> >> >> Again if these terms have no physical consequences they're
> >> >> superfluous, but we both know that they must have physical
> >> >> consequence, and it's the question as to 'why' these terms
> >> >> must be, and what they must physically represent that goes
> >> >> to the core issue.
> >> >
> >> > No no no. There is no ``issue'', the terms don't have to
> >> > represent anything physical at all. They are merely nice
> >> > ways of writing down a sucessive approximation to the exact
> >> > answer. The terms in the perturbation series have no
> >> > physical consequences in and of themselves.
> >>
> >> Ah, the exponential series,
> >>
> >> 1 - x + x^2/2! - x^3/3! + x^4/4! ...
> >>
> >> is another way of writing
> >>
> >> e^-x
> >>
> >> and at least, these 'terms' converge on an answer.
> >
> >??? First off the perturbative series for a typical QFT
> >(anything realistic) doesn't converge (this is one *BIG* problem
> >with the notion of virtual particles).
>
> Which is why I said "and at least, these 'terms' converge".
But that changes the whole thing.
> > Second how does this address my point? Even if the series did
> > converge the individual terms don't have to have any particular
> > physical meaning.
>
> That's simply because I left x physically undefined. In radiation
> transport x = ut where u is the linear attenuation coefficient and
> t is the travel distance.
That's fine, but I still don't see the point. My point is that
the terms don't *have* to have physical meaning. They might,
they might not, but they don't *have* to.
> >> But, if I were to ask how and why the process of ionizing
> >> radiation transport through matter follows the general form
> >> above, these formulations tell me nothing, the terms give no
> >> enlightenment. Yet it is easy to describe narratively what
> >> happens, and why the form above results. But if you can get
> >> it back from just this equation I'd love to see how.
> >
> > You lost me.
>
> Perhaps,
No not ``perhaps'', you definately lost me.
> but the point was you cannot mine the exponential series and
> determine the physical nature of the process it describes in
> isolation.
Huh? I'm still confused. You can certainly get a ``physical''
result (i.e. a theorectical prediction, to be compared to an
experiment) from the first few terms of a QFT perturbation
series.
[snip]
> >[snip]
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >> So?
> >> >
> >> > So it speaks to the ignorance of your statements regarding
> >> > virtual particles being ``posited''.
> >>
> >> But I thought you said that modern texts have stopped using
> >> the term.
> >
> > They have, but to the extent that the concept still persists it's
> > correct as Stephen stated it.
> >
> >> Are you saying that the formulations that gave rise to the concept
> >> was wrong?
> >
> > No, you have completely misunderstood what I have said.
>
> Let's try again then. You have a formulation in which there
> are terms, these in turn give rise to the visualization we
> call virtual particles. Now how is the particular
> visualization not 'ad hoc', since as you say, One does not
> truly 'need' it?
Of course one doesn't ``need' it. Schwinger didn't use it at
all.
> >> If not, the a re-interpetation of the very same equations in
> >> which VPs aren't required would suggest otherwise, right?
> >
> > ARRGH, VIRTUAL PARTICLES WERE NEVER ``REQUIRED''. THEY WERE A
> > ****NAME**** GIVEN TO A PARTICULAR PIECE OF A FEYNAMN DIAGRAM.
>
> Along with a distinct concept, yes.
There is a physical concept that one can talk about, but it isn't
realistic (Mattuck, in his book on the diagram method, calls it
``quasi--physical''). As it generally leads to confusion most
modern books have dropped it.
> >[snip]
> >> >> For the aether envisioned by Maxwell, the so-called rest
> >> >> frame issue was never even a consideration. The entire
> >> >> foundation was Faraday's lines of force (which in subsequent
> >> >> fluid dynamics is termed streamlines) and their behavior and
> >> >> characteristics which Maxwell set out to mathematically
> >> >> describe. It is only in the narrow view of myopic
> >> >> close-minded individuals that the only property an aether
> >> >> possesses is a somehow physically uniqueness in a rest frame.
> >> >> Clearly Maxwell had no such conception.
> >> >
> >> > I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but until you can
> >> > reproduce QED with Maxwell's ether it amounts to nothing at all.
> >>
> >> But in Maxwell's theory the vortex lattice he required could
> >> well be the very same lattice you mentioned above.
> >
> > Well that lattice is an approximation scheme. Also you dodged
> > the issue. The central point is you cannot reproduce any of QED
> > with a classical aether theory.
>
> I cannot, no. But to demand that any one person reproduce
> all of the work of hundreds over a seventy year period in one
> felled swoop is a bit over the top don't you think.
Not really. All you really need to do is produce a theory which
reduces to the already known theory in some well defined limit.
Einstein did that with SR and GR.
> Especially when one is dealing with a perspective view which,
> as you acknowledged above is just another way of looking at
> the same processes.
I did not say that. I said I don't really care what you call a
quantum field. But if you want to show that it is actually a
classical system you've got a lot of work to do.
[snip]
> >> >> As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory. Is the point
> >> >> driven home yet?
> >> >
> >> > Huh? The aether ``arises from a particular way of ordering
> >> > a perturbation theory.'' That doesn't seem very physical to
> >> > me.
> >>
> >> You got it bass-ackward,
> >
> > 'fraid not, read the exchange, I said
> >
> > ``they arise from a particular way of ordering a perturbation
> > theory''
> >
> > to which you responded
> >
> > ``As does the aether medium in Maxwell's theory''
>
> I think we have a problem of details here. I responded that
> if a specific ordering a perturbation is needed or necessary
> to mathematically describe a physical process it must be
> because of something about the physical process itself.
> This is exactly the same as what Maxwell claimed, IOW the
> vortex nature WAS a requirement and the consequence of this
> was the formulations we call Maxwell's theory.
Please show me the page where Maxwell mathamtically proves that
his vortices are *required* for E&M.
Note even if he did prove this, a counterexample exisits, in that
classical E&M can be derived from QED.
> >> in any ether theory the quantum field arises from and is
> >> decribed by a particular way of ordering a perturbation
> >> theory.
> >
> > Very bizzare. So if I ordered the perturbation theory a
> > different way, I'd get a different field theory?
>
> Yes, but does this match observations?
I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about. These issues
are well known in perturbative QFT and, indeed, do match
observations.
[big snip: I guess Maxwell didn't really predict superfluidity
after all]
> >> IOW all physical manifestations are states, properties, and
> >> attributes of just one thing, the etherial medium itself
> >> (field). If otherwise you quickly see why claiming that
> >> there are distinctly different fields is like saying that
> >> pressure field in air and the density field in air are some
> >> how distinctly separate and unrelated. Thus how such a
> >> statement as "The ether is an extra layer of interpretation,
> >> which is not needed." is like saying we don't need to know
> >> the nature of air, the pressure field and all of the other
> >> measurable properties that can be described as separate
> >> fields is all that is needed...
> >
> > Now you sound like Dennis...
>
> Alas, the point is similar to some Dennis was attempting to
> make, namely if one chooses not to look at a problem from a
> certain perspective and is satisfied with disparate multiple
> fields to describe nature then they'll stop at that level.
> For them, there truly is no need to attempt to even see if
> there is an underlying nature.
But this is the mistake. I do like to think about/look for an
underlying nature. I simpley don't require it to conform to some
idea a priori.
> > Serious Paul, if such a unification can be achieved where are the
> > results? So far all we've got are your confident assertions,
> > that doesn't cut it...
>
> Can be achieved and has been achieved are to very different
> situations.
How 'bout a ``proof in principle''?
greywolf42
> greywolf42, chimpion of the pauli exclusion principle, let even
> > less understanding on the subject of Re: The mainstream name
> >of ether theory: analog model for general
> >relativity to usenet:
> >
> >"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrn9tlsb...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> pst...@ix.netcom.com said some stuff about
> >> [...]
> >> >
> >> >Oh, like virtual particles... Those are, by definition, unobservable.
> >>
> >> Oh, really? Explain inner bremmstrahlung.
> >
> >Right after you explain magnetic attractive force.
>
> In other words, you aren't interested in discovering that one can
> observe the virtual particles in an interaction directly and so you want
> to change the subject, so that when I explain magnetic forces with virtual
> photons, you can start your argument all over again by claiming they can't
> be observed. I'm not going to play. If you want to argue that virtual
> photons are not a valid way to describe something, first you prove there
> is something wrong with the evidence I just gave you to justify the
> conceptual problem you have.
virtual particle than observing magnetic attractive force is observing
the aether.
> >> >They are posited specifically to do the job earlier ascribed to the
> >> >aether. Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
> >>
> >> Virtual particles are most certainly not merely ``posited to
> >> do the job''. Explain how you think a virtual photon and a propagating
> >> photon differ.
> >
> >A propagating photon is real. The virtual photon is imaginary.
>
> I asked how, not for a summary of your opinon.
There is no virtual photon. Therefore there is no "how they differ."
You repeat your boorish question. I asked you, have you stopped
beating your wife? Yes or no!
> >The question is why one would be virtual in the first place. Aetherists
> >don't need to explain that which they don't need. The difference between
> >pp's and vp's is your problem.
>
> Then you agree it's not a problem, since I don't have a problem with
> the concept. I can quantify the effects.
You can call them virtual particles or blue fairies or angels or
anything you like. I never had a problem with your religion.
> >{snip}
> >
> >> >If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they are
> >> >superflous
> >>
> >> Then it's a good thing that virtual particles do have
> >> physical attributes.
> >
> >How do you know if you can't see one?
>
> I consider experiments designed to resolve interactions at < 10^-15 m
> to be better than my eyes at those distances, since my eyes have a limit
> of about 4 x 10^-10 m.
>
> So, according to you, nothing exists that you can't see directly,
> is that correct? Does sound work by magic, then? I can't see air.
> How about ultrasound? How about radar. Maybe you have better K-band
> and X-band vision than I do, since I have to wait until I see the
> person holding the radar gun.
??? I never mentioned "eyes." The discussion was on the distiction
between observing the effect of something that can be -- in principle
-- never observed (seen) directly.
You have claimed that aether corpuscles are a fantasy (even though
they are in principle directly observable), because YOU don't "need"
them to describe the "effect." But you postulate an ad-hoc entity
that can in principle NEVER be observed directly (virtual particle)
and claim proof of its existence by observing "effects."
You are being boorish and hypocritical.
Bilge
your opinion. The hypocrite is you. You expect everyone will go to a lot
of effort to explain something simply because you say "No it's not", yet
you will never put in the slightest effort to explain your own answer.
Answer my question and since you believe this is equivalent to an ether
explanation, explain it in terms of an ether.
>> >> >They are posited specifically to do the job earlier ascribed to the
>> >> >aether. Why not call them (virtual particles) Little Blue Faries...
>> >>
>> >> Virtual particles are most certainly not merely ``posited to
>> >> do the job''. Explain how you think a virtual photon and a propagating
>> >> photon differ.
>> >
>> >A propagating photon is real. The virtual photon is imaginary.
>>
>> I asked how, not for a summary of your opinon.
>
>There is no virtual photon. Therefore there is no "how they differ."
>You repeat your boorish question. I asked you, have you stopped
>beating your wife? Yes or no!
Any idiot can see that is not the question I asked above. If
you think virtual photons are any less "real" than propagating
ones, you must think physics treats virtual and propagating photons
as different particles. Since physics treats them both as simply
"photons", you are wrong. In your billiard ball universe, that
mneans "the particle emitted by a charge that conserves momentum
and energy. Since I cannot determine which of the two photons in
any emission process:
\ ~ propagates and which is virtual, I have no way to
\ .~ claim the two differ. You apparently do think the
| two differ. What exactly is it that I've assumed about
| virtual photons which differs from propagating photons
/ ~. that you find to be a problem? Is there something about
/ ~ this question that find problematic, apart from not
having any answer to justify your opinion?
>> >The question is why one would be virtual in the first place. Aetherists
>> >don't need to explain that which they don't need. The difference between
>> >pp's and vp's is your problem.
>>
>> Then you agree it's not a problem, since I don't have a problem with
>> the concept. I can quantify the effects.
>
>You can call them virtual particles or blue fairies or angels or
>anything you like. I never had a problem with your religion.
Except when it comes to justifying any of your objections to it
using your idea of "science".
>
>
>> >{snip}
>> >
>> >> >If virtual particles have no physical attributes then they are
>> >> >superflous
>> >>
>> >> Then it's a good thing that virtual particles do have
>> >> physical attributes.
>> >
>> >How do you know if you can't see one?
>>
>> I consider experiments designed to resolve interactions at < 10^-15 m
>> to be better than my eyes at those distances, since my eyes have a limit
>> of about 4 x 10^-10 m.
>>
>> So, according to you, nothing exists that you can't see directly,
>> is that correct? Does sound work by magic, then? I can't see air.
>> How about ultrasound? How about radar. Maybe you have better K-band
>> and X-band vision than I do, since I have to wait until I see the
>> person holding the radar gun.
>
>??? I never mentioned "eyes." The discussion was on the distiction
>between observing the effect of something that can be -- in principle
>-- never observed (seen) directly.
That means you can't "observe" light "directly", since all your
observation consists of is an inference based upon your conjectutre
that light has something to do with electric charges. Would you like
to explain the process you believe is responsible for the 2s->1s transition
in hydrogen (or any hydrogen-like atom) using your ether? (If you need
background, the transition time is much longer than the 2p->1s despite
both being an n=2 -> n=1 transition with essentially identical energies.
Here is your opportunity to use your idea of how the universe works
to explain quantitatively, how your ether can be used to conserve angular
momentum in this process.)
>You have claimed that aether corpuscles are a fantasy (even though
>they are in principle directly observable), because YOU don't "need"
>them to describe the "effect." But you postulate an ad-hoc entity
>that can in principle NEVER be observed directly (virtual particle)
>and claim proof of its existence by observing "effects."
I keep giving you "effects", which all may be measured and which
apart from being handicapped by your own bias, are free to offer an
alternative which is self-consistent with your own model. Your model
appears to involve sidestepping any direct answer.
>You are being boorish and hypocritical.
You can say whatever you like, but you are the one sidestepping
the questions. Which reminds me, you didn't answer my other (recent)
questions of why it is that mass is not a quantum mechanical parameter
in view of the fact that particle physics describes the wavefunction
of things like neutrinos with "mass eigenstates" in order to differen-
tiate them from "weak eigenstates". Note this is not a matter of
whether you agree with the usage. It's a matter of why you claim the
usage doesn't exist. If you'll recall, you asserted this to avoid
the implications involved in having to answer another question as
to why the exclusion principle would depend upon electrons all having
the same mass, which steve carlip asked you and which you also
avoided.
You are the hypocrite here. I don't intend to endlessly provide
example after example while you do nothing but say "no it isn't"
with the expectation I'm going to go find another opportunity for
you to avoid justifying your own claims. Provide some quantitative
alternative rather than trying to duck out of your own "model of
the way thibgs work". If your model is so poor that you cannot
answer any of the simple questions posed, it can't be much of a
model.
Eric Dennis
> Not really. It shows that a small group of (mostly) condensed
> matter physicists are interested in seeing if condensed matter
> physics can "mimic aspects of general relativity," which is
> stated as the "main issue" of the Workshop. Personally I find
> this work to be very interesting, but it is a _major_ stretch to
> liken this to "ether theory," at least in any form which the
> ether has been known historically.
A stretch taken by Bob Laughlin (see fractional quantum hall effect)
to the surprise and chagrin of many particle physicists in the
audience at a talk I saw a year or two ago at UCSB. He seemed to take
basically this view--i.e. that gr may ultimately arise as an effective
theory overlying a universal, cm-type medium. What else to call this
but an "ether" theory, I don't know.
Stephen Speicher
You have misunderstood Dr. Laughlin's view. He accepts
relativity as an observed fact, as well as fixed-point phenomena
as an experimental fact. As a consequence of this, he thinks
that low-energy experiments cannot reveal the underlying nature
of the equations, revealing only characteristics of the
fixed-point. In other words, until you get into a high-enough
energy range, there are no measurable consequences to the
underlying theory. Consequently, there is no reason for him to
accept relativity as being fundamental at all. In fact,
relativity then becomes a phenomenological description of
low-energy behavior, not, as you say, an "effective theory
overlying a universal, cm-type medium".
>
> What else to call this but an "ether" theory, I don't know.
>
If one were to call this an ether theory, then it would equally
apply to the standard model, and string theory as well. I have
spoken to Dr. Laughlin about this, and he thinks of the ether as
a useless concept. He has no doubt that quantum matter is
pervasive, and undoubtedly if black holes were just a phase
transition then the TOE would be revealed.
The overall lesson here is to stop carrying around the baggage of
an antiquated concept -- the ether -- and trying to "stretch" it
to fit into the modern physical realm.
Eric Dennis
> You have misunderstood Dr. Laughlin's view. He accepts
> relativity as an observed fact, as well as fixed-point phenomena
> as an experimental fact. As a consequence of this, he thinks
> that low-energy experiments cannot reveal the underlying nature
> of the equations, revealing only characteristics of the
> fixed-point.
What equations? Of course, the equations (field theory) of a
"universal, cm-type medium".
> In other words, until you get into a high-enough
> energy range, there are no measurable consequences to the
> underlying theory. Consequently, there is no reason for him to
> accept relativity as being fundamental at all. In fact,
> relativity then becomes a phenomenological description of
> low-energy behavior, not, as you say, an "effective theory
> overlying a universal, cm-type medium".
Distinction without a difference.
> If one were to call this an ether theory, then it would equally
> apply to the standard model, and string theory as well. I have
False. Neither of these involves a cm-type medium.
> spoken to Dr. Laughlin about this, and he thinks of the ether as
> a useless concept. He has no doubt that quantum matter is
> pervasive
"Quantum matter" is ambiguous: cm-type medium or just a run of the
mill quantum field? Of course it is possible that I and others
misunderstood Laughlin at Santa Barbara, and that he has more clearly
conveyed his views to you, no doubt at a Gordon conference you
attended together as colleagues.
> The overall lesson here is to stop carrying around the baggage of
> an antiquated concept -- the ether -- and trying to "stretch" it
> to fit into the modern physical realm.
No need to stretch it. Just like there was no need to stretch the
concept "light" after Planck et al. showed us it was more than what
met Maxwell's eye.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > You have misunderstood Dr. Laughlin's view. He accepts
> > relativity as an observed fact, as well as fixed-point
> > phenomena as an experimental fact. As a consequence of this,
> > he thinks that low-energy experiments cannot reveal the
> > underlying nature of the equations, revealing only
> > characteristics of the fixed-point.
>
> What equations? Of course, the equations (field theory) of a
> "universal, cm-type medium".
>
Why do you persist on superimposing your views on the ideas of
others? It was _you_ who appealed to the ideas of Dr. Laughlin
in support of your view, yet you do not understand his ideas.
Have you read any of his papers?
> > In other words, until you get into a high-enough energy
> > range, there are no measurable consequences to the underlying
> > theory. Consequently, there is no reason for him to accept
> > relativity as being fundamental at all. In fact, relativity
> > then becomes a phenomenological description of low-energy
> > behavior, not, as you say, an "effective theory overlying a
> > universal, cm-type medium".
>
> Distinction without a difference.
>
A distinction made with understanding.
> > If one were to call this an ether theory, then it would
> > equally apply to the standard model, and string theory as
> > well. I have
>
> False. Neither of these involves a cm-type medium.
>
Again, you are disagreeing with the ideas of Dr. Laughlin. Why
did you appeal to a man whose ideas you do not understand? These
are almost Dr. Laughlin's exact words.
> > spoken to Dr. Laughlin about this, and he thinks of the
> > ether as a useless concept. He has no doubt that quantum
> > matter is pervasive
>
> "Quantum matter" is ambiguous: cm-type medium or just a run of
> the mill quantum field? Of course it is possible that I and
> others misunderstood Laughlin at Santa Barbara, and that he has
> more clearly conveyed his views to you, no doubt at a Gordon
> conference you attended together as colleagues.
>
I do not know if any others at UCSB misunderstood Dr. Laughlin (I
doubt it), but it is clear you have so misunderstood. As a
matter of fact, I showed Dr. Laughlin just what you wrote, and
that is exactly what he said: You misunderstood.
If you like I can make more explicit quotes, but I think your
time would be better served by reading, and learning from, some
of Dr. Laughlin's papers. You might want to start with the dual
pair of papers in the January 4 2000 of the PNAS, Volume 97, No.
1. Both "The Theory of Everything" paper, and "The Middle Way"
paper, are applicable here.
> > The overall lesson here is to stop carrying around the
> > baggage of an antiquated concept -- the ether -- and trying
> > to "stretch" it to fit into the modern physical realm.
>
> No need to stretch it. Just like there was no need to stretch
> the concept "light" after Planck et al. showed us it was more
> than what met Maxwell's eye.
>
I will amend what I wrote: There is a second overall lesson to be
learned here. The lesson is, when you make an appeal to
authority -- a Nobel Laureate no less -- one should know
beforehand whether the ideas of that authority coincide with
one's own.
fishics
an aspect of some supreme "theory of everything" simply because it
correctly describes our current low-energy experience. As an
illustration, he gives ^3He, which exhibits low-energy quasi-particles
isomorphic to Dirac fermions etc. From my somewhat vague recollection of
his talk, I took him as presenting the concrete possibility that a
cm-type medium may underlie particle physics, so that e.g. the standard
model (and even relativity itself) is just an effective theory emerging
from the more fundamental physics of that medium. You claim that
Laughlin takes the moral of the story as something more abstract, that
the standard model etc. is an effective theory, but emerging from
something that is not necessarily a cm-type medium.
I'm not certain what Laughlin's position is, as the PNAS refs were not
specific on that issue (and I would find it quite funny if he actually
took *you* seriously enough to spend time discussing his views on
physics). However the evidence he presents (low-energy behavior of ^3He)
is obviously suggestive of *both* positions.
Personally, I don't think nothingness exists, which is to say I don't
think "pure vacuum" exists. So I think the space in between matter that
is currently considered "empty" must actually be occupied by some kind
of stuff. Usually people just reify the concept of "space" or
"spacetime" viewed as a substance in itself which possesses various
attributes (a metric etc.). But another possibility is a cm-type medium,
which might just as well be referred to by its politically incorrect
name "ether".
Of course, you disagree. You think that space is filled with things
called "elementary waves" as per the peculiar local hidden variables
"theory" of Lewis Little (http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW). But no need to
delve again into that miasma.
Stephen Speicher
removing from archival history any reference to his name. I
have now rectified that.
I have only one comment, regarding Eric Dennis' gratuitous and
pretentious insult.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, fishics wrote:
> I would find it quite funny if he actually took *you* seriously
> enough to spend time discussing his views on physics.
>
Dr. Robert Laughlin -- a Nobel Laureate -- is a really nice guy.
Robert Laughlin shared a 1998 Nobel prize with Horst Stoermer and
Daniel Tsui for their earlier work at Bell Laboratories on what
is now known as the fractional quantum Hall effect.
Despite his accomplishments and the associated prestige, Dr.
Laughlin remains neither pretentious nor affected; he is
accessible and he is interested in ideas, especially his own. :)
I have noticed, over the years, that men who achieve a degree of
mental stature as a result of true self-confidence, have no need
of pretense, and no need to elevate themselves above others.
Robert Laughlin is such a man.
By contrast, there is Eric Dennis.
p.s. Just for the record, I have never claimed to be a colleague
(as Dennis intimated) or a personal friend of Dr. Laughlin, but I
have communicated with him and I find him to be an absolutely
charming man. When I showed Dr. Laughlin what Eric Dennis wrote
-- without personal comment -- Dr. Laughlin stated that Dennis
"misunderstood," and he proceeded to discuss the issue in some
depth. Dr. Laughlin's detailed explanation was exactly the
position I had understood him to take, having read many of his
most interesting papers.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for
>generalrelativity to usenet:
>Laughlin argues that we cannot assume relativity (among other things) as
>an aspect of some supreme "theory of everything" simply because it
>correctly describes our current low-energy experience.
No, but we can assume that any theory which gives the wrong
predictions cannot be correct.
> As an illustration,
>he gives ^3He, which exhibits low-energy quasi-particles isomorphic to
>Dirac fermions etc.
But this is no big deal. This is basically saying that, for the
forces involved, you have bound objects with total S=1/2 which
couple to other bound objects with total S=1/2 rather than some
other jj coupling scheme because it's energetically favorable to
do so. As soon as that is no longer true, which will be the case
when the center of momentum energy in a collision is on the order
of the binding energy, 3He will act like 2p1n.
> From my somewhat vague recollection of his talk, I
>took him as presenting the concrete possibility that a cm-type
>medium may underlie particle physics, so that e.g. the standard model
>(and even relativity itself) is just an effective theory emerging
>from the more fundamental physics of that medium. You claim that
>Laughlin takes the moral of the story as something more abstract,
>that the standard model etc. is an effective theory, but emerging
>from something that is not necessarily a cm-type medium.
There are probably quite a lot of useful analogies from condensed
matter that apply to gravitation and the standard model. Many are
employed in the standard model. The concept of symmetry breaking not
only applies to both condensed matter and the standard model, but
the fact that BCS theory is a workng example, provides a lot of reason
to believe in field theory, upon which the standard model is built.
I can't say about gravity - it seems to be disdained to some degree.
However there is a fundamental difference in condensed matter and a
truly fundamental theory. In dealing with an underlying medium in
real condensed matter, you have an energy reference to the outside
world where all of the particles in the medium originate.
>took *you* seriously enough to spend time discussing his views on
>physics). However the evidence he presents (low-energy behavior
>of ^3He) is obviously suggestive of *both* positions.
I don't see how that helps. If you take apart a composite fermion,
all you get are more fermions, so you still have the same problem.
Eric Dennis (aka fishics)
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> Eric Dennis assumes a pseudonym (fis...@yahoo.com), thereby
> removing from archival history any reference to his name. I
> have now rectified that.
Actually that was an accident. I am "fishics" and have no reason to hide
that.
> I have only one comment, regarding Eric Dennis' gratuitous and
> pretentious insult. [...]
> I have noticed, over the years, that men who achieve a degree of
> mental stature as a result of true self-confidence, have no need
> of pretense, and no need to elevate themselves above others.
> Robert Laughlin is such a man.
>
> By contrast, there is Eric Dennis.
For the record: I make fun of Speicher because in previous dealings I
have found him to be an
intellectual fraud, not because I have any desire to "elevate" myself
above him (see
http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/ed1_quantum_dissidents.htm and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP).
Eric Dennis
> >he gives ^3He, which exhibits low-energy quasi-particles isomorphic to
> >Dirac fermions etc.
>
> But this is no big deal. This is basically saying that, for the
> forces involved, you have bound objects with total S=1/2 which
> couple to other bound objects with total S=1/2 rather than some
> other jj coupling scheme because it's energetically favorable to
That and the fact that the dynamics is given by the Dirac equation.
> There are probably quite a lot of useful analogies from condensed
> matter that apply to gravitation and the standard model. Many are
> employed in the standard model. The concept of symmetry breaking not
> only applies to both condensed matter and the standard model, but
> the fact that BCS theory is a workng example, provides a lot of reason
> to believe in field theory, upon which the standard model is built.
> I can't say about gravity - it seems to be disdained to some degree.
> However there is a fundamental difference in condensed matter and a
> truly fundamental theory. In dealing with an underlying medium in
> real condensed matter, you have an energy reference to the outside
> world where all of the particles in the medium originate.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. If a hypothetical cm-type medium
does fill up all space, there would never be a bare particle outside this
medium in "empty" space, except by our imagination.
> >physics). However the evidence he presents (low-energy behavior
> >of ^3He) is obviously suggestive of *both* positions.
>
> I don't see how that helps. If you take apart a composite fermion,
> all you get are more fermions, so you still have the same problem.
The point is not that the underlying cm theory would necessarily involve
composite fermions (i.e. fermions made up of fermions). It's just that it's
possible to get e.g. relativistic invariance emerging through renormalization
out of a system that is not invariant on the fundamental level.
Stephen Speicher
> I guess that ends the physics portion of this sub-thread.
>
There never was a "physics portion" to this thread, at least
regarding the contribution due to Eric Dennis. Dennis made an
appeal to authority, and was mistaken in the content of his
appeal. I pointed this out to Dennis, and even the authority to
whom he appealed said that Dennis "misunderstood."
Rather than face up to these simple facts, Dennis instead is
defensive and abusive. Indeeed, so much for physics.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>
>> >he gives ^3He, which exhibits low-energy quasi-particles isomorphic to
>> >Dirac fermions etc.
>>
>> But this is no big deal. This is basically saying that, for the
>> forces involved, you have bound objects with total S=1/2 which
>> couple to other bound objects with total S=1/2 rather than some
>> other jj coupling scheme because it's energetically favorable to
>
>That and the fact that the dynamics is given by the Dirac equation.
>
>> There are probably quite a lot of useful analogies from condensed
>> matter that apply to gravitation and the standard model. Many are
>> employed in the standard model. The concept of symmetry breaking not
>> only applies to both condensed matter and the standard model, but
>> the fact that BCS theory is a workng example, provides a lot of reason
>> to believe in field theory, upon which the standard model is built.
>> I can't say about gravity - it seems to be disdained to some degree.
>> However there is a fundamental difference in condensed matter and a
>> truly fundamental theory. In dealing with an underlying medium in
>> real condensed matter, you have an energy reference to the outside
>> world where all of the particles in the medium originate.
>
>I'm not sure I understand your objection. If a hypothetical cm-type medium
>does fill up all space, there would never be a bare particle outside this
>medium in "empty" space, except by our imagination.
from the interactions of particles that are not a part of that system.
Once the system isformed, you have effective masses of the quasi-particles.
The condensed matter forms only because the condensed matter state is
lower energy than the free particle state. But you have no such reference
if the entire universe is the condensed matter. You have no reason to
expect a fermi surface. Go read about dirac's "hole theory" and note what
you have to postulate to obtain the equivalent of a fermi surface. I can't
imagine anything but an abstraction of the condensed matter being a
consideration.
>
>> >physics). However the evidence he presents (low-energy behavior
>> >of ^3He) is obviously suggestive of *both* positions.
>>
>> I don't see how that helps. If you take apart a composite fermion,
>> all you get are more fermions, so you still have the same problem.
>
>The point is not that the underlying cm theory would necessarily involve
>composite fermions (i.e. fermions made up of fermions). It's just that it's
>possible to get e.g. relativistic invariance emerging through renormalization
>out of a system that is not invariant on the fundamental level.
Sorry. I don't think so. In fact, that seems rather perverse. You're
suggesting nature introduced a deliberate obfuscation in the way of
relativity and quantum mechanics to hide a fundamental level which looks
just like the one we see around us, until you reach scales in which the
obfuscation is more evident than the reality. Personally, I think the idea
as you've outlined it is one of the few condensed matter analogies that is
totally inappropriate in the context of a fundamental theory. If that is
typical of a condensed matter approach, I have some idea of why it hasn't
caught on.
Eric Dennis
> That's my objection. The fermi surface in condensed matter originates
> from the interactions of particles that are not a part of that system.
> Once the system isformed, you have effective masses of the quasi-particles.
> The condensed matter forms only because the condensed matter state is
> lower energy than the free particle state. But you have no such reference
> if the entire universe is the condensed matter. You have no reason to
> expect a fermi surface.
Fermi liquids are not only stable in comparison to a bunch of free particle
states--they are also stable (under the right conditions) relative to any generic
other condensed state you could cook up.
> Go read about dirac's "hole theory" and note what
> you have to postulate to obtain the equivalent of a fermi surface.
Are you referring to the negative energy sea? That's specific to the Dirac
equation.
> >The point is not that the underlying cm theory would necessarily involve
> >composite fermions (i.e. fermions made up of fermions). It's just that it's
> >possible to get e.g. relativistic invariance emerging through renormalization
> >out of a system that is not invariant on the fundamental level.
>
> Sorry. I don't think so. In fact, that seems rather perverse. You're
> suggesting nature introduced a deliberate obfuscation in the way of
> relativity and quantum mechanics to hide a fundamental level which looks
> just like the one we see around us, until you reach scales in which the
> obfuscation is more evident than the reality.
Hold on. I'm not suggesting Lorentz's old ether from 1900 or anything like that as
the underlying theory, if that's what you mean. I'm thinking of some modern cm
field theory. That such a thing may underlie relativity is no more an act of
obfuscation on the part of nature than the fact that low-energy ^3He exhibits
Dirac fermion-like quasi-particles, which is the only claim I'm making.
Ken H. Seto
"Eric Dennis" <ede...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:3BEC4B7C...@princeton.edu...
> Hold on. I'm not suggesting Lorentz's old ether from 1900 or anything like
that as
> the underlying theory, if that's what you mean. I'm thinking of some
modern cm
> field theory. That such a thing may underlie relativity is no more an act
of
> obfuscation on the part of nature than the fact that low-energy ^3He
exhibits
> Dirac fermion-like quasi-particles, which is the only claim I'm making.
I think that you will be interested in my decription of a medium filling up
all of space. Please visit my website
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html for a full description of this
medium. It could explain such experiments as the double slit experiment, the
photoelectric experiment, the Comption shift experiment. Also it could
explain Quantum entanglement.
Ken Seto
>
Eric Dennis
> There never was a "physics portion" to this thread, at least
> regarding the contribution due to Eric Dennis. Dennis made an
False. You simply chose not to respond to my arguments ("fishics" post).
Good bye.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>Bilge wrote:
>> The condensed matter forms only because the condensed matter state is
>> lower energy than the free particle state. But you have no such reference
>> if the entire universe is the condensed matter. You have no reason to
>> expect a fermi surface.
>
>Fermi liquids are not only stable in comparison to a bunch of free
>particle states--they are also stable (under the right conditions)
>relative to any generic other condensed state you could cook up.
Note the requirement of "right conditions". Now re-read the paragraph
I wrote and you'll notice that you essentially summarized it.
>
>> Go read about dirac's "hole theory" and note what
>> you have to postulate to obtain the equivalent of a fermi surface.
>
>Are you referring to the negative energy sea? That's specific to the
>Dirac equation.
We _are_ talking about fermions, are we not?
>> Sorry. I don't think so. In fact, that seems rather
>> perverse. You're suggesting nature introduced a deliberate
>> obfuscation in the way of relativity and quantum mechanics
>> to hide a fundamental level which looks just like the one we
>> see around us, until you reach scales in which the obfuscation
>> is more evident than the reality.
>
>Hold on. I'm not suggesting Lorentz's old ether from 1900 or anything like
>that as the underlying theory, if that's what you mean. I'm thinking of
>some modern cm field theory. That such a thing may underlie relativity is
>no more an act of obfuscation on the part of nature than the fact that
>low-energy ^3He exhibits Dirac fermion-like quasi-particles, which is the
>only claim I'm making.
If that's the case, why not use a more appropriate example that shows
the effect on geometry directly? Many field theory books introduce
symmetry breaking with the infinite ferromagnet. Above the curie
temperature, the symmetry is SO(3). At the curie temperature, the
spontaneous alignment breaks down the SO(3) to SO(2). You also get a new
interaction in the form of spin waves. If you then look at the standard
model, SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), you'll find lot's of the language is quite a bit
like that in condensed matter - symmetry breaking is used interchangeably
with "phase transition". In fact, the entire point of the excersise is to
show these forces are low energy limits of a single quantity. It just
happens to be considerably more difficult, if for no other reason, the
examples which you suggest are all based on E&M, which happens to be
extremely simple compared to gravity, the weak interaction and the strong
interaction.
The abstraction works just fine, until you try obtaining the masses of
the "effective quasi-particles" as you would like to think of the
electron, muon, etc. In real condensed, you have a real electron mass
and a vector interaction (E&M), from which to start. These are well-known
parameters. When talknig about the universe, you have the dirac equation.
And you don't even know if neutrinos are dirac or majorana particles.
If you look at the standard model, practically every free parameter is
is either a fermion mass or a mixing angle for the masses. The KM
6 quarks, 6 leptons, \theta_w, the 3 mixing angles and phase of the
KM matrix and with the neutrino masses, a new set of mixing angles.
Every one of these is related to the fermion masses. None of these is
likely to be addressed in the type of scheme you appear to be describing.
However, I think you also might me suggesting, yet another layer to
peel back, in which case I would like to ask, why? What indication is
there that a more fundamental level exists "underneath the vacuum" so to
speak? That only removes the issue you want to avoid one level deeper.
Condensed matter probably has a lot to offer as far as insight goes, but
it's quite likely the main reason would be for whatever insight it offers
in linking gravity to the vacuum. The weak, strong and E&M interactions
already have a well tested theoretical description, which, short of any
real condensed matter, is pretty much condensed matter-like.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>
>news:3BEC4B7C...@princeton.edu...
>
>> Hold on. I'm not suggesting Lorentz's old ether from 1900 or anything like
>that as
>> the underlying theory, if that's what you mean. I'm thinking of some
>modern cm
>> field theory. That such a thing may underlie relativity is no more an act
>of
>> obfuscation on the part of nature than the fact that low-energy ^3He
>exhibits
>> Dirac fermion-like quasi-particles, which is the only claim I'm making.
>
>I think that you will be interested in my decription of a medium filling up
>all of space. Please visit my website
right before your eyes.
>medium. It could explain such experiments as the double slit experiment,
Uh, quantum mechanics already explains this.
> the photoelectric experiment,
This, too.
>the Comption shift experiment. Also it could
Relativity and quantum mechanics explain this.
> explain Quantum entanglement.
Which was predicted by quantum mechanics as a consequence of the
theory. Why exactly do you think that you have a better description
than the theory that predicts it as an inescapable consequence? You
don't ny any chance have any NEW predictions to add that compare
with the, say, transistor do you? My guess is that you'll be lucky
to handwave fire, water, earth and air and at best predict beer and
pizza as the fifth and sixth.
Stephen Speicher
False. There never were any "arguments" from Eric Dennis. Dennis
made an assertion in response to my post, an outright appeal to
authority, and was mistaken in the content of his appeal. I
pointed this out to Dennis, and even the authority to whom he
appealed said that Eric Dennis "misunderstood."
Rather than face up to these simple facts, Eric Dennis instead
became defensive and abusive.
> Good bye.
>
Good riddance.
Etherman
> Ken H. Seto said some stuff about
> Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
> >relativity to usenet:
> >
> >"Eric Dennis" <ede...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3BEC4B7C...@princeton.edu...
> >
> >> Hold on. I'm not suggesting Lorentz's old ether from 1900 or
anything like
> >that as
> >> the underlying theory, if that's what you mean. I'm thinking of
some
> >modern cm
> >> field theory. That such a thing may underlie relativity is no
more an act
> >of
> >> obfuscation on the part of nature than the fact that low-energy
^3He
> >exhibits
> >> Dirac fermion-like quasi-particles, which is the only claim I'm
making.
> >
> >I think that you will be interested in my decription of a medium
filling up
> >all of space. Please visit my website
>
> Where voodoo, spell-casting and tall tales become pseudoscience
> right before your eyes.
Ken couldn't cast a shadow.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
RAFC
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
"I know that I don't know you
And you cannot know me
But time and space collided
And here we are."
--Fates Warning
Eric Dennis
is straightforward and unrefuted. SR invariance can arrise through
renormalization from a fundamentally non-invariant cm system. The point is
obviously that if SR invariance can arise that way, it's a good bet so can GR
covariance.
Bilge wrote: [a bunch of stuff I can't see the point in]
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>I don't know if you just like arguing for the hell of it or what. What
>I've said is straightforward and unrefuted. SR invariance can arrise
You haven't said anything apart from your belief that relativity
can be explained by condensed matter, while you've basically used
relativity to make the claim or did you think that using the E&M
interaction, which is already gauge invariant, was somehow not presuming
anything?
>through renormalization from a fundamentally non-invariant cm system.
Since special relativity represents an invariance which is
only manifest in an a massless universe, you have the cause and
effect backwards.
>The point is obviously that if SR invariance can arise that way,
>it's a good bet so can GR covariance.
You haven't shown that it can, so your bet is not that good.
>
>Bilge wrote: [a bunch of stuff I can't see the point in]
>
Which says a lot about what you think it means to obtain special
relativity from condensed matter. You appear to have interpreted
some abstraction as literal condensed matter.
Eric Dennis
> You haven't said anything apart from your belief that relativity
> can be explained by condensed matter, while you've basically used
> relativity to make the claim or did you think that using the E&M
> interaction, which is already gauge invariant, was somehow not presuming
> anything?
Oh gee, I guess the fact that the ^3He Hamiltonian has EM interactions in
it means it must be Lorentz invariant. Actually, no.
You are trying very hard not to understand what I'm saying. I have no
desire to continue.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> A stretch taken by Bob Laughlin (see fractional quantum hall
>> effect) to the surprise and chagrin of many particle physicists
>> in the audience at a talk I saw a year or two ago at UCSB. He
>> seemed to take basically this view--i.e. that gr may ultimately
>> arise as an effective theory overlying a universal, cm-type
>> medium.
>
> You have misunderstood Dr. Laughlin's view. He accepts
> relativity as an observed fact, as well as fixed-point phenomena
> as an experimental fact. As a consequence of this, he thinks
> that low-energy experiments cannot reveal the underlying nature
> of the equations, revealing only characteristics of the
> fixed-point. In other words, until you get into a high-enough
> energy range, there are no measurable consequences to the
> underlying theory. Consequently, there is no reason for him to
> accept relativity as being fundamental at all. In fact,
> relativity then becomes a phenomenological description of
> low-energy behavior, not, as you say, an "effective theory
> overlying a universal, cm-type medium".
I see not much difference here. Certainly the common position is that
there is no reason to accept relativity as being fundamental at all.
As long as we have no experiments to see the underlying structure, we
are bound to speculate about the underlying theory.
In such a situation it is reasonable to look for the simplest choice.
Why not for classical cm-type theories? My GET is an attempt in this
direction.
> If one were to call this an ether theory, then it would equally
> apply to the standard model, and string theory as well.
The standard model is relativistic, so it doesn't fit.
> The overall lesson here is to stop carrying around the baggage of an
> antiquated concept -- the ether -- and trying to "stretch" it to fit
> into the modern physical realm.
Of course, there is no need to stretch the ether word. But if people
consider seriously possibilities for condensed matter analogons of/for
general relativity where is no stretch at all.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> , http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
>> As an illustration,
>> he gives ^3He, which exhibits low-energy quasi-particles isomorphic to
>> Dirac fermions etc.
> But this is no big deal. This is basically saying that, for the
> forces involved, you have bound objects with total S=1/2 which
> couple to ...
The question is not if it is a big or a small deal to explain
relativistic symmetry as a non-fundamental, derived large distance
effect.
The question is if such symmetries appear in condensed matter, and if
it is possible to use a similar effect for an underlying cm-type
theory to explain relativistic symmetry of our world.
> There are probably quite a lot of useful analogies from condensed
> matter that apply to gravitation and the standard model. Many are
> employed in the standard model. The concept of symmetry breaking not
> only applies to both condensed matter and the standard model, but
> the fact that BCS theory is a workng example, provides a lot of reason
> to believe in field theory, upon which the standard model is built.
> I can't say about gravity - it seems to be disdained to some degree.
Fine.
> However there is a fundamental difference in condensed matter and a
> truly fundamental theory. In dealing with an underlying medium in
> real condensed matter, you have an energy reference to the outside
> world where all of the particles in the medium originate.
I don't understand this.
Ilja Schmelzer
> I don't know if you just like arguing for the hell of it or what. What I've said
> is straightforward and unrefuted. SR invariance can arrise through
> renormalization from a fundamentally non-invariant cm system. The point is
> obviously that if SR invariance can arise that way, it's a good bet so can GR
> covariance.
See gr-qc/0104013
Eric Dennis
> See gr-qc/0104013
I am aware of your work and find it interesting. Question: is your decomposition
equivalent to the ADM decomposition in harmonic coordinates?
Eric
Ilja Schmelzer
>> See gr-qc/0104013
> I am aware of your work and find it interesting. Question: is your decomposition
> equivalent to the ADM decomposition in harmonic coordinates?
Yep.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>
>> You haven't said anything apart from your belief that relativity
>> can be explained by condensed matter, while you've basically used
>> relativity to make the claim or did you think that using the E&M
>> interaction, which is already gauge invariant, was somehow not presuming
>> anything?
>
>Oh gee, I guess the fact that the ^3He Hamiltonian has EM interactions in
>it means it must be Lorentz invariant. Actually, no.
>You are trying very hard not to understand what I'm saying.
I know what you are trying to say and I didn't have to try very hard to
understand why your analogy is insufficient. I told you why, as well, but
you didn't try very hard to see why it was relavent, since you stated flat
out that you didn't think that it was.
>I have no desire to continue.
I have no desire for you to continue, either.
Eric Dennis
> Oh, gee. I guess these don't fall of as 1/r.
So what, if they do?
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>>> As an illustration,
>>> he gives ^3He, which exhibits low-energy quasi-particles isomorphic to
>>> Dirac fermions etc.
>
>> But this is no big deal. This is basically saying that, for the
>> forces involved, you have bound objects with total S=1/2 which
>> couple to ...
>
>The question is not if it is a big or a small deal to explain
>relativistic symmetry as a non-fundamental, derived large distance
>effect.
>
>The question is if such symmetries appear in condensed matter, and if
>it is possible to use a similar effect for an underlying cm-type
>theory to explain relativistic symmetry of our world.
already have forces and particles with masses. You can't start with E&M
and charged particles, since those are essentially what you are trying
to explain.
>
>> There are probably quite a lot of useful analogies from condensed
>> matter that apply to gravitation and the standard model. Many are
>> employed in the standard model. The concept of symmetry breaking not
>> only applies to both condensed matter and the standard model, but
>> the fact that BCS theory is a workng example, provides a lot of reason
>> to believe in field theory, upon which the standard model is built.
>> I can't say about gravity - it seems to be disdained to some degree.
>
>Fine.
>
>> However there is a fundamental difference in condensed matter and a
>> truly fundamental theory. In dealing with an underlying medium in
>> real condensed matter, you have an energy reference to the outside
>> world where all of the particles in the medium originate.
>
>I don't understand this.
In the real world of condensed matter, I have a fermi-function,
[exp(-(E-u)/kT + 1]. I can use this function because I have an external
reference for T=0. It means something already. I have fermions with
electric charges and dipole moments already. I have a well defined
interaction. All of these have some relationship. The new particle masses
and the effective interaction I get all depend upon these things. Your
fermi-sea of effective fermions does not have to be infinitely deep.
Contrast this with the need to generate the interaction and hence the
electron mass and whatever you plan to do about a photon. The original
idea of dirac's that was known as "hole" theory is what you are faced
with. Any condensed matter theory involving fermions has a "fermi sea".
The difference between condensed matter that obtains the quasi-particle
masses from existing particles, an effective interaction from an existing
interaction and a condensed matter theory that has to contend with
obtaining masses and an interaction from first principles is exactly
what dirac had to contend with. Your fermi surface is the vacuum.
Ordinary condensed matter theoriees start at the vacuum (at least)
and end up with a fermi surface some finite distance above it.
If all you are doing is removing the problem one step to an existing
vacuum, with possibly different particles, have you looked at the limits
for composite leptons? Searches for composite leptons have been going on
for decades and lots of theories, most notably those which contain the
buzzword, technicolor, have their hats in the ring, waiting for bigger
accelerators. The mass limits are not really model dependent. Either you
have enough energy to see the constituents or you don't. The potential
well binding such "heavy leptons" is also not particularly model dependent,
at least as far as a minimum goes. Either you take in all of the mass
except for 0.511 MeV consistent with the previous requirement, or you
don't have an electron. You'll have to check to see what the latest is,
but you're looking at constituents of 100+ TeV, with a well that is deep
enough to leave a 1/2 MeV electron after you add composites + BE.
That places your effective interaction in the 100 TEV regime, since
obviously, your condensed matter has to yield quai-particles that look
like electrons and "phonons" that look like photons.
If you are starting with electrons as a given, then I'm afraid I can't
see what you want to do. The real challenge is to explain the electron
(and other lepton) masses. Almost all of the free parameters in the model
are the fermion masses, so being able to explain any of them with a
different condensed matter model would gain quite a lot of interest. That
aspect also would seem to have the most applicability with respect to
relativity, and hence to what you want to do.
This is what I was getting at in a different thread when I made
a comment regarding something at the quantum level which was complimentary
to GR. I would think the regime for what you are wanting to do, i.e.,
explain relativity, is obtain the masses of the fermions which are your
"effective masses". That would seem to place you in a position to then
place the entire standard model on top of your "effective theory", aka
special relativity. (I'm assuming you have no objection to using SR
as an effective interaction). The standard model itself has quite a
lot in common with condensed matter theories -- It does what condensed
matter theories do, just a more so and I can't see that you'd object to
using it in that way. You can look at it as having a phase transition
in which the universe ends up with new effective fields in the "condensate",
i.e., the weak and E&M, which are built over the hypercharge.
The reference I mentioned before had a section which I had thought
quite applicable, since it involve transport in regimes where relativity
ran into some difficulty and covariance was obtained as a sort of
"effective" interaction by transforming to an accelerated frame. This
gives a different efffective mass but a distance to the fermi surface
which decreases as the electron accelerates, however, in your case,
you have a fermi surface which could fall at the same rate, since this
is the entire universe, so, I had thought it might be of some interest.
If this is not the sort of thing you are after, then I really
am not sure what it is you are attempting to do. When I think of
condensed matter, I think of fermi surfaces or condensates, phase
transitions, shells, etc. Your contribution to the relativity faq
involving bogolons and a bogoliubov transformation, for example.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>
>> Oh, gee. I guess these don't fall of as 1/r.
>
>So what, if they do?
What is they? I thought you had no desire to continue.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> But this is no big deal. This is basically saying that, for the
>>> forces involved, you have bound objects with total S=1/2 which
>>> couple to ...
>> The question is not if it is a big or a small deal to explain
>> relativistic symmetry as a non-fundamental, derived large distance
>> effect.
>> The question is if such symmetries appear in condensed matter, and if
>> it is possible to use a similar effect for an underlying cm-type
>> theory to explain relativistic symmetry of our world.
> That misses the point. In ordinary condensed matter theories, you
> already have forces and particles with masses. You can't start with
> E&M and charged particles, since those are essentially what you are
> trying to explain.
No. What I try to explain in condensed matter theory is condensed
matter, its speed of sound, its types of excitations and so on. To
explain all these properties, we do not need much from EM theory.
A few particles (electron, proton, neutron) and non-relativistic
Schrödinger theory seems sufficient.
What I try to explain in ether theory is GR+SM. If the explanation
based on the ether is of comparable simplicity, that would be nice.
> If all you are doing is removing the problem one step to an existing
> vacuum, with possibly different particles, have you looked at the
> limits for composite leptons?
I do not want composite leptons.
Imagine I would have to model the SM on a computer. I use a
discretization and compute what happens. Now, this implementation
defines already a (quite artificial) model of the type I imagine: the
lattice of the computation are the ether particles. There are no
electrons (a lecture we have learned from semiclassical gravity),
there is only an electron field discretized in some way on this grid.
That's all classical. If we quantize these equations, phonons arize.
Electrons will be some type of such phonons, ether particles the grid
nodes. You see, in this concept the ether particles have nothing to
do with electrons.
Numerical formulas are usually quite simple: u(i,t+1) =
f(u(i,t),u(i+1,t),...). The job is to make this implementation as
simple as possible. Sometimes it is useful to look at it from the
other end. Implement some simple equation in a simple way, and
observe what happens. Often shit happens, that means, what you
compute is something different. Now, this "something different" is
worth to look at, maybe its a simple implementation of a complex
equation. If such a way the SM appears starting with something
simpler that would be really cool.
Using GET I already know that I have to use a moving grid with
velocity g^0i/g^00 and node density g^00 sqrt(-g), and I know how to
obtain the EEP. It remains to understand how fermions and gauge
fields appear. It seems, I'm close to understanding fermions, wait for
a paper.
> If you are starting with electrons as a given, then I'm afraid I can't
> see what you want to do.
That's certainly not the way I think about.
> This is what I was getting at in a different thread when I made
> a comment regarding something at the quantum level which was complimentary
> to GR. I would think the regime for what you are wanting to do, i.e.,
> explain relativity, is obtain the masses of the fermions which are your
> "effective masses". That would seem to place you in a position to then
> place the entire standard model on top of your "effective theory", aka
> special relativity. (I'm assuming you have no objection to using SR
> as an effective interaction).
The SM has to appear together with gravity in a concrete ether model,
as an effective classical condensed matter theory. In GET I show how
to obtain a metric theory of gravity with EEP in such a way. But
there are a lot of unspecified "material properties" of the ether
which should be identified with the SM.
> The standard model itself has quite a lot in common with condensed
> matter theories -- It does what condensed matter theories do, just a
> more so and I can't see that you'd object to using it in that
> way. You can look at it as having a phase transition in which the
> universe ends up with new effective fields in the "condensate",
> i.e., the weak and E&M,
I agree.
Eric Dennis
> >> Oh, gee. I guess these don't fall of as 1/r.
> >
> >So what, if they do?
>
> What is they?
I assumed you were referring to EM interactions in the ^3He Hamiltonian.
> I thought you had no desire to continue.
Your response was cryptic. I am curious as to whether it's a bluff.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model
>for general relativity to usenet:
Gee, that's what I assumed you were doing when you
skipped everything in order to write "gee..." a few posts
back. You had plenty of material to which you could have
responded in order to accomplish that. When all you do
is carry on about how some model is supporting contention,
without ever making anything very concrete as to how,
you don't give me muuch to work with. What's could I
possibly be bluffing about? sheesh.
Eric Dennis
> Eric Dennis said some stuff about
> Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model
> >for general relativity to usenet:
> >Bilge wrote:
> >
> >> >> Oh, gee. I guess these don't fall of as 1/r.
> >> >
> >> >So what, if they do?
> >>
> >> What is they?
> >
> >I assumed you were referring to EM interactions in
> >the ^3He Hamiltonian.
>
> >> I thought you had no desire to continue.
> >
> >Your response was cryptic. I am curious as to whether
> >it's a bluff.
>
> Gee, that's what I assumed you were doing when you
> skipped everything in order to write "gee..." a few posts
> back. You had plenty of material to which you could have
> responded in order to accomplish that. When all you do
material re: the question of deriving standard model particle masses
from some specific cm model I haven't proposed...that's not my point. My
point concerns simply whether or not the fact that relativity seems
fundamental to current (low energy) experiments is strong evidence that
it's also fundamental to whatever underlying physics is operative at
much higher energies--physics we expect on account of the fact that the
SM doesn't include gravity.
> is carry on about how some model is supporting contention,
> without ever making anything very concrete as to how,
> you don't give me muuch to work with. What's could I
> possibly be bluffing about? sheesh.
About the relevance of EM interactions falling off as 1/r to the fact
that an underlying non-Lorentz invariant Hamiltonian gives rise to
emergent, Lorentz invariant behavior.
Bilge
you have no idea what generating fermion masses has to do with anything,
so apparently you have no idea what you even need to explain. Basically,
you heard a speaker somewhere and misunderstood the subject.
>> is carry on about how some model is supporting contention,
>> without ever making anything very concrete as to how,
>> you don't give me muuch to work with. What's could I
>> possibly be bluffing about? sheesh.
>
>About the relevance of EM interactions falling off as 1/r to the fact
>that an underlying non-Lorentz invariant Hamiltonian gives rise to
>emergent, Lorentz invariant behavior.
I've given you an explanation. You didn't think any of it was
relavent. Get back to me in a couple of decades.
Eric Dennis
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
> >> Go read about dirac's "hole theory" and note what
> >> you have to postulate to obtain the equivalent of a fermi surface.
> >
> >Are you referring to the negative energy sea? That's specific to the
> >Dirac equation.
>
> We _are_ talking about fermions, are we not?
"Fermions" does not mean "particles that obey the Dirac equation"
> interaction in the form of spin waves. If you then look at the standard
> model, SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), you'll find lot's of the language is quite a bit
> like that in condensed matter - symmetry breaking is used interchangeably
> with "phase transition". In fact, the entire point of the excersise is to
> show these forces are low energy limits of a single quantity. It just
False. Just writing down unrelated sets of quantum numbers via a
direct product does not magically link them into one unified force.
That would require a GUT, which is pure speculation with zero
experimental evidence.
> happens to be considerably more difficult, if for no other reason, the
> examples which you suggest are all based on E&M, which happens to be
> extremely simple compared to gravity, the weak interaction and the strong
> interaction.
"extremely simple" i.e. abelian--so what? Gravity doesn't even belong
on the list at present, being incommensurable.
>
> The abstraction works just fine, until you try obtaining the masses of
> the "effective quasi-particles" as you would like to think of the
> electron, muon, etc. In real condensed, you have a real electron mass
> and a vector interaction (E&M), from which to start. These are well-known
> parameters. When talknig about the universe, you have the dirac equation.
> And you don't even know if neutrinos are dirac or majorana particles.
> If you look at the standard model, practically every free parameter is
> is either a fermion mass or a mixing angle for the masses. The KM
> 6 quarks, 6 leptons, \theta_w, the 3 mixing angles and phase of the
> KM matrix and with the neutrino masses, a new set of mixing angles.
> Every one of these is related to the fermion masses. None of these is
> likely to be addressed in the type of scheme you appear to be describing.
News flash: you can submit whatever theory with whatever new set of
fields, with or without whatever mass terms you want, so long as it
has SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) as a low energy effective theory. How do I
explain the new masses if such are necessary? I DON'T. THAT'S NOT MY
POINT. MY POINT IS SIMPLY THAT THE LORENTZ INVARIANCE OF THE STANDARD
MODEL DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE NEW THEORY MUST BE LORENTZ INVARIANT.
>
> However, I think you also might me suggesting, yet another layer to
> peel back, in which case I would like to ask, why? What indication is
> there that a more fundamental level exists "underneath the vacuum" so to
gravity
> speak? That only removes the issue you want to avoid one level deeper.
> Condensed matter probably has a lot to offer as far as insight goes, but
> it's quite likely the main reason would be for whatever insight it offers
> in linking gravity to the vacuum. The weak, strong and E&M interactions
If you already know the answer, why ask the question?
> already have a well tested theoretical description, which, short of any
> real condensed matter, is pretty much condensed matter-like.
Hmm. No mention of how the presence of 1/r interactions in the
emergent Lorentz invariance of ^3He in any way alters the potential
analogy between that and the Lorentz invariance of the standard model.
Furthermore, there was little of any relevance to the simple point I
was making, which stands on it own, whatever who said in which talk.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
Please do.
>
>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>
>> >> Go read about dirac's "hole theory" and note what
>> >> you have to postulate to obtain the equivalent of a fermi surface.
>> >
>> >Are you referring to the negative energy sea? That's specific to the
>> >Dirac equation.
>>
>> We _are_ talking about fermions, are we not?
>
>"Fermions" does not mean "particles that obey the Dirac equation"
What does it mean, then?
>> interaction in the form of spin waves. If you then look at the standard
>> model, SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), you'll find lot's of the language is quite a bit
>> like that in condensed matter - symmetry breaking is used interchangeably
>> with "phase transition". In fact, the entire point of the excersise is to
>> show these forces are low energy limits of a single quantity. It just
>
>False. Just writing down unrelated sets of quantum numbers via a
>direct product does not magically link them into one unified force.
Well, that would be true if those quantum numbers were unrelated.
But they aren't.
>That would require a GUT, which is pure speculation with zero
>experimental evidence.
Ever hear of CVC? Why it's important? How it's tested? How it
fits into the electroweak?
>> happens to be considerably more difficult, if for no other reason, the
>> examples which you suggest are all based on E&M, which happens to be
>> extremely simple compared to gravity, the weak interaction and the strong
>> interaction.
>
>"extremely simple" i.e. abelian--so what?
Apparently you don't know much about the standard model.
> Gravity doesn't even belong
>on the list at present, being incommensurable.
Just because it hasn't been included doesn't imply it can't be.
50 years ago there wasn't a list. Gravity just doesn't happen to be
a yang-mills theory. The problem you face is worse, since it includes
the same problems that gravity has in the standard model, except you
don't have a theory for anything else, either.
[...]
>> KM matrix and with the neutrino masses, a new set of mixing angles.
>> Every one of these is related to the fermion masses. None of these is
>> likely to be addressed in the type of scheme you appear to be describing.
>
>News flash: you can submit whatever theory with whatever new set of
>fields, with or without whatever mass terms you want, so long as it
>has SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) as a low energy effective theory.
And that's exactly what you don't seem to comprehend. How exactly
can you quantify your effective interaction as the result of some
other interaction if you can't construct the effective interaction
from it?
> How do I
>explain the new masses if such are necessary? I DON'T. THAT'S NOT MY
>POINT. MY POINT IS SIMPLY THAT THE LORENTZ INVARIANCE OF THE STANDARD
>MODEL DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE NEW THEORY MUST BE LORENTZ INVARIANT.
I did't say that it did. I said that you have end up with something that
looks that way and explains why the standard model works, since after all,
it does work.
>>
>> However, I think you also might me suggesting, yet another layer to
>> peel back, in which case I would like to ask, why? What indication is
>> there that a more fundamental level exists "underneath the vacuum" so to
>
>gravity
If particle masses were germane to anything, gravity would be it.
So, you need an effective force which has the properties of a 2nd rank
tensor, but only includes two polarization states (however you choose
to look at it). Explain the most simple-minded construct you might
use. Need a hint?
>> speak? That only removes the issue you want to avoid one level deeper.
>> Condensed matter probably has a lot to offer as far as insight goes, but
>> it's quite likely the main reason would be for whatever insight it offers
>> in linking gravity to the vacuum. The weak, strong and E&M interactions
>
>If you already know the answer, why ask the question?
I'm not. I'm questioning your claim about condensed matter as an effective
interaction, which seems extremely naive.
>> already have a well tested theoretical description, which, short of any
>> real condensed matter, is pretty much condensed matter-like.
>
>Hmm. No mention of how the presence of 1/r interactions in the
>emergent Lorentz invariance of ^3He in any way alters the potential
>analogy between that and the Lorentz invariance of the standard model.
The 1/r dependence of a potential implies mediation by a massless
particle through the requirement of gauge invariance. All you've
described is a momentum condensate from a shortrange effective
interaction which owes its existence to eliminating the 1/r dependence
of the E&M force. 3He is a neutral atom. Furthermore, you haven't
even explained what this has to do with a force of any kind.
>Furthermore, there was little of any relevance to the simple point I
>was making, which stands on it own, whatever who said in which talk.
You would have been better off using the BCS theory of superconductors
as an example. So far your example is indeed irrelavent, since you haven't
suggested what plays the roles of the effective "charges" and the effective
mediators of the interaction you haven't specified.
Ilja Schmelzer
> That misses the point. In ordinary condensed matter theories, you
> already have forces and particles with masses. You can't start with E&M
> and charged particles, since those are essentially what you are trying
> to explain.
How an ether theory of the SM should look like can be seen now
in hep-lat/0111057.
I describe there a quite simple model: a cubic lattice. On this
lattice, the natural steps of freedom are distortions. I postulate a
simple first order evolution equation for them, which leads to the
d'Alembert equation.
The specifics of lattice equations ("fermion doubling problem") create
2^4 = 16 steps of freedom out of one, together with the three
coordinates we obtain six fermions in three families, a doublet in
each family. Thus, all I need to obtain the whole set of fermions of
the SM is one sort of ether atom for leptons and three for quarks.
Then we can think about connection to gauge fields. The nice
observation is that in this scheme gamma^5 becomes a shift operator
and (1+gamma^5)A psi appears in a natural way for an interaction with
gauge fields inside the doublet.
Thus, what I start with are (hopefully) simple equations for an "ether
crystal". These equations give, in the large distance limit, the
equations of the SM. Nothing quantum yet, this is true in classical
as well as quantum theory.
The large distance field equations may, then, be quantized. This can
be done, as well, for the crystal itself - which defines a classical
theory in a Newtonian background (Hamilton formalism and so on) and a
discrete number of steps of freedom. IOW, a regularization which
follows some simple general scheme (lattice regularization, on metric
background with a moving lattice in ADM decomposition with harmonic
metric with density and velocity defined by g^00\sqrt{-g} and
g^0i/g^00).
The particles we observe appear now as quantum effects of the field
equations - that means, like phonons in condensed matter theory, which
have nothing to do with the atoms of a crystal.
> [in cm theory] Your fermi-sea of effective fermions does not have to
> be infinitely deep. Contrast this with the need to generate the
> interaction and hence the electron mass and whatever you plan to do
> about a photon. The original idea of dirac's that was known as
> "hole" theory is what you are faced with.
I have a regularized lattice theory, so I'm not afraid of infinities.
Why should the Dirac see be infinitely deep in a lattice
regularization?
> If all you are doing is removing the problem one step to an existing
> vacuum, with possibly different particles, have you looked at the limits
> for composite leptons?
The approach is in no way related with composite leptons. Atoms of a
crystal are not parts of phonons.
> If you are starting with electrons as a given, then I'm afraid I
> can't see what you want to do.
I don't.
> The real challenge is to explain the electron (and other lepton)
> masses.
Ok, the masses are future yet, but I think explaining three fermion
generations and doublets with V-A chiral interactions with the
simplest imaginable ether crystal model is a nice start.
I can already predict something: the neutrino is a standard Dirac
particle, and there will be only three families.
Eric Dennis
> >> We _are_ talking about fermions, are we not?
> >
> >"Fermions" does not mean "particles that obey the Dirac equation"
>
> What does it mean, then?
particles obeying fermi statistics
> >False. Just writing down unrelated sets of quantum numbers via a
> >direct product does not magically link them into one unified force.
>
> Well, that would be true if those quantum numbers were unrelated.
> But they aren't.
last time I checked SU3,2,1 had 3 independent gauge coupling constants
> >That would require a GUT, which is pure speculation with zero
> >experimental evidence.
>
> Ever hear of CVC? Why it's important? How it's tested? How it
> fits into the electroweak?
yes, somewhat
> >> happens to be considerably more difficult, if for no other reason, the
> >> examples which you suggest are all based on E&M, which happens to be
> >> extremely simple compared to gravity, the weak interaction and the strong
> >> interaction.
> >
> >"extremely simple" i.e. abelian--so what?
>
> Apparently you don't know much about the standard model.
Apparently you don't know much about reading comprehension. It occurs to me that by a
"cm-type" theory you think I mean something arising only from E&M. Obviously that's a
shot in the pan. All I mean by "cm-type" is a field theory ("with whatever new set of
fields") arrising from some sort of space-filling continuum or lattice of stuff, as
opposed to a bunch of stray particles wandering around in the "vacuum".
> And that's exactly what you don't seem to comprehend. How exactly
> can you quantify your effective interaction as the result of some
> other interaction if you can't construct the effective interaction
> from it?
> I'm not. I'm questioning your claim about condensed matter as an effective
> interaction, which seems extremely naive.
> of the E&M force. 3He is a neutral atom. Furthermore, you haven't even explained
> what this has to do with a force of any kind.
> as an example. So far your example is indeed irrelavent, since you haven't
> suggested what plays the roles of the effective "charges" and the effective
> mediators of the interaction you haven't specified.
see above
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>
>> >> We _are_ talking about fermions, are we not?
>> >
>> >"Fermions" does not mean "particles that obey the Dirac equation"
>>
>> What does it mean, then?
>
>particles obeying fermi statistics
of (A) 1/2 (B) 1
[and integer steps with the proper matrices.]
(choose 1)
The dirac equation describes particles of spin (A) 1/2 (B) 1
(choose 1)
>
>> >False. Just writing down unrelated sets of quantum numbers via a
>> >direct product does not magically link them into one unified force.
>>
>> Well, that would be true if those quantum numbers were unrelated.
>> But they aren't.
>
>last time I checked SU3,2,1 had 3 independent gauge coupling constants
Go read something before simply throwing out jargon. Get back
to me when you have a detailed objection that makes sense.
>
>> >That would require a GUT, which is pure speculation with zero
>> >experimental evidence.
>>
>> Ever hear of CVC? Why it's important? How it's tested? How it
>> fits into the electroweak?
>
>yes, somewhat
Then maybe you should check a little further and see what it has
to do with linking E&M and the weak interaction.
>
>> >> happens to be considerably more difficult, if for no other reason, the
>> >> examples which you suggest are all based on E&M, which happens to be
>> >> extremely simple compared to gravity, the weak interaction and the
>> >> strong interaction.
>> >
>> >"extremely simple" i.e. abelian--so what?
>>
>> Apparently you don't know much about the standard model.
>Apparently you don't know much about reading comprehension.
Well, I do, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and
refrained from saying "knew nothing about the standard model".
>It occurs to me that by a "cm-type" theory you think I mean something
>arising only from E&M.
Apparently that occured to you wrong. If it's not too much effort,
read the paragraph right above the spot where you mistakenly use
"abelian". Note that I say "the examples you suggest are all based upon
E&M". Every time I ask for an exaample, you say 3He. Which I have yet
to figure out how you think this answers anything.
>Obviously that's a shot in the pan. All I mean by "cm-type" is a
>field theory ("with whatever new set of fields") arrising from some sort
>of space-filling continuum or lattice of stuff, as opposed to a bunch of
>stray particles wandering around in the "vacuum".
Well, I'm waiting. Now we're back to post number 1, except you've
added a lot of jargon. In particular, this last paragraph is not only
bizaare, but rather ironic, considering how similar a fermi surface is
to the vacuum. You should have said that you "prefer the stuff you
want wandering around the vacuum rather than the other stuff". Go
read about semiconductors. Look at a fermi function. Figure out
what the parameters in the exponent mean. Go study a nuclear physics
book. When you figure out what a "particle-hole excitation" means
in: (A) an atomic shell, (2) Nuclear shell, (3) semiconductor,
(4) quantum vacuum, get back to me. Unless you don't see any
similarities, in which case, try again.
>
>> And that's exactly what you don't seem to comprehend. How exactly
>> can you quantify your effective interaction as the result of some
>> other interaction if you can't construct the effective interaction
>> from it?
>
>> I'm not. I'm questioning your claim about condensed matter as an effective
>> interaction, which seems extremely naive.
>
>> of the E&M force. 3He is a neutral atom. Furthermore, you haven't even
>> explained what this has to do with a force of any kind.
>
>> as an example. So far your example is indeed irrelavent, since you haven't
>> suggested what plays the roles of the effective "charges" and the effective
>> mediators of the interaction you haven't specified.
>
>see above
Why? All of that was wrong. Basically, it doesn't look like you really
know what you're trying to argue, since I could argue your point of view
better than you've managed to do. You can keep plugging away if you wish.
Eric Dennis
> The dirac equation describes particles of spin (A) 1/2 (B) 1
> (choose 1)
Crack open an intro logic text and look up "affirming the consequent". Next try a
QFT book, and find that the spin-statistics thereom requires the premise of
Lorentz invariance. While you're there you might pick up the bonus insight that
it's possible to have spin 1/2 fields not described by the Dirac equation. Wow,
what a pleasing form of argument that is. I can see why you love it so much.
> >last time I checked SU3,2,1 had 3 independent gauge coupling constants
>
> Go read something before simply throwing out jargon. Get back
> to me when you have a detailed objection that makes sense.
3 physically independent gauge couplings, 3 physically independent sets of gauge
fields (which happen to get mixed up when SU2,1 is broken, but that doesn't make
them any less 3 independent sets of gauge fields). What part of that don't you
understand?
> >> Ever hear of CVC? Why it's important? How it's tested? How it
> >> fits into the electroweak?
> >
> >yes, somewhat
>
> Then maybe you should check a little further and see what it has
> to do with linking E&M and the weak interaction.
I assume you're referring to the fact that the eletric charge, U(1) charge, and
SU(2) charge satisfy certain relations. That's just because the electric charge
here is purely redundant information. U(1) and SU(2) charges are no less
independent for it.
> >It occurs to me that by a "cm-type" theory you think I mean something
> >arising only from E&M.
>
> Apparently that occured to you wrong. If it's not too much effort,
> read the paragraph right above the spot where you mistakenly use
> "abelian". Note that I say "the examples you suggest are all based upon
Mistakenly? I was referring to QED, not the electro part of the electroweak.
> E&M". Every time I ask for an exaample, you say 3He. Which I have yet
> to figure out how you think this answers anything.
What you have been repeatably unable to grasp is that I'm not proposing ^3He as
something underlying the standard model. I'm simply citing it as a case of
emergent Lorentz invariance. And saying, yet again, *this implies we should not
necessarily expect new theories to be relativistically invariant* just because our
current low energy observations are and the standard model is.
No, I don't expect that to sink in any more on the 17th time than on the 16th.
>
>
> >Obviously that's a shot in the pan. All I mean by "cm-type" is a
> >field theory ("with whatever new set of fields") arrising from some sort
> >of space-filling continuum or lattice of stuff, as opposed to a bunch of
> >stray particles wandering around in the "vacuum".
>
> Well, I'm waiting. Now we're back to post number 1, except you've
> added a lot of jargon. In particular, this last paragraph is not only
> bizaare, but rather ironic, considering how similar a fermi surface is
> to the vacuum. You should have said that you "prefer the stuff you
> want wandering around the vacuum rather than the other stuff". Go
Profound. Definite tombstone material.
> read about semiconductors. Look at a fermi function. Figure out
> what the parameters in the exponent mean. Go study a nuclear physics
> book. When you figure out what a "particle-hole excitation" means
> in: (A) an atomic shell, (2) Nuclear shell, (3) semiconductor,
> (4) quantum vacuum, get back to me. Unless you don't see any
> similarities, in which case, try again.
Are you that totally comitted to acheiving a rhetorical advantage that you refuse
to acknowledge the difference between a big chunck of semiconductor and a couple
of interacting particles? I realize the fact that the field equations and a whole
bunch of consequences look similar on paper, but you know they aren't just
scribbles on paper, they actully refer to stuff in reality.
> Why? All of that was wrong. Basically, it doesn't look like you really
> know what you're trying to argue, since I could argue your point of view
> better than you've managed to do. You can keep plugging away if you wish.
Perhaps you could. Then again my experience with pointless newsgroup polemics must
pale in comparison to your own.
Stephen Speicher
> Bilge wrote:
>
> > Why? All of that was wrong. Basically, it doesn't look like
> > you really know what you're trying to argue, since I could
> > argue your point of view better than you've managed to do.
> > You can keep plugging away if you wish.
>
> Perhaps you could.
Not _just_ could, but Bilge already did. If Dennis knew more
about physics, he would have caught this humorous fact.
> Then again my experience with pointless newsgroup polemics must
> pale in comparison to your own.
>
Rather doubtful. Dennis, new to this group, is batting two out of
two in conversational physics which spirals into the toilet, a
feat that a real physicist like Bilge could never hope to match.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>> That misses the point. In ordinary condensed matter theories, you
>> already have forces and particles with masses. You can't start with E&M
>> and charged particles, since those are essentially what you are trying
>> to explain.
>
>How an ether theory of the SM should look like can be seen now
>in hep-lat/0111057.
>
>I describe there a quite simple model: a cubic lattice. On this
>lattice, the natural steps of freedom are distortions. I postulate a
>simple first order evolution equation for them, which leads to the
>d'Alembert equation.
>
>The specifics of lattice equations ("fermion doubling problem") create
>2^4 = 16 steps of freedom out of one, together with the three
>coordinates we obtain six fermions in three families, a doublet in
>each family. Thus, all I need to obtain the whole set of fermions of
>the SM is one sort of ether atom for leptons and three for quarks.
I'll have to look at it some more before I can say much.
>Then we can think about connection to gauge fields. The nice
>observation is that in this scheme gamma^5 becomes a shift operator
>and (1+gamma^5)A psi appears in a natural way for an interaction with
>gauge fields inside the doublet.
That part, I do have questions about, although the answers may be in
the paper and I didn't see it. The weak interaction is V-A, and you have
a doublet. There should also be an electron singlet, since the E&M
interaction isn't chiral. The second question concerns your particular
use of (1+\gamma^5), for your definition of \gamma^5 to represent a
vector - axial vector. Why doesn't it represent a scalar - psuedoscalar
and why not both? I can construct 5 quantities, scalars, pseudoscalars,
vectors, pseudovectors and a pseudotensor. The chirality of the weak
interaction is not necessarily represented as V-A. This, in fact had
to be sorted out and is _not_ tied to the mathematics of the dirac
equation. Fierz reordering allows a completely different set of equivalent
couplings to be obtained from the substitution \psi -> \gamma^5\psi
for the (massless) neutrino wavefunction. If I write the possible
couplings as:
C_{i} ({\overbar\psi}_{p}\Gamma^{i}\psi_{n})
({\overbar\psi}_{e}\Gamma^{i}\psi_{\nu})
Where the \Gamma^{i} are now the 16 real matricies formed by
the combinations of the \gamma^{\mu} from the dirac equation,
the index i corresponds to the 5 bilinear covariants in the
theory, S,P,V,A,T. If I write just the couplings in a form
that may be used to satisfy the requirement imposed by parity
violation, I get:
\Gamma^{i} (C_{i} + \gamma^5\C'_{i})
between the electron and (massless) neutrino wf. This allows
one to _choose_ couplings C_{i} for i = S,P,T = 0 and C_{V} = -C_{A}.
This is _only_ a special case and it's possible to satisfy the
the theory in a number of ways. Based upon the assumption that the
above \Gamma matricies represent the scalar, pseudoscalar, etc from
the lorentz covariance of the dirac equation, one may construct
a scheme to choose between the possibilities. The outcome of a V-A
theory results from looking for fierz interference experimentally,
not the mathematics inherent to the dirac equation, therefore I
don't see that it can be inherent to your theory either.
What I don't see is the connection of your \gamma^5 to \beta decay
and chirality. Your \gamma^5 changes an even parity state to an odd
parity state (or vice-versa), shifted by a lattice spacing. Strictly
speaking, it changes an electron on a lattice site to a positron
on an adjacent lattice site or vice-versa and the same for neutrinos/
anti-neutrinos. The fact that you don't have an interpretation for
the projections is a problem. In beta-decay, (1-\gamma^5) changes a
right-handed anti-neutrino into a left-handed electron. (Assuming a
massless neutrino). The introduction of a neutrino mass complicates
the problem and leads to another question.
The exact V-A form of the theory hinges on either of two possibilities,
though there may be otherways to accomplish it. Either the neutrino is
massless and nature chose a particular chirality, or else the neutrino
is a majorana particle. Experiments have searched for years to find some
indication of a right-handed weak current, but without success. If the
neutrino is a dirac particle, then the V-A can't be exact since the
exact chirality occurs for the same reason that photons have definite
helicities - lorentz invariance. If the neutrino has a mass, then a
frame may be found in which the helicity of the neutrino changes sign.
Given the appearance of a neutrino mass, the options are reduced. What
I don't see is how the (1+/-\gamma^5) on your lattice relates to
the possible physical interpretations here.
>Thus, what I start with are (hopefully) simple equations for an "ether
>crystal". These equations give, in the large distance limit, the
>equations of the SM. Nothing quantum yet, this is true in classical
>as well as quantum theory.
That part I also find curious. You start with a relativistic wave
equation and quantum mechanics (the dirac equation) on an abstract lattice
and then define it to be a classical crystal? Come on. The entire point of
pursuing this approach was to give classical "reality" to the
abstractions. What it appears is happening, is that you are gradually
abstracting your ether. I made a comment previously which I don't recall
exactly, but had something to do with where I thought a solid state model
would fit and that I didn't think you were taking advantage of those
things that made a solid state approach attractive, to which you replied
that you didn't understand what I meant. I didn't really know how to
explain it, but I think this is the basic point. What you are constructing
in order to make the model work is not a physical ether, but an
abstraction of one. I believe that the more you have to impose physical
contraints on interpretations, the less physical the non-observable
quantities will become, until ultimately, they are indistinguishable from
those things to which quantum mechanics gives no physical meaning.
Already this is apparent further below.
>The large distance field equations may, then, be quantized. This can
>be done, as well, for the crystal itself - which defines a classical
>theory in a Newtonian background (Hamilton formalism and so on) and a
>discrete number of steps of freedom. IOW, a regularization which
>follows some simple general scheme (lattice regularization, on metric
>background with a moving lattice in ADM decomposition with harmonic
>metric with density and velocity defined by g^00\sqrt{-g} and
>g^0i/g^00).
>
>The particles we observe appear now as quantum effects of the field
>equations - that means, like phonons in condensed matter theory, which
>have nothing to do with the atoms of a crystal.
Oh, yes they do. The dispersion relation for phonons in a simple
monatomic lattice, with atoms of mass m at the lattice sites, is
w^2 = (2/m)\sum A_n(1-cos(nkd)), where w = freq, m = mass of atom,
k = wave number and d = lattice spacing. (choose a polyatomic lattice
if you wish, the argument is the same). If you pass to the continuum
limit so that w^2 = A_n(1/m)(nkd)^2, then either the mass and lattice
spacing matters or else it doesn't. If it doesn't then the reason is
that becomes part of the normalization A_n, essentially by forcing d->0
and m->0, in which case the crystal is superfluous. There are an
infinite number of lattice sites, with a mass of 0.
>> [in cm theory] Your fermi-sea of effective fermions does not have to
>> be infinitely deep. Contrast this with the need to generate the
>> interaction and hence the electron mass and whatever you plan to do
>> about a photon. The original idea of dirac's that was known as
>> "hole" theory is what you are faced with.
>
>I have a regularized lattice theory, so I'm not afraid of infinities.
>Why should the Dirac see be infinitely deep in a lattice regularization?
You don't. But a lattice calculation isn't a real crystal lattice,
either. I don't have a problem with picking one or the other and basing a
model on whichever one you choose, but I think when constructing a model
to satisfy your criteria of physical reality, you should have to interpret
everything that goes into the reality. The problem I have isn't the model,
per se, it's the convenience with which reality comes and goes between
describing the assumptions and getting the results, which could be done
just as easily with just about any model and when you discussed bohmian
mechanics as relating to classical realism, the reality that is missing in
the interpretation would be the very thing you object to. Quantum
mechanics solves that problem by simply declaring anything that cannot be
measured in principle to have no physical meaning. That is not one of your
options without abandoning bohmian mechanics. There is nothing wrong with
eliminating something that represents an inifinity if it doesn't mean
anything. There is a problem with eliminating an infinity that does mean
something but is inconvenient. The dirac sea doesn't mean anything
physical. It's infinitely deep, it's filled with particles and
anti-particles that can't interact because the photons from anihilation
aren't on mass-shell and therefore aren't observable. Quantum mechanics
doesn't require me to give these things any physical significance.
>> If all you are doing is removing the problem one step to an existing
>> vacuum, with possibly different particles, have you looked at the limits
>> for composite leptons?
>
>The approach is in no way related with composite leptons.
Ok. I'll take your word for it. I'm trying to figure out exactly
what the physical interpetation of all of this is.
>Atoms of a crystal are not parts of phonons.
But they are. As mentioned above, the dispersion relation for
phonons in a monatomic lattice is:
w^2 = (2/m)\sum A_n (1-cos nkd)
The `m' is the mass of the atom sitting at a site in the crystal
lattice. The phonons are intimately tied to what sits at the lattice
sites. Every possible effective interaction that I can think of, depends
upon one or more properties of whatever occupies the lattice sites.
Those properties are what defines the effective interaction of the
phonon.
>> If you are starting with electrons as a given, then I'm afraid I
>> can't see what you want to do.
>
>I don't.
>
>> The real challenge is to explain the electron (and other lepton)
>> masses.
>
>Ok, the masses are future yet, but I think explaining three fermion
>generations and doublets with V-A chiral interactions with the
>simplest imaginable ether crystal model is a nice start.
>I can already predict something: the neutrino is a standard Dirac
>particle, and there will be only three families.
I need to understand how the quaternions figure into all of this
first to see how this is a prediction. It's not clear that the physical
interpretation follows.
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model
>for general relativity to usenet:
>
>> The dirac equation describes particles of spin (A) 1/2 (B) 1
>
>> (choose 1)
>
>Crack open an intro logic text and look up "affirming the consequent".
>Next try a QFT book, and find that the spin-statistics thereom requires
>the premise of Lorentz invariance. While you're there you might pick
>up the bonus insight that it's possible to have spin 1/2 fields not
>described by the Dirac equation.
This is really too much. If you recall, my original reference
to the dirac equation was with regard to the dirac sea, which you
claimed was specific to the dirac equation. Well, no. It's specific
to fermions actually, which is what gave dirac the impetus to use
the construct which is what saved it from the same fate as the
klein-gordon equation -- lack of interpretation. So, apart from you
lacking any example of fermions which don't meet the criteria of
being described by the dirac equation, it would seem that is rather
irrelavent to the rteason you are trying to argue about it in the
first place. Your criteria of satisfying the spin-statistics theorem
is exactly what you were trying to evade by telling me that the
dirac sea was specific to the dirac equation. In your case, you can
insist all you want that it isn't, since the dirac sea is a feature
of fermi statistics which was appropriated by dirac, not a consequence
of the dirac equation.
What was that you were saying about "affirming the consequent"?
There's another person in this newsgroup that you should collborate
with who digs up the canonical list of logical fallacies and applies
them after removing enough context so that it fits if no one looks
at the thread, which brings up:
> Wow, what a pleasing form of argument that is. I can see why you
>love it so much.
Now that you've broken your arm patting yourself on the back,
perhaps you can use the good one to get your foot out of your mouth.
>> >last time I checked SU3,2,1 had 3 independent gauge coupling constants
>>
>> Go read something before simply throwing out jargon. Get back
>> to me when you have a detailed objection that makes sense.
>
>3 physically independent gauge couplings, 3 physically independent sets
>of gauge fields (which happen to get mixed up when SU2,1 is broken, but
>that doesn't make them any less 3 independent sets of gauge fields). What
>part of that don't you understand?
Or perhaps that foot is stuck. The part where you said:
">> False. Just writing down unrelated sets of quantum numbers via a
>> direct product does not magically link them into one unified force."
And I replied:
">Well, that would be true if those quantum numbers were unrelated.
But they aren't."
Which it would appear you just insisted was indeed the case. I mean
the question was never how many of anything and which you with 3 seem to
be a few quantum numbers short, considering that there were 19 free
parameters before the mass for the neutrino was discovered and the total
with massive neutrinos adds 7 more possible parameters. Now, some of these
were exactly the ones I tried to point out would be particularly relevant
to a condensed matter approach, but which you simply ignored with the
comment that you didn't see why anything I said mattered. Those would
be the 6 lepton masses and the 6 quark masses. Especially in view of
your babbling on about gravity. Apparently you agree, you're just don't
realize it and are trying to prove me wrong by restating what I said
originally, as if it were news.
I don't care if there are a zillion free parameters, the issue was
in regard to whether I "magically linked them into one unified force",
which it appears you are trying to change into a completely different
argument. Sorry. No sale. By stating "which happen to get mixed up..."
you just made my point, because experiments measure predictions of
how they get "mixed up".
>> >> Ever hear of CVC? Why it's important? How it's tested? How it
>> >> fits into the electroweak?
>> >
>> >yes, somewhat
>>
>> Then maybe you should check a little further and see what it has
>> to do with linking E&M and the weak interaction.
>
>I assume you're referring to the fact that the eletric charge,
>U(1) charge, and
The U(1) charge is not the electric charge, hence dispelling your
notion still further about "magical linking via a direct product".
There is a 'Y' that is implied as a subscript on the U(1) just as
everyone knows there's an L (for left) that goes with the SU(2).
I leave it as an excercise for you figure out what they 'Y' is for
and what it has to do with anything, but I'll save you the effort
of telling me it means "hypercharge" to avoid having you pass off
the jargon as knowing what it means.
>SU(2) charge satisfy certain relations. That's just because the
None of which you know, so I'll include a few.
>electric charge here is purely redundant information. U(1) and SU(2)
>charges are no less independent for it.
No, it isn't redundant information. The electric charge, e is given
by:
e = g sin(\theta_w) or g' cos(\theta_w)
and the mass of the W and Z have to satisfy:
Mass W/Mass Z = cos(\theta_w)
while g' and g have to satisfy:
tan(\theta_w) = g'/g
Go ahead, try to claim there is no relationship implied here and
the measured masses of the W and Z were just lucky speculation, leaving
this no better than simply declaring E&M and the weak interaction to
be unrelated. Now, go see how the charge operator might possibly link
the quark sector into all of this.
>
>> >It occurs to me that by a "cm-type" theory you think I mean something
>> >arising only from E&M.
>>
>> Apparently that occured to you wrong. If it's not too much effort,
>> read the paragraph right above the spot where you mistakenly use
>> "abelian". Note that I say "the examples you suggest are all based upon
>
>Mistakenly? I was referring to QED, not the electro part of the electroweak.
Then you shouldn't be arguing about gauge fields related to the
something else. I merely pointed out that the standard model had a
number of properties that very much like condensed matter and the
symmetry breaking can be treated as a phase transition. You brought up
the rest of the crap and if you think you are just arguing about qed,
you are really confused. Either don't bring up something irrelavent
to offset the fact that you didn't understand the point or else
put up with results of your legerdemain. I'm happy either way
you dig yourself in.
>
>> E&M". Every time I ask for an exaample, you say 3He. Which I have yet
>> to figure out how you think this answers anything.
>
>What you have been repeatably unable to grasp is that I'm not proposing
>^3He as something underlying the standard model.
Well, since you aren't proposing to explain how anything you considered
is any different, I don't have a lot to go on, do I? I grasp that much.
>I'm simply citing it as a case of emergent Lorentz invariance.
Uh, where did you do this?
>And saying, yet again, *this implies we should not necessarily expect
>new theories to be relativistically invariant* just because our
I'm not expecting a _new_ theory to necessarily be lorentz
invariant. In fact, I have no expectations at all regarding something
that produces an effective theory in the manner you alluded to but
don't seem to grasp. In fact, I expect lorentz invariance to be
a consequence of any underlying fundamental theory. Your ideas as
you've described them just don't qualify as anything I'd consider
seriously or even contain the basis of something that would have a
point. It could be the lack of using anything 3He as your example,
but that isn't my fault.
>current low energy observations are and the standard model is.
>
>No, I don't expect that to sink in any more on the 17th time than on
>the 16th.
Then I assume that I've met your expectation, since it hasn't.
[...]
Eric Dennis
> This is really too much. If you recall, my original reference
> to the dirac equation was with regard to the dirac sea, which you
> claimed was specific to the dirac equation. Well, no. It's specific
> to fermions actually, which is what gave dirac the impetus to use
Nope. Non-relativistic fermions need not suffer from the negative energy sea.
> Which it would appear you just insisted was indeed the case. I mean
> the question was never how many of anything and which you with 3 seem to
> be a few quantum numbers short, considering that there were 19 free
I said GAUGE COUPLINGS, not any random parameter.
> parameters before the mass for the neutrino was discovered and the total
> with massive neutrinos adds 7 more possible parameters. Now, some of these
> were exactly the ones I tried to point out would be particularly relevant
> to a condensed matter approach, but which you simply ignored with the
> comment that you didn't see why anything I said mattered. Those would
mattered to the issue of emergent Lorentz invariance, which it didn't.
> be the 6 lepton masses and the 6 quark masses. Especially in view of
> your babbling on about gravity. Apparently you agree, you're just don't
> realize it and are trying to prove me wrong by restating what I said
> originally, as if it were news.
>
> I don't care if there are a zillion free parameters, the issue was
> in regard to whether I "magically linked them into one unified force",
> which it appears you are trying to change into a completely different
> argument. Sorry. No sale. By stating "which happen to get mixed up..."
> you just made my point, because experiments measure predictions of
> how they get "mixed up".
SU2,1 is broken and the things that get masses happen to carry mixed up
combinations of the gauge charges. That doesn't imply that the separate gauge
fields somehow now represent one super-force.
> >I assume you're referring to the fact that the eletric charge,
> >U(1) charge,
>
> The U(1) charge is not the electric charge, hence dispelling your
> notion still further about "magical linking via a direct product".
Of course U(1) charge is not electric charge, which is why I said "electric
charge, U(1), and SU(2) charge" which you truncated above.
> tan(\theta_w) = g'/g
>
> Go ahead, try to claim there is no relationship implied here and
> the measured masses of the W and Z were just lucky speculation, leaving
> this no better than simply declaring E&M and the weak interaction to
> be unrelated. Now, go see how the charge operator might possibly link
> the quark sector into all of this.
This is the electroweak PREDICTION for m_Z/m_W, given the two INDEPENDENT gauge
couplings g and g'.
> >What you have been repeatably unable to grasp is that I'm not proposing
> >^3He as something underlying the standard model.
>
> Well, since you aren't proposing to explain how anything you considered
> is any different, I don't have a lot to go on, do I? I grasp that much.
I have proposed two and only two aspects of an underlying theory. 1. it's physical
basis is a space-filling stuff 2. the field theory (or whatever) describing that
stuff need not be locally Lorentz invariant, but can have this as an emergent
property. Too bad if this does not fit into the convenient little straw man that
you would like to erect for whatever bizzarre psychological reason.
> >I'm simply citing it as a case of emergent Lorentz invariance.
>
> Uh, where did you do this?
You must be kidding. Try the very first post of mine (under "fishics") that you
responded to and about every one since. Then maybe try some prozac.
Eric Dennis
of not only local hidden variable theories, but a particularly silly one
to boot (http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW), presumes to evaluate an exchange
on the subject of quantum field theories.
Stephen Speicher
> Bilge wrote:
>
> > >I'm simply citing it as a case of emergent Lorentz invariance.
> >
> > Uh, where did you do this?
>
> You must be kidding. Try the very first post of mine (under
> "fishics") that you responded to and about every one since.
> Then maybe try some prozac.
>
One of the sure signs of an intellectual phony is that he cannot
even keep his own stories straight. Below is the URL to the post
in question.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=laughlin+argues+that+we+cannot+group:sci.physi
cs.*+insubject:The+insubject:mainstream+insubject:name+insubject:of+insubject:et
her+insubject:theory+author:fishics&hl=en&rnum=1&selm=3BEACB78.398F0344%40prince
ton.edu
Let me remind the readers here that Dennis originally entered
into this discussion with an appeal to authority, an authority
which he did not understand. Since that time, Dennis has been
performing a song and dance, attempting to cover up his own
ignorance. In fact, for him, it just keeps getting worse and
worse. His battle with bilge is like a battle with the bulge, a
losing proposition for one who lacks both will and knowledge.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Eric Dennis wrote:
> >
> > > Bilge wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why? All of that was wrong. Basically, it doesn't look like
> > > > you really know what you're trying to argue, since I could
> > > > argue your point of view better than you've managed to do.
> > > > You can keep plugging away if you wish.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you could.
> >
> > Not _just_ could, but Bilge already did. If Dennis knew more
> > about physics, he would have caught this humorous fact.
> >
> > > Then again my experience with pointless newsgroup polemics must
> > > pale in comparison to your own.
> > >
> >
> > Rather doubtful. Dennis, new to this group, is batting two out of
> > two in conversational physics which spirals into the toilet, a
> > feat that a real physicist like Bilge could never hope to match.
> >
> [...inane insults...]
>
Fortunately, the facts speak for themselves, forever enshrined in
the google archives of this group. Any reader can follow this
thread from the beginning and determine whether it was Dennis or
Bilge who has consistently engaged in "pointless newsgroup
polemics."
Bilge
Re: The mainstream name of ether theory: analog model for general
>relativity to usenet:
>
>> This is really too much. If you recall, my original reference
>> to the dirac equation was with regard to the dirac sea, which you
>> claimed was specific to the dirac equation. Well, no. It's specific
>> to fermions actually, which is what gave dirac the impetus to use
>
>Nope. Non-relativistic fermions need not suffer from the negative
>energy sea.
so-called fermions don't all collapse to a ground state beneath a
fermi surface. Since this was part of the original question you think
3He addressed, "lay it out for me", as you claimed you were going to
do, but have so far avoided. Please provide an example of fermions that
don't obey the dirac equation.
>> Which it would appear you just insisted was indeed the case. I mean
>> the question was never how many of anything and which you with 3 seem to
>> be a few quantum numbers short, considering that there were 19 free
>
>I said GAUGE COUPLINGS, not any random parameter.
Now, you're simply lying. I included the exact text of your post.
You snipped it. That's not my problem.
>> parameters before the mass for the neutrino was discovered and the total
>> with massive neutrinos adds 7 more possible parameters. Now, some of these
>> were exactly the ones I tried to point out would be particularly relevant
>> to a condensed matter approach, but which you simply ignored with the
>> comment that you didn't see why anything I said mattered. Those would
>
>mattered to the issue of emergent Lorentz invariance, which it didn't.
I'm waiting for your example.
>> be the 6 lepton masses and the 6 quark masses. Especially in view of
>> your babbling on about gravity. Apparently you agree, you're just don't
>> realize it and are trying to prove me wrong by restating what I said
>> originally, as if it were news.
>>
>> I don't care if there are a zillion free parameters, the issue was
>> in regard to whether I "magically linked them into one unified force",
>> which it appears you are trying to change into a completely different
>> argument. Sorry. No sale. By stating "which happen to get mixed up..."
>> you just made my point, because experiments measure predictions of
>> how they get "mixed up".
>
>SU2,1 is broken and the things that get masses happen to carry mixed up
>combinations of the gauge charges. That doesn't imply that the separate
>gauge fields somehow now represent one super-force.
I included your statement, you snipped it. Anyone can look it
up and read it for themselves. sheesh.
>> >I assume you're referring to the fact that the eletric charge,
>> >U(1) charge,
>>
>> The U(1) charge is not the electric charge, hence dispelling your
>> notion still further about "magical linking via a direct product".
>
>Of course U(1) charge is not electric charge, which is why I said "electric
>charge, U(1), and SU(2) charge" which you truncated above.
Then, you still luse. There are 2 couplings. g and g'. Your choice.
>> tan(\theta_w) = g'/g
>> Go ahead, try to claim there is no relationship implied here and
>> the measured masses of the W and Z were just lucky speculation, leaving
>> this no better than simply declaring E&M and the weak interaction to
>> be unrelated. Now, go see how the charge operator might possibly link
>> the quark sector into all of this.
>
>This is the electroweak PREDICTION for m_Z/m_W, given the two INDEPENDENT
>gauge couplings g and g'.
As if that is a strike against the model? Look directly above. Do
those _look_ independent? Sinply because the theory does not fix \theta_w,
doesn't mean exaperiment cant show the two are related. Thank you for using
a feature that supports the model as your best argument against it.
>> >What you have been repeatably unable to grasp is that I'm not proposing
>> >^3He as something underlying the standard model.
>>
>> Well, since you aren't proposing to explain how anything you considered
>> is any different, I don't have a lot to go on, do I? I grasp that much.
>
>I have proposed two and only two aspects of an underlying theory.
>1. it's physical basis is a space-filling stuff
> 2. the field theory (or whatever) describing that stuff need not
>be locally Lorentz invariant, but can have this as an emergent
>property.
You haven't proposed anything. "stuff" is not very well quantified.
>Too bad if this does not fit into the convenient little straw man that
>you would like to erect for whatever bizzarre psychological reason.
What can I say? I gotta be me.
>> >I'm simply citing it as a case of emergent Lorentz invariance.
>>
>> Uh, where did you do this?
>
>You must be kidding.
Only if I expect to see anything but another shovel load come back as
a response.
> Try the very first post of mine (under "fishics")
>that you responded to and about every one since.
I recall you weren't buying an abstract condensed matter model
and gave 3He as your model. I have yet to see you even explain
_that_ model, let alone something that will make your nonsense
plausible.
>Then maybe try some prozac.
Why? Did you find it worked better for you than any of the
other medications you've used? Thanks for the tip, though.
Personal testamonials are always nice.