Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Physicists Don't Know Shit

Was it Just a Guess?

The story about the faster-than-light neutrino experiment conducted by CERN physicists is starting to really get under my skin. What this fiasco really shows is that physicists do not really know what they're talking about. They need to answer the following questions:

- Is there a speed limit, yes or no?
- If yes, why?
- If no, why not?
- If yes, why is c the limit?

Obviously, physicists are either not sure or they don't really understand why there is a speed limit in Einstein's relativity. Or maybe Einstein did not provide a good enough explanation to convince them one way or another. Was it just a guess all along with no actual understanding as to why? It sure seems that way, doesn't it? Otherwise, this neutrino experiment would never have made the news. Physicists would know that it was either a mistake or it wasn't. Why all the fuss?

Deep Ignorance

From my vantage point, there is no question that physicists don't really understand motion. If you ask any physicist to explain why a body in inertial motion remains in motion, you'll come face to face with abject ignorance if not outright superstition. Is this what we pay our physicists for? Ignorance? Aren't they supposed to understand these things? Their ignorance is deep and in your face and yet, they feel free to conjure up all sorts of Star Trek voodoo physics whenever they feel like it; what with time travel, parallel universes, wormholes, cats that are both dead and alive and all that other nonsense?

The Truth about Motion

Now, if the CERN neutrino physicists really understood motion, they would know that, not only is c the fastest possible speed in the universe, it is also the slowest possible speed. Nothing can move faster or slower than c. It is the only possible speed. Why? Because the universe is discrete. Read Physics: The Problem with Motion if you're interested in having a real understanding of motion. You don't understand motion even if you think you do.

See Also:

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Sitting on Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time

20 comments:

Ergo Sum said...

Your comments on time are spot on - finally somebody understands it.
As you say nothing can move in spacetime or in a time dimension-axis by definition.
But faster than light travel really only becomes a problem if causality is breached.
Particles do not travel backwards in time just as they do not travel forwards along the time axis.
It's true that the muon neutrino is supposed to have a miniscule mass which according to relativity should become infinite at the speed of light,
but do we really understand what mass is? We are not really clear either on how the neutrino gets to it's velocity.
If it does not accelerate [which is a time measured parameter] is the problem removed?
The CERN data appears very robust so should not be dismissed for the moment.

B said...

Louis,

If I remember correctly your model allows for a particle to traverse from A to C without going through B. Something about state changes and all matter occupies the same space because time and space does not exists. For give me I'm a little rusty on the theory. Maybe this is the first discovered occurrence of this?

Any way I fully agree with the idea that Physicists don't really have a clue, at least some are starting to realise it.

Louis Savain said...

Ergo Sum,

Thanks for the comment. You wrote:

But faster than light travel really only becomes a problem if causality is breached.

Faster than light travel is a logical impossiblity in my opinion. In fact, moving at any speed other than c is a logical impossibility. Objects that appear to be moving at ordinary (slower than c) speeds are actually making many discrete quantum jumps at c with a huge number of wait periods in between. Motion consists of jumps regardless of how smooth we think it is at the macroscopic level.

Particles do not travel backwards in time just as they do not travel forwards along the time axis.

Correct. A time axis is illogical.

It's true that the muon neutrino is supposed to have a miniscule mass

It seems almost obvious to me that the neutrino has no mass. Neutrino detectors have not recorded any difference between the speed of photons and neutrinos arriving from distant supernovas.

Louis Savain said...

B wrote:

If I remember correctly your model allows for a particle to traverse from A to C without going through B. Something about state changes and all matter occupies the same space because time and space does not exists. For give me I'm a little rusty on the theory. Maybe this is the first discovered occurrence of this?

Thanks for writing. I thought about that but I dismissed it as a possibility. There is no reason for neutrinos to make "long distance" quantum jumps. I put "long distance" between quotes because there is really no distance. Distance is only apparent because of the way particles normally move, by making a jump to an adjacent position at a time. Distance is a powerful illusion but it's an illusion just the same.

Having said that, the so-called wave-particle duality that quantum physicists talk about is a direct consequence of non-spatiality and "long-distance" quantum jumps. They call it a duality because they don't understand it. Only particles and their interactions exist in my opinion. Waves are illusory.

Any way I fully agree with the idea that Physicists don't really have a clue, at least some are starting to realise it.

They sure act like a bunch of know-it-alls most of the time, though.

Newtspeare said...

It is a strange world, where you are apparently the only person out there prepared to criticise the time travel crackpots. Actually I agree with most of what you say, both on this page and the website as a whole.

I noticed that you said you have changed your mind about some things, which is something physicists do not seem to have managed for the past 50 years, so you might also want to rethink your assertion that nothing can move slower than light.

To understand motion, it is necessary to realise that in order to move, a particle needs to be carried along by an energy wave. It is the mass of this energy wave which explains why a fast moving particle has greater mass, and is expressed in the Lorentz mass dilation formula, where the speed is measured relative to the fabric of space. The reason why a particle cannot move faster than lightspeed, is essentially that a photon is an energy wave without any extra baggage, so it is always expected to move faster than an energy wave carrying an electron. Neutrinos are also waves, similar to photons, so they would always be expected to travel at lightspeed too.

On my ‘squish theory’ website I concentrate on debunking physicists imaginary beings such as dark matter, quarks, gluons and Higgs bosons. However the physics community being deeply religious people, are unable to even contemplate the possibility that there could be anything fundamentally wrong with the standard model.

Joseph said...

Louis

Miles Mathis over at www.milesmathis.com
wrote a paper on it as well, which he calls 'The Great Neutrino Muddle' here: http://milesmathis.com/neutrino.pdf

Thanks.

John Cantor said...

tao is the essence of motion
god is the impetus of creation

That right there is 42 - 4 from 2 - the ultimate answer begins with chapter 42 of the tao te ching.

I don't understand how you're Christian - are you to be Cain to my Able? Atheist is obviously the sensible default - scripture implies this - but that's irrelevant. Since I consider Holy Spirit to be tao - there may just be translation error between us.

Cause I read some of your words, and I wuz like; that's me right there!

But those were 2009 words - I'm thinking we're in agreement that time is a deception - but positions change with experience.

So! I'm glad to see you're still feisty as ever.

Know that you are part of the collective. It's emergence; prophecy, if you will.

As an amateur scientist, I too work the fringe; crank is not an insult - means take with a grain of salt. For instance, I may have reduced "faith healing" to simulation and electromagnetic communication - and for the studio audience, there's a boatload of science in that speculation - but this little ditty is just a "how ya doin'" as I scoff your URL to add to my link collection. ;)

Be well.

jhuni said...

Dear Louis Savain,

The universe has objects that occur at really small scales. For example, most chemical atoms are less then a nanometre in diameter. When analysing conditions at such a scale, eventually it makes sense to create some notion of infinitesimals to represent extremely small building blocks.

You only have to look at all the inventions around you - microcomputers, electricity, industry, etc to realise that the use of this abstraction in physics is very practical. There is no ivory tower conspiracy to keep the masses down or to hold physics back.

The only problems you have presented are with continuous philosophy and not physics. However, this problem has been well known for thousands of years, and physicists once believed that chemical atoms like Hydrogen and Helium were the building blocks of the universe. We even still call them atoms today.

Buddha said...

My comment would be this:
Develop a formalism for your physics, along with your assumptions and the results which follow from them.

Then develop a means by which to test these results. Most importantly any results which would contradict the physics you are trying to dispel.

The most compelling argument for the accuracy of the current model would be its predictive power, so your key problem would be showing that your physics is, in fact, a more powerful predictor of actual events.

Finally, I understand your position on quantum computing and agree that until something has been done with these 'computers' that is not feasible with a standard architecture, I remain skeptical. I say this even though, as a mathematician, I personally would prefer if everything worked out quantum, since the math is interesting and a pretty good excuse to keep funding us abstract assholes.

But I would be interested in your opinion on electron tunneling, the double-slit experiment and quantum key exchange. Since all of these seem to have pretty solid experimental evidence and successful applications.

Louis Savain said...

Buddha,

The big demo will come in due time and will take you by surprise. In the meantime, one of the things that I predict is that changes in an electrostatic field are instantaneous and non-local, i.e., they do not propagate at c as Einstein assumed. That should be easy enough to test but, to my knowledge, it has never been tested.

I used to be merely skeptical of quantum computing until I figured out why quantum interactions are probabilistic. That's when I knew that QC was hogwash.

In my opinion, electron tunneling is just action at a distance, i.e., non-locality at work. Same goes for the double slit experiment. It has to do with conservation principles and nature's need to maintain a balanced universe. Nature is not hindered by apparent distances or barriers. The universe strives to be ONE. That is to say, everything sums up to nothing. The conservation of nothing is the mother of all conservation principles. Any deviation is a violation that nature endeavors to correct at the earliest opportunity. This is the cause of all changes, including motion.

The charge of an electron, for example, is felt all around the electron even though it is caused by discrete particles (photons) emanating radially from the electron. It has nothing to do with some imagined wave/particle duality. I hope to write an article about this topic in the near future.

As far as quantum key cryptography is concerned, I haven't seen anything in the current descriptions that contradict my understanding of how things operate at the fundamental level. Not yet anyway.

Stephen Randall said...

"In the meantime, one of the things that I predict is that changes in an electrostatic field are instantaneous and non-local, i.e., they do not propagate at c as Einstein assumed."

First off, electrostatic fields - by definition - do not change.

Second, the idea that a changing electric field's presence is immediately felt everywhere is wrong. Otherwise, electromagnetic waves would travel instantaneously. Even Maxwell realized that there was a limit to the speed of EM waves; 1/sqrt(mu-naught * epsilon-naught). It falls right out of his equations and is verified on an empirical basis daily.

Your "physics" is wrong.

Louis Savain said...

Stephen Randall wrote:

First off, electrostatic fields - by definition - do not change.

Well, I waited a little while to see if you would catch your own error but to no avail. You are mistaken about the meaning of the term 'electrostatic field'. It does not mean that the field cannot change (since it clearly can). It means that, unlike a magnetic field, an electric field does not need a moving charge and does no collapse if the charge stops moving. 'Electrostatic field' is the older name of what most people today refer to as an electric field.

Second, the idea that a changing electric field's presence is immediately felt everywhere is wrong. Otherwise, electromagnetic waves would travel instantaneously.

In my opinion, so-called EM waves are just magnetic waves. The electric component is not in the wave. It just so happens that electrons interacts with "magnetic" photons. It is this interaction that fools physicists into assuming an electric component. The truth is that nobody has ever measured the speed of the electric field. Ask around. Only the speed of EM waves has been measured and it is the speed of light, c.

Your "physics" is wrong.

I was thinking the same about yours, but to each his own. Above all, be true to your own convictions as I am to mine.

Louis

Stephen Randall said...

Well, I waited a little while to see if you would catch your own error but to no avail. You are mistaken about the meaning of the term 'electrostatic field'. It does not mean that the field cannot change (since it clearly can). It means that, unlike a magnetic field, an electric field does not need a moving charge and does no collapse if the charge stops moving. 'Electrostatic field' is the older name of what most people today refer to as an electric field.

That's actually not true. There are two types of electric fields, electrostatic and electrodynamic. Electrostatic fields are rarely studied, because they consist of some set of stationary charges that aren't changing their position with respect to time. Although, your comment about no moving charges [which is correct] makes me think that this is simply a semantic misunderstanding.

In my opinion, so-called EM waves are just magnetic waves. The electric component is not in the wave. It just so happens that electrons interacts with "magnetic" photons. It is this interaction that fools physicists into assuming an electric component. The truth is that nobody has ever measured the speed of the electric field. Ask around. Only the speed of EM waves has been measured and it is the speed of light, c.

Out of curiousity, how would a purely magnetic wave propagate in the vacuum of space? Maxwell's equations dictate otherwise, and he has been validated by hundreds of experiments. In order for the changing magnetic field, a changing electric field must be present. In addition, magnetic fields and electric fields both propagate at the same speed - c. Maxwell unified them, and QED showed this to be true on an atomic level. Photons are the bosons for the entire EM force, and photons [obviously] travel at the speed of light.

Also, I must note that I appreciate your civil response. I hope your wife is getting better.

All the best,

Stephen

McDuck said...

why would someone who promotes the bible on his page, say something like "don't know shit". isn't that a sin against the bible?

Louis Savain said...

Randall,

An electric field is generated by a charge, whether or not the charge is moving. I believe that an electric field, unlike a magnetic field, is a non-local phenomenon. My position is that there is no lag between a moving charge and its electric field regardless of how far away the observer is from the charge.

Current physics says there is a lag because any change in an electric field propagates at c. I say it's BS. I further claim that this has never been tested because everybody believes Einstein is automatically correct. He isn't. There is a Nobel in there somewhere for whoever is willing to put it to an actual test.

Out of curiousity, how would a purely magnetic wave propagate in the vacuum of space?

You should pose this question to physicists because they don't know the answer. They don't even know what a wave is and they don't understand that it's an illusion, the result of non-local interactions. In reality, there exist only particles, their properties and their interactions. All particles move the same way. You should read my series titled Physics: The Problem with Motion if you're interested in my opinion on motion.

Louis

Louis Savain said...

McDuck wrote:

why would someone who promotes the bible on his page, say something like "don't know shit". isn't that a sin against the bible?

I am a Christian rebel. I rebel not only against scientists but also against Christians, especially the holier-than-thou, self-righteous ones.

So why do I use phrases like "physicists don't know shit"? To piss off the scientists and the Christians. That's why.

Stephen Randall said...

Louis,

Electromagnetic waves actually have little to do with Einstein. Maxwell refined Ampere's Law and then collected it with Gauss' two laws and Faraday's law to form a complete basis for electromagnetism. What you're saying is that electricity and magnetism are not unified. The problem is that many experiments were performed to confirm what are now collectively referred to as Maxwell's equations. Changing magnetic fields give rise to electric fields, and vice versa. Without electric field propagation speed being the same as that for a magnetic field, electromagnetic waves like light, radio waves, etc. would be physically impossible.

If you'd like, I can even show you how the speed of electromagnetic waves comes from Maxwell's equations [which again, have been experimentally verified]. The general idea is that out of the four equations, we can isolate expressions for the magnetic and electric fields. What we find is that the second derivative of each field with respect to space is equal to the second derivative of each field with respect to time divided by a constant squared. This is, of course, the form of the wave equation where is constant is the speed of the wave. And this is how Maxwell got the idea of an electromagnetic wave, the speed of which is the square root of the product of the permeability and permittivity of free space.

I agree that waves are macroscopic "illusions" in that they are made up of microscopic constituents. I don't quite know what you mean by a particle, but I'll assume that you believe that the universe is quantized. This is my view as well, and is what quantum mechanics is based upon. [This is, incidentally, also where we find that the electromagnetic force - the idea that the electric and magnetic fields abstractly represent - travels at the speed of light because its bosons - force carrying "particles" - are photons.]

Stephen

--

McDuck, you're an idiot.

Louis Savain said...

Randall, I am sorry but you sound like a robot. I disagree that electricity and magnetism are unified. It is very easy to falsify that crackpot hypothesis by observing that neutralizing a charge does not neutralize its magnetic moment. A neutron has a magnetic moment even though it is electrically neutral. This would not be true if the two were unified. This is why neutron stars have extremely strong magnetic fields. But who am I kidding? Simple explanations are the hardest things for a trained physicist to grasp.

All experiments performed on so-called EM waves involve the use of electrons, and electrons have both magnetic and electric components. This confuses physicists into thinking that electricity and magnetism are unified. The fact is that a permanent magnet has no charge but has a magnetic field. How do you explain that? Does the magnetic field of a permanent magnet contain an electric component? The answer is no. But how can that be if they are unified?

The fact that the universe is quantized (discrete) is not my view or my opinion. It is a logical necessity. To say that the EM force travels at the speed of light because they are bosons is not an explanation of anything. It is no better than saying that photons travel at the speed of light because they have no mass. That, too, explains diddly squat. One needs to explain why having no mass forces a particles to move at c.

In conclusion, I maintain that the electric field is instantaneous and non-local. So is gravity, by the way. This will be shown to be true in the not too distant future.

Louis

Stephen Randall said...

Ah, but you're assuming that not only is the neutron neutral but that it has no electrically charged components. This isn't the case. As has been seen empirically at particle accelerators, neutrons are actually made up of tiny charged particles. The same is true for neutron stars; while they are electrically neutral overall, they have charged particles inside them that create a large magnetic moment.

The fact that permanent magnetic fields exist actually results from a property of certain materials called ferromagnetism that is created by certain electron configurations. This has been tested and shown exhaustively, as classifications of materials are very important in engineering. [As an aside, all materials are somewhat magnetic; either paramagnetic or diamagnetic. This again results from the charged particles inside the material.]

The boson explanation IS an explanation, though. The E and B fields aren't real. They're a great abstraction from Faraday, but they're not physically real. Instead, they represent the idea of force. I'm sure you know that. But the point is that the EM force travels at the speed of whatever particles carry it. In the case of electromagnetism, it's photons that represent the force. The way two charged particles exert a force on each other is by exchanging photons. And by definition, whatever speed photons travel at, that's the speed of light. Because photons ARE light. Now, whether or not that's the ultimate speed doesn't really matter for our discussion.

And if gravity were instantaneous, then the results of several GR experiments would have been radically different.

But to the heart of our discussion, I'll try to present my case as clearly and logically as possible. Here we go:

Do changes in an electric field propagate instantaneously? That is, does the electric force extend its effects to every charged particle in the universe the instant the force is formed?

Argument #1: I'll start again with the last of Maxwell's equations, the ones that matter for this discussion. They state that changing electric fields create magnetic fields, and changing magnetic fields create electric fields. This has been verified experimentally, because it was an outlandish prediction at the time it was made.

From these equations [which involve derivatives with respect to time] we can isolate the expressions that give the speed that the changes in these fields have. Both E and B fields have the same speed, and it is a number identical to the one obtained for the speed of light. [This is further confirmed by QED observations.]

Argument #2: If E and B fields did not propagate changes at the same speed, then EM waves would be impossible. Therefore, there would be no such thing as light, radio, or wireless internet access.

Argument #3: If EM waves could somehow exist [perhaps assuming that B fields also propagate their changes instantaneously] then the speed of light would be infinite. This is not the case.

Stephen

Louis Savain said...

Randall, I'm too busy with some pressing personal stuff at this time. I'll respond to your comment in a few days.