Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Why not fit a wave equation to the group behaviour of particles (molecules in air) and talk sound waves? Far easier than dealing with the fact that the sound wave has an outward pressure phase followed by an equal under-pressure phase, giving an outward force and equal-and-opposite inward reaction which allows music to propagate. Nobody hears any music, so why should they worry about the physics? Certainly they can't hear any explosions where the outward force has an equal and opposite reaction, too, which in the case of the big bang tells us gravity.


The mathematical and physical proof of gravity solving the strength correctly and resolving all the issues of cosmology at http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ can be ignored for being mathematical and scientific, by the media. The statement in bold above can be ignored for being too clear.

When I started getting replies from journalists, like editor of the New Scientist, Jeremy Webb, I thought I was beginning to get somewhere. But it turned out these guys all wore jackbooks or at least faced the wall when the jackboots were in town, refusing to help science in a big way.

In the last post I quoted Feynman's book Character of Physical Law. Looking at the preface just now, which is by Professor Paul Davies (who I ridiculed over relativity in a previous post on this blog), I find he admits the facts very nicely:

'Each revolution comes with ... men and women whose skill and imagination force the scientific community to break out of old habits of thought and embrace new and unfamiliar concepts.'

Notice that Newton ran away from doing this until Hook claimed to have discovered the inverse-square law, then Newton wrote Prncipia to get the credit. Similarly, Einstein didn't bother going to Africa to photograph a solar eclipse to verify his general theory, that was done by Eddington to avoid imprisonment for refusing to get a hole in his head in WWI. So historically, Davies is talking horseshit. But for the future, he is probably right.

All my work on gravitation and electromagnetism http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ is nothing compared to the bigger problem of ousting string theory. It is not the ideas or the maths which matter, only the fight to destroy horseshit propaganda. In April this year I arranged with Melanie Hewitt at News International to publish a page advert in The Times for £4,000. She told me on the phone that it would need to be run past the editor, since it was not very boring.

The editor censored it. Thus, I might as well be living in Germany in 1935. I cannot pay a newspaper to print the facts. If I made the facts so obscure and boring, then they would print it but it would not be read. In effect, we are living in Germany circa 1935. A mere individual like me has no say whatsoever except in places like this which and my home page, which the Nazis have persuaded Google to censor from the search results. Why deny Iraq? Why deny the banning of Christmas in Britain by 'politically correct' local authorities which copy Blare's dictatorship? Why deny that Hitler was elected in 1933? We might as well get used to it...

27 Comments:

At 1:36 AM, Blogger nige said...

Copy of my a new comment to Dr Woit's blog:

Nigel Says:

November 6th, 2005 at 4:32 am

As Heaviside said, “If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner - even though he sat at the feet of Faraday….. he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!” - Oliver Heaviside, “Electromagnetic Theory Vol. 1″, p337, 1893.

It is of course this rudeness of Heaviside which censored him, since he was referring directly to acknowledged experts who ignored him. You have to see the funny side. Recently some of us have taken to the analogy of an explosion which has a force in all directions (by Newton’s 3rd law). The inward force, used in “implosion bombs” like the Nagasaki bomb, when applied to the Higgs field of the vacuum, predicts gravity right. Instead of grasping the mechanism, critics dismiss explosion physics. So we move on to sound waves, which explosion’s degenerate into. Sound exerts a phase of pressure and thus outward force (which pushes on your eardrum), followed by a phase of lower than ambient pressure with an inward arrow (which pulls on your eardrum). Applying Newton’s 3rd law to sound, the lower pressure phase is the reaction to the outer higher pressure phase. (All we are doing is multiplying the pressures by area to get forces, this is no speculation.) Sound goes on the principle of a rocket travelling at a steady speed in air. The forces in each direction balance out.

 
At 1:45 AM, Blogger nige said...

Copy of a new comment to Lubos Motl's blog on 6 Nov 05:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/hydrinos.html :

Nigel said...
Dear Lumos,

I’ve followed the link and read the flat-earth paper by Dr Mills on “Maxwell’s Equations and QED: Which is Fact and Which is Fiction”. In his abstract, he falsely ridicules the polarisation of the vacuum around real particle cores. He rightly quotes material saying that QED is a mathematical fiddle, but he ignores the fact that heuristic progress can be made with understanding Feynman’s approach.

To summarise, Mills is wrong to rely on Maxwell’s equations and an extended charge distribution to prevent radiation. The reality is that the QED picture of the electron as pictured by the mainstream is on the right lines but has not gone far enough. Mills’ “classical” treatment is false. On my home page I have extensive material on Maxwell’s equations, which are my speciality. Notice that most of the people who work in this area are crackpots who don’t really know QM, unlike me. I know the facts.

Mills falsely assumes that the charge doesn’t radiate. I’ve shown on Woit’s blog that this is false. QED specifies that forces are due to exchange of radiation, an analogy to classical exchange via the Prevost mechanism of 1792. Since electromagnetic forces are continuously acting, so is the exchange of energy by radiation. This radiation physically causes forces. In this sense it is “classical” but it is not “classical” in the sense that Mills means by “classical” (which to him means electrons which don’t radiate, since he hasn’t wit enough to grasp the fact that if every particle in the universe is doing the same thing, there will be an equilibrium of sorts which prevents net loss due to radiation).

Woit a while back blogged that he thought the ultimate laws will be very simple, even more simple than “classical physics”. This is sustained by the facts, which contradict Mills, who is basically doing for QED what Ptolemy did for ancient cosmology, against Aristarchus’ solar system. If the British Government is funding Mills’ horseshit, I give up on physics. However, some of his chemical epicycles may predict the same as standard quantum mechanics, so it is not all going to be completely wrong (just as the epicycles in the earth-centred universe model allowed fairly accurate calculations and predictions to be made). Consider what Feynman rightly says:

Feynman said, in his 1964 Cornell lectures (broadcast on BBC2 in 1965 and published in his book Character of Physical Law, pp. 171-3):

'The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. ... There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving i on a territory.'

On page 38 of this book, Feynman has a diagram which looks basically like this: >E S<, where E is earth and S is sun. The arrows show the push that causes gravity. This is the LeSage gravity scheme, which I now find Feynman also discusses (without the diagram) in his full Lectures on Physics. He concludes that the mechanism in its form as of 1964 contradicted the no-ether relativity model and could not make any valid predictions, but finishes off by saying (p. 39):

“'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to today [1964], from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either say the same thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other the mathematical form.”

Does this mean Feynman is after physical mechanism, or is happy with the mathematical model? The answer is there on page 57-8:

“It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities. But ... it is not good to be too prejudiced about these things. “

Best wishes,
Nigel

 
At 3:22 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

the principles of Mechanics were the first area of Physics to be put into proper order. (This is why Length, Mass and Time are the "basic" units in the CGS, MKS and SI systems.) The rest of Physics is constructed "on top of" Mechanics and a working knowledge of the area is a necessity for any physicist.

You clearly don't understand Mechanics, and it shows with every sloppy statement you come up with. You simply do not use the concepts of velocity. force, momentum, energy, etc, with the precision of someone who knows what he's talking about, with the result to any scientist your writing gives the same sort of impression as the manual I once encountered for a Japanese printer, which directed that the device be "embraced in a ventilative circumstance."

 
At 1:59 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

Notice that you are the one being imprecise, vague, arm-waving. Everytime on this blog you claim to point out an error, I disprove you. You then try to find another, and finally you conclude with vague attempts at insults.

Jesus didn't use the precision of the scribes, so I suppose you think he was a charlatan too? What proves in your mind that Jesus was a charlatan was that eh was rejected like me by the establishment. So you find an excuse for the establishemnt, saying Jesus really didn't know scripture because he wasn't a scribe. Case closed. Jesus was a charlatan, an ignorant nutter. I DON'T THINK SO!

Best wishes,
Nigel

 
At 3:41 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

If you want more precision than the typography of this blog will take, check out:

How about understanding explosions PRECISELY before dealing with the big bang and gravity? Or is real physics too arcane?

Feynman gravity home page

Feynman gravity blog

Nigel

 
At 4:30 AM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

your theology is as wonky as your physics. The Gospels include a story of the adolescent Jesus debating with the elders at the Temple, specifically to show that he did know the Scriptures.

Far from 'disproving' my arguments, all you have done is to regurgitate chunks of text, without any demonstration that your assertions are correct, complete or even relevant.

Your attempt to "prove" that the energy flow in a transmission line remains a case in point. You assert that the kinetic energy due to the electron drift velocity is too small to fit the bill. This is true; in fact, since you grossly overestimate the maass of the conduction electrons, the actual energy is around 100 times less than the smallest figure you came up with.

However, what is also true is that this is not what the physicists said was happening in the first place.

What the physicists say is that because of the repulsive forces between the conduction electrons, they behave en masse in many ways like a (relatively) incompressible fluid. (This is what is meant when the electrons are said to be "touching".) One consequence of this is that forces can be transmitted through the conductor.

An proper analysis of the situation using the princples of Mechanics comes up with a very simple model analogous to a line of wooden blocks being pushed along a flat surface at constant velocity. On a single block, the force applied to drive the block forward is balanced by the force the block exerts on the block in force and the force due to the friction as the block moves across the surface. (This 'friction' is the analogue of the resistance, so is proportional to velocity.)

A simple analysis of 'work done' (change in energy) and power (rate of change in energy) reveals that the energy supplied to the block is the applied force times the velocity times the time. The energy transmitted to the next block is the same calculation for the force that the first block exerts, and the energy dissipated in the friction (resistance) is the same calculation on the difference between the forces.

Since the velocity of the block is modelling the electron drift velocity, which is by definition proportional to the current, this yields an obvious relationship between mechanical work done as force.velocity.time and electrical work done as voltage.current.time and the obvious conclusion that voltage is a measure of the forces acting on the electrons.

This immediately blows away a great deal of the smokescreen that Ivor Catt created and which you are endeavouring to maintain.

Your "proof" that the electron drift velocity doesn't add up ignores the forces, so leaves out voltage. Your regurgitaion of Catt's voltage-is-a-TEM-wave omits the current. You have two incomplete stories.

You reject the electron drift one because it is "obviously" impossible for the voltage to propagate at close to the speed of light, but you haven't even modelled it, let alone calculated what the speed of propagation is.

You accept the TEM story, even though it models only the voltage, not the energy, and it has all sorts of problems with resistance in the conductors.

 
At 8:07 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

You falsely state various rubbish which have already been disproved by myself.

What your case amounts to is the false claim that science is my whim, and that because you are too stupid to understand anything and because you falsely state I said things which I did not, that means I should be denied the right to put a gravity proof on arXiv.org. This is why we get the analogy to Jesus versus the Nazis, whoops, I mean Jesus versus his dear beloved fellow Jews.

Now I'm not in this for fame or money, I'm in it for Catt's computer and for understanding physics. Which kinda leaves me free to let you rant and rave live a 48 year old crackpot who thinks he is doing himself a favour by indulging in mudslinging on my blog, when he can't even read.

You say: "This immediately blows away a great deal of the smokescreen that Ivor Catt created and which you are endeavouring to maintain."

Actually, in the March 2005 issue of Electronics World and also in the 10 pages of my analysis of Catt in the articles in the August '02 and April '03 issues, I point out Catt's errors. On saturday I sent Catt an email pointing out that much as he likes to dictate like a dictator that there are no electrons or whatever gibberish, he (unlike real world dictators) lacks the means to exterminate the evidence of the "inconvenient" electrons.

Catt replied with egotistical third person waffle:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivor Catt"
To: "Nigel Cook" "Forrest Bishop"
"jonathan post"
Cc: "Geoffrey A. Landis"
"Lukas Nemec"
"John Gribbin" "Andrew CPost" "Tony
Coe" "Robert A. Freitas
Jr." "Tom McDonough"
"Worthington, Jack L" "George
Hockney" "Stephen Baskerville"
"Michael Pelling"
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: No "Big Bang"? Re: The End of Science


> Ivor's theories are very limited in their scope. He does make tentative
> conjecture about where his theories might lead into the electron, the
> crystal and gravity. However, this should not be taken to mean that his
> theories, like a religion, claim to cover all matters. Like many others,
> he believes that much of 20th century science has wandered into a cul de
> sac, and it is necessary to reculer pour mieux sauter. Anything from the
> 20th century has to be very carefully scrutinised before being allowed to
> link up with today's scientific advances. That is impossible for me in
> vast swathes of 20th century science where I do not understand page 2 of
> the relevant text book and cannot get explanation from Establishment
> Experts which makes sense to me. I can either retire from the science,
> convinced that I am incompetent, or build structures upon foundations that
> I understand and respect, preferably those which I myself have confirmed
> by experiment. Note that the first oprion is taken by an ever increasing
> number, so that the % of students taking up Physics in school is falling
> very rapidly, and University Departments of Physics are closing at an
> alarming rate. The game is up.
>
> Ivor thinks that were Occam's Razor not in operation a century or two ago,
> we would still have phlogiston and caloric being taught in combination
> with the new kinetic theory of heat and also oxidation. In the same way as
> something like Occam's Razor could then be used to make a clean sweep,
> excising phlogiston and caloric, so Ivor tries to make a clean sweep of
> clutter that he thinks is no longer needed. An example is the concept of
> the (1) isolated electric field, (2) the isolated magnetic field, and (3)
> the stationary electric or magnetic field. He thinks that combinations of
> TEM Waves, only allowed to move at the speed of light, can together form
> each of the above (1) (2) and (3).
>
> [Catt found that a TEM Wave was heavily constrained. Its ratio of E to H
> is fixed, and its velocity is fixed.]
>
> A TEM Wave guided from battery to lamp by two conductors can transfer the
> energy from battery to lamp. If that can be achieved without electric
> charge or electric current, that puts a strain on those concepts.
>
> All of the above has been totally suppressed for some decades. So Catt
> tried reducing his contribution to a single question, "The Catt Question"
> [earlier called "The Catt Anomaly"].
>
> "The Catt Question" is doggedly not answered or commented upon, for
> instance by Landis, Visiting Professor to MIT, a member of this
> circulation, who limits himself to discussing Catt's shortcomings, as
> predicted in 1996.
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/28anom.htm "The best introduction to the politics
> of knowledge in science, and the best scientific demonstration that the
> scientific Age of Reason is over, is to study the present status of the
> Catt [Question]. The reader can stop here and test the following
> proposition for himself. No scientist is willing to take a scientific
> approach to the problem of suppression in science .... Try to get a
> scientist to remain a scientist when addressing these matters! He will
> start talking about Catt's paranoia or egotism, which are not scientific
> concepts." - I Catt, pub. 1996
> .
> Ivor 5nov05

 
At 8:19 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

Re your claims "Your attempt to "prove" that the energy flow in a transmission line remains a case in point. You assert that the kinetic energy due to the electron drift velocity is too small to fit the bill. This is true; in fact, since you grossly overestimate the maass of the conduction electrons, the actual energy is around 100 times less than the smallest figure you came up with.

"However, what is also true is that this is not what the physicists said was happening in the first place.

"What the physicists say is that because of the repulsive forces between the conduction electrons, they behave en masse in many ways like a (relatively) incompressible fluid."

The links I gave deal with explosion dynamics and cosmology, not transmission line theory. So you are not telling the truth, or you can't read.

You say: "You assert that the kinetic energy due to the electron drift velocity is too small to fit the bill. This is true;"

So what is your problem?

"you grossly overestimate the maass of the conduction electrons, the actual energy is around 100 times less than the smallest figure you came up with."

No, I predict the mass of the electron right on my home page. What you refer to is a deliberate overestimate in which we say the ENTIRE WIRE moves at drift speed, and show even that is not going to account for energy delivery in electricity.

You are wrong to say that I've deliberately overestimated by a factor of 100 here, since the wire will be about 1,000 times, not 100 times, the mass of the conduction electrons, although the exact figure depends on the neutron/proton ratio in the iron or copper wire we are talking of, which is why I ignored this to keep it simple and stated I was deliberately exaggerating the kinetic energy of electricity, and it was still billions of times smaller than the TEM wave energy transfer mechanism.

You say vaguely that the physicists say the conduction electrons behave a bit like a perfect fluid. Yes, I know from QM that the conduction electrons behave as a kind of gas. I'm not interested in this very much, but it is horseshit to throw this around as Professor Pepper did.

The gas of electrons has a characteristic wave speed of say 0.5-1 % of the velocity of light. You previously in a post said 0.5%, while I gave the order of magnitude figure of 1%.

The gas analogy is longitudinal waves, which go at or slower than the characteristic wave speed, so electricity should be longitudinal waves going at 0.5-1% of light speed. WRONG! It is transverse light speed waves.

I'm well aware that you can fiddle around endlessly with the details, but that is all your ideas and those of your friends will remain, a FIDDLE. There is not the slightest merit in any of your absurd, offensive, degenerate, irrational, patronising, or other horse manure.

Best wishes,
Nigel

 
At 8:40 AM, Blogger nige said...

Dear Kevin,

You write: "your theology is as wonky as your physics. The Gospels include a story of the adolescent Jesus debating with the elders at the Temple, specifically to show that he did know the Scriptures."

Where is the physics wonky? It is your physics which is wonky, you thinking that the gas analogy (longitudinal waves at 1% light speed) are electricity.

As for Jesus, yes being catholic I do know this. The issue is that Jesus was not a scribe, and a scribe was even in Jesus' day considered better than a preacher. (I'm not going to get into the controversy over whether Jesus was literate, but the evidence is that he was not a writer and was more of an orator. Probably he could read a little, but he certainly didn't attend school in Rome or anywhere with a decent library. His education that you mention is oral discussion, not actually reading scriptures himself.)

There is some nice stuff on Dr Woit's blog where he is told to take elementary algebra courses or something because his dismissal of string theory is not welcome by string theorists who can't predict anything. Being a mathematician, he replied by calling the guy an a**hole. Which is actually an interesting stage for science to reach.

Could you perhaps reformulate the gravity mechanism I presented and put it on your own home page? It would be more progressive than endless arguing over trying to make me (already banned falsely for crackpotism) commit suicide or whatever you falsely expect.

To a certain extent rudeness can inspire clarity in response (although this doesn't work with Catt so well, as he cant understand past page 2 of a textbook). But this doesn't mean that endless arguing will produce endless clarity.

Notice that all the crackpots, including Catt and Edwards (editor of the semi-mainstream LeSage "Pushign Gravity" book), who don't like string theory also don't like the big bang.

Therefore, my proof of gravity from the big bang lands bang in a no-mans-land, and so far nobody is even tolerant towards this. The editors of Electronics World have since moved on to other things.

It is curious that all the official responses I get are total horseshit. Like "you must develop the theory to explain what happened before the big bang" before it is considered a proved replacement to string theory horse manure.

Best wishes,
Nigel Cook

 
At 12:01 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

you are, to use one of your own favorite words, obfuscating.

Once a conductor carrying a constant current reaches steady state, the number of conduction electrons is constant; their total mass is constant and since the electron drift velocity is constant, their kinetic energy is constant. The rate of change of energy (ie power) is 0; the actual total amount of kinetic energy is irrelevant.

The physicists never said that it was relevant; you are the one who claimed that it did.

What the physicists say is that the kinetic energy is replaced by the work done by the motion of the electrons with the force that manifests itself as the supply voltage. This force is exactly balanced by the forces that are removing energy from the motion, so that the total kinetic energy remains constant.

Your "proof" is a "straw man". You have left out an important part of the picture, and your numbers plucked out of the air are merely a smokescreen hiding the problem. If you had finished off the calculations properly and tried to work out how much energy was actually needed, you would have rapidly got yourself into a very deep hole trying to equate energy with power.

The "TEM wave" side of the argument has equally major problems, because it assumes the existence of an "energy current" in phase with the voltage. This comes rapidly unstuck when a proper analysis of the voltage and current in the open-ended transmission line is made.

It is perfectly clear that the "reflected" voltage edge is not associated with a current flow in the reverse direction, but rather with the cessation of the current flow in the forward direction.

Your assertion that the electron drift velocity is the "characteristic velocity" of the gas is specious twaddle. The drift velocity is merely a systematic motion imposed on the very much larger velocity due to the thermal kinetic energy. Furthermore, because the electrons are charged particles, there is a factor which is not encountered in "ordinary" gases - the forces due to the interactions of the electric fields. Since the fields propagate at the speed of light, so too do the forces.

Since, in spite of your assertions, the force propagates down the conductor at close to the speed of light, it is clear that the forces due to the interaction of the fields is the dominant mechanism. Since these fields propagate in three dimensions, rather than just along the conductor, and hence interact with the fields around the electrons (and nuclei) in adjacent substances (conductors or dielectrics), it is unsurprising that the velocity of propagation is influenced by such things.

Basically, you are trying to eliminate the standard theory by use of the "Morecambe Invariant". This is where the tall, thin one catches hold of the short one with hairy legs and says "Get out of that without moving." In the hands of an expert it is an effective comedy routine. It doesn't work when used against a physicist.

 
At 1:35 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

You falsely begin your tirade with the words:

"Once a conductor carrying a constant current reaches steady state, the number of conduction electrons is constant; their total mass is constant and since the electron drift velocity is constant, their kinetic energy is constant. The rate of change of energy (ie power) is 0; the actual total amount of kinetic energy is irrelevant.

"The physicists never said that it was relevant; you are the one who claimed that it did. ..."

WRONG. The "physicists" don't talk about the particle-wave duality of electric drift current versus TEM wave.

Nor, for example, do they even mention or discuss what happens at the dark fringes in the double-slit experiment, Feynman's "central paradox" of QM.

Notice that the books by the physicists say the dark fringes are caused by two out of phase photons arriving and cancelling.

This is Young's celebrated explanation.

Now explain how two out of phase photons can arrive to create a dark fringe when the photons are fired one at a time?

Also explain what happens to the energy of the cancelled photons arriving at the dark fringes?

Since energy conservation is crucial to physics, if they had a single brain cell functioning between the lot of them, and were honest or even just rational, such ESTABLISHED EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS would take place over speculative horseshit about Copenhagen brainwashing, strings, etc.

They are not human beings, really, they are the dregs of Heisenberg's Nazi religion, the Heisenberg who hated Jews in 1933 and was rewarded by Hitler with promotion.

The Nazi doctrine has brainwashed the way people approach physics, making it a religion. Take particle-wave duality of sound waves of air molecules.

Nobody says "oh my God, air is sound waves and molecular particles". Now the electron is a trapped TEM wave, so there is more complexity to the particle-wave duality of fundamental particles than relatively macroscopic air molecules. The electron wave-particle duality is part inspired by the TEM wave trapped into a black hole creating the "particle" but it also has wave properties from the Poincare many-body chaos when you have 3 or more particles in an atom (nucleus, orbiting electron, plus particle used to detect electron). The different particles perturb each others orbits, causing the Schroedinger wave pattern.

None of this heuristic physics gets a look in.

Nigel

 
At 9:54 AM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

You said: "The "physicists" don't talk about the particle-wave duality of electric drift current versus TEM wave."

Of course they don't. Electron drift velocity is a statistical description of the motion to the interacting mass of all the conduction electrons. There are so many electrons that it doesn't matter what individual electrons are doing, it all gets smoothed out in the average.

Physicists know this, so they don't need to waste their time worrying about it. They also know that the sort of "wave" that an electron is isn't the sort of TEM wave that is found (for example) in Ivor Catt's "Electromagnetism" book, so they don't need to worry about that either. In any case, they're not supposed to be reading science fiction when they should be working.

I get the impression from the rest of your post that someone let you watch "633 Squadron" on the TV at the weekend.

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

What you still don't grasp is that the a wave goes slower or equal to the average particle speed. The particle speed of electron gas in a conductor is 1% of light velocity.

The drift velocity of the electric current is about 1 mm/s for typical 1 A mains current. Compare that to 300 Mm/s for the TEM wave.

The TEM wave goes 3 x 10^11 times faster than the electric drift current.

The TEM wave is composed, according to QED, of virtual photons, not strings or fairies.

These virtual photons are the gauge bosons of the electromagnetic force, the only one of four electroweak gauge bosons in the SU(2)xU(1) part of the standard model which can penetrate indefinitely through the Higgs field, the field only falling off by diverging with distance.

What I've worked out is the causal mechanism for the fundamental forces, which you avoid, preferring to attack the hogwash Catt uses to pad out his books.

People acted as you do now to Heaviside a century ago, and ended up with egg on their faces. Watch out you don't get an egg in yours!

Best wishesm
Nigel

 
At 1:51 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

what you have not grasped is that electrons differ from gas molecules (and billiard balls) in an extremely important aspect - they carry charge.

This means than unlike gas molecules, which can only interact with their neighbours by actually crossing the intervening space, electrons interact with the electric fields of their neighbours. These fields propagate ahead of the motion of the electron at the speed of light.

This completely invalidates your argument about particle speed, because if the process transfering energy between electrons via the fields is some sort of "virtual particle", it must travel at the speed of light.

You are, as usual, ignoring the bits of the story that don't suit your argument. Unfortunately, while politicians can (sometimes) get away with it (particularly with the liberal deployment of civil servants), you are try to violate the conservation of awkward facts, which is almost as fundamental to science as the conservation of energy....

 
At 1:06 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

Wrong. I do consider electric charge, and it makes no significant difference in the gas model.

The electric repulsion force falls off as the inverse square law of distance. I did a computer calculation for Dr Arnold Lynch on this in 1998 which was published in Science World, ISSN 1367-6172.

The field of electron only influences a few electrons further up the line. It is easy to calculate the acceleration and integrate to find velocity and displacements. You start off with one conduction electron per copper atom, you assume the first one is pushed, and study the effect.

The acceleration times of successive electrons reduces the pulse speed below light speed, but has NOTHING to do with the speed of light in the insulator between teh conductors.

Hence, your model is false. The reality is, you don't need a net electron drift to carry TEM wave energy. We know this because when we sent two TEM waves in opposite directions down the same transmission line, there is no net electron drift - and no electric current ot resistance - while they are overlapping. Hence electron drift current is not the TEM wave mechanism on this basis alone. Secondly, the TEM wave speed is the speed of light for the the material between the two conductors, the insulator. No where is this taken into the electric drift model of electricity. Thirdly, I remind yo that electric current carries billions of times less energy than the TEM wave.

The TEM wave in QED is virtual photons, gauge bosons, which are transmitted ALL THE TIME whereever there is an electromagnetic force acting. The normal equilibrium of forces in neutral atoms means that the charges are continuously exchanging virtual radiation. There is radiation going all ways. I've modelled this to get a heuristic mechanism of how the forces are produced by this radiation. It is emitted by the spin of the charges.

The charges don't need to drift at 1 mm/s or even 1% of light speed in order for the TEM wave mechanism to operate at light speed.

Best wishes,
Nigel

 
At 1:08 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

You said "You are, as usual, ignoring the bits of the story that don't suit your argument."

You're the one doing that.

Nigel

 
At 1:19 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

You say: "I do consider electric charge, and it makes no significant difference in the gas model."

Since you are ending up with a result that is wildly at variance with what the physicists say, it is very likely that you've got it wrong. The fact that you can't work Newton's 3rd Law properly is a very strong argument to support this view.

You appear to think that analysing the motion of the electrons in a conductor is easy. I've had a look at a computer simulation of it, and it is anything but easy, as far from the effect of the motion of an electron being limited to its near vicinity, a quick calculation will reveal that the displacement of an electron by a tenth of the inter-atomic distance will exert an appreciable force on a electron 100 atoms away.

I suspect that your "computer calculation" is based on a line of electrons spaced at the inter-atomic distance, and that you are moving the electron at one end at the electron drift velocity. This is doomed to fail miserably, since the drift velocity does not describe the motion of a electron, but is a statistical measure of the motion of the whole body of the electrons. At the "level" where the EDV is meaning ful, you have to also take the velocity of propagation as something that "is", rather than something that can be calcuated. The EDV is an average; on its own it conveys no information about the motion of an individual electron.

A simulation that would actually yield the correct picture from first principles would have to start from the full description of the motion of the electrons and their interaction, the transfer of energy, mean path lengths, etc, etc. It would yield the figures that would allow my description of the motion of the electrons en masse to work.

You appear to be back on the Catt TEM fallacy again. You are in a circular argument, where your supposed conclusions about the "TEM wave" are outcomes of your initial assumptions, rather than statements about the underlying physics.

Nowhere have you, or Messers Catt, Davidson and Walton, or Dr Arnold Lynch actually come up with an experiment to demonstrate the existence of these TEM waves. Instead, there is just more and more words, attempts to disprove Maxwell's equations (but which contain schoolboy errors) and things like the claim that resistance is abolished where there are TEM waves flowing in opposite directions (which is very like the contortions of the last stages before the Phlogistic Theory finally disintegrated.)

The whole silly edifice is stacked up on top of the failure to understand that while the voltage is "reflected" at the open end of the transmission line, the current is not - it flows only in one direction, and the "reflection" marks the point at which current ceases to flow. A proper understanding of the point yields a perfectly sensible model which works.

And which shows clearly that the "Catt Anomaly" is not a problem with physics, but merely that Mr Catt does not understand the distinction between current flow in a conductor, and the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a waveguide.

And I will say again:

The reason that your calculation of the energy due to electron drift comes out too small is because you are only calculating the kinetic energy, and are completing ignoring the energy needed to move the electrons against their mutual electrostatic forces.

The transfer of energy due to the flow of electric current does not involve "Catt TEM waves". In fact the electromagnetic effects of moving charge represent a potential mechanism for energy to "leak" from the current flow.

 
At 4:35 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

You say "The fact that you can't work Newton's 3rd Law properly is a very strong argument to support this view."

See my latest post on this blog. Your false claim that the outward force of an explosion gets its 3rd law reaction from the collision with the surrounding air is wrong.

Air pressure is 14.7 pounds/sq inch or 101 kPa. Normally, a balloon doesn't explode because the outward force is balanced by the inward force from the surrounding air. Thus, your argument holds good for "explosions" where the outward pressure and force is normal air pressure. This PREVENTS explosion.

This is why there is excess pressure in an explosion, overpressure. This means there is excess outward force over the inward force from the normal air pressure of the surrounding air.

As I've said and proved here , the nutcase "physicists" you refer to are pure mathematicians who are all thumps when dealing with the real world, hence string theory and horseshit explosion "physics".

I'm not knocking pure maths, you're the one knocking applied maths/physics. Notice that Dr Motl has recently attacked Dr Lawrence Krauss for pointing out the ivory tower nonsense of pure maths. Motl said that Krauss was attacking "modern science".

Anyway, see my latest post on this blog. All you and Kevin Alyward (with his "relativity for teletubbies" maths site) have done is helped me to clarify physical mechanisms behind the maths that exposes the string theorists.

Now for the rest of your comment. You say:

"And I will say again:

"The reason that your calculation of the energy due to electron drift comes out too small is because you are only calculating the kinetic energy, and are completing ignoring the energy needed to move the electrons against their mutual electrostatic forces.

"The transfer of energy due to the flow of electric current does not involve "Catt TEM waves". In fact the electromagnetic effects of moving charge represent a potential mechanism for energy to "leak" from the current flow."

Agreed, this is one way to look at it. Clearly the mechanism behind the TEM wave in the 2 conductor situation is very complex, having to account for the reason why its speed depends on the insulator between the wires.

The Catt TEM wave I'm interested in is that which gets stored in a capacitor, and which when MEASURED comes out at light speed.

Catt's approach tries not to separate two conductors. He won't say anything about a radio aerial, so his electromagnetic theory is fatally incomplete. I've had a political earful from him, running my mobile out of battery, every time I ask a question, so he is paranoid about single wires/aerials. He has to see everything as a Heaviside "slab of energy" guided by 2 conductors, so he can't deal with many basic electronics situations like radio. Since he doesn't like electrons, he has problems with how solid state technology works, despite being a chip designer.

The only way to deal with the TEM wave guided by 2 conductors at the speed of light in the insulator is to see it as a disruption to the existing equilibrium of energy exchange. The charges in each conductor are always exchanging virtual photons (EM gauge bosons) with every other charge to produce the normal EM forces, and the TEM wave simply goes at that normal speed as a disruption to the normal flow.

Similarly, sound goes at a speed proportional to the normal speed of air molecules. Normally air molecules at 15 C and 1 atmosphere are going at 500 m/s, and sound goes at 340 m/s. Sound energy is transmitted as a disruption to the normal air pressure mechanism. The same is true of TEM waves, where the normal mechanism is the QED gauge bosons which are exchanged by charges to produce forces.

Nigel

 
At 7:05 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

your einstein157 page merely proves my point, because your outward sharp spike followed by a more gradual inward pressure simply is not what Newton's 3rd Law is. You are floundering around in restoration of equilibrium arguments, which are usually 1st Law + conservation of energy arguments.

You say: "The Catt TEM wave I'm interested in is that which gets stored in a capacitor, and which when MEASURED comes out at light speed."

The problem here is that the "twice length divided by characteristic velocity" time to discharge a transmission line is precisely what the non-TEM theory predicts. The charge at the far end can't start moving until it 'knows' that the charge has started moving at the near end, and the charge at the near end can't stop until it knows that the charge at the far end has stopped.

As you say, Catt "doesn't like electrons". This is the whole of the problem, because everything winds back to the misinterpretation of the Dec78 article. The fact that the charging of the capacitance of the transmission line can be described in terms of the voltage and the characteristic impedance does not eliminate charge, because impedance is, of course, the relationship between voltage and current and current is, by definition, movement of charge.

The energy current/TEM wave is based on a faulty association of voltage and energy. In order for the flow of energy to be "in phase" with the voltage, it would be necessary for the current to be in phase with the voltage. While it is true that the impedance of a transmission line is resistive, so that the current is "in phase", there is a very important rider in the fact that the impedance at the open end, while being "resistive", is infinite. This means that the current at the open end is always 0. This is, of course, "in phase", but it does not allow an "energy current" to flow, because voltage.0=0!

It is perfectly obvious that the "reflected" voltage that propagates back from the open end marks where the infinite impedance "takes over" and current flow comes to a stop. This produces an entirely consistent value for the stored energy (which incidentally is stored up in the electric fields of the conduction electrons which have been displaced from their equilibrium positions.)

The answer to why the characteristic velocity of a transmission line depends on the velocity of the electrons in the insulator is, of course, they do not, in any simple sense. My argument of constructing two transmission lines with differing conductor spacings on a block of glass ought to dispose of the idea entirely. The characteristic velocity is dependent on the capacitance. (Simplistically) the capacitance of the transmission line is in two parts - in a (charged) isolated conductor, the voltage is a measure of the force needed to displace the electrons, and of course the displacement represents stored energy. Therefore the force/voltage to displacement ratio is closely related to the capacitance.

When there is an adjacent conductor to increase the capacitance, the displacement of the electrons creates imbalance of charge, which creates a net external field. This field interacts with the electrons in the other conductor (and the dielectric) causing them to move. Obviously this takes energy out of the forward motion of the electrons and pushes it into the capacitance between the conductors. The net effect is that the force/voltage driving the current "forward" is "diverted" to act "toward" the other conductor. Basically, there is voltage/force acting between the conductors, and in "Mechanical" terms this can be described as two forces at right angles, with the "input voltage" forming the hypotenuse of the triangle formed. Looked at this way, it is clear that if you increase the capacitance between the conductors, you increase the energy stored, which increases the charging force, which turns the resultant of the input force further from the direction of the conductor, which reduces the force along the conductor which, not unreasonably, reduces the velocity that the force/voltage propagates.

These forces at right angles are Catt's "Western" and "Southern" dichotomy. The correct answer to that part of the Catt Anomaly is not one or the other, but both.

It is perfeectly possible to have a TEM wave guided by two conductors. It's called a waveguide, and it relies on the fact that the currents induced in the conductors tend to create fields which act in the right directions.

This is the other half of the Anomaly. If Catt had ever published references to the text books that he claimed to have found to exhibit the Anomaly, it is very likely that it would have turned out that he was trying to compare a description of current flow in a conductor with one of the action of a waveguide.

 
At 2:17 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

You say: "your einstein157 page merely proves my point, because your outward sharp spike followed by a more gradual inward pressure simply is not what Newton's 3rd Law is. You are floundering around in restoration of equilibrium arguments, which are usually 1st Law + conservation of energy arguments."

You then devote the rest of your comment to electronics issues. So let me explain where you are wrong in your vague abuse.

The sound wave has an outward overpressure followed by an equal under-pressure phase, giving an outward force and equal-and-opposite inward reaction that allows music to propagate. Nobody hears the force of music on the eardrum (but they ‘hear’ talk about the equation of a sound ‘wave’!). The outward force phase of a sound wave is like the forward thrust of a rocket in air, while the inward force of sound that follows is like the backward thrust of exhaust. ‘String theory’ cranks suppress all evidence of the outward force of an explosion, because its equal inward reaction by the third law of motion in the case of the big bang is the force of gravity, as proved.

Now to your electronics discussion, where you say "The answer to why the characteristic velocity of a transmission line depends on the velocity of the electrons in the insulator is, of course, they do not, in any simple sense."

Kevin, there aren't "electrons in the insulator" so I can only assume you were tipsy when writing. Please sober up before commenting again. Many thanks!

Nigel

 
At 1:53 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

I've commented on your "sound wave" argument in another thread. Your description has a very basic problem; you are using the jargon of theoretical mechanics incorrectly. In particular, you are confusing force and motion, and as a result your argument is nonsensical.

As for the velocity of the electrons, I've obviously lost track of which particular subtheory you believe in this week. However, there are quite definitely electrons in insulators, otherwise they'd have a permanent positive charge.

You seem to be trying very hard to avoid the inescapable conclusion of my argument, which is that there is no "TEM wave", at least in the way that Ivor Catt claims, and that the energy stored in a capacitor is held in the interacting electric fields of the electrons which have been displaced from their equilibrium positions.

 
At 1:57 PM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

Beware making a fool of yourself.

A balance of forces need not result in motion, or it it does, there will be no acceleration.

A book on a table is in equilibrium, the weight down being countered by the normal reaction.

For sound, the outward force and inward force are line the thrust of rocket exhaust and the reaction of the rocket forward, when the rocket is going at a steady speed in air. An aeroplane is another example, the forward force is balanced.

We know there's force in sound from the sine wave pressure wave plot which proves it.

Electrons: vacuum insulator does not contain real electrons.

 
At 4:00 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

you quibble: "vacuum insulator does not contain real electrons".

I shall counter-quibble by observing that since even tungsten has a finite vapour pressure, there will always be some atoms with their attendant electrons, even in a "vacuum".

Also, a vacuum insulator does not contain real "Catt TEM waves". Note that I am distinguishing between "Catt TEM waves" and "Maxwell TEM waves". The Maxwell waves have been observed to exist; the Catt waves are merely an faulty assertion based on a purely mathematical analysis, which leads to no experimental result that is incompatible with accepted theory.

A "balance of forces" will never lead to motion - this is merely a restatement of Newton's 1st Law.

What you are missing is that "pressure" is the measure of the force that would be applied to a surface if there was a surface. In the absence of the surface, there is no force.

You say: "For sound, the outward force and inward force are line the thrust of rocket exhaust and the reaction of the rocket forward, when the rocket is going at a steady speed in air."

If you had read and understood what I said about the motion of the loudspeaker, and its effect on the motion of the air molecules, there would be no need for me to say that your analogy is total rubbish. The "thrust" of a rocket is of the "expansion of gases" accelerating mass away from the rocket. Conservation of momentum requires that the rocket accelerate as well.

In the loudspeaker, the accelerating force is the diaphragm, and the "rockets" are the individual gas molecules, which have extra outward velocity imparted to them. Once the molecules cease to be in contact with the diaphragm, there is no force until the accelerated molecule collides with something and delivers the extra kinetic energy it acquired. If the molecule reaches a surface, the extra force needed to "bounce" the molecule shows up as extra pressure. Until the collision happens, the molecule is merely one of a group that is travelling a little bit faster than the average for the gas, and so has some extra energy.

 
At 1:29 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

You quibble that a shock or sound wave going outward in air has no "surface".

The surface of the shock wave determines its decay rate. Rankine and Hugoniot in the 19th century thought of it as a discontinuity or boundary, but that was in a shock tube with a piston. (Forerunner of the internal combustion engine, when you study explosions of petrol vapour mixed in air.)

I'm talking not of shock tubes or pressure wave plots, but of outward going shock waves in air or space, which have a surface area of 4 Pi times radius squared.

The pressure times this area is the outward force. The overpressure times this area is the net outward force (of importance in an air burst, where the 14.7 psi air pressure confuses Kevin into thinking it stops the shock).

The air engulfed continuously by a sound or shock wave does deplete its energy, which gradually gets left behind as warm air.

 
At 1:33 AM, Blogger nige said...

Kevin,

You falsely say:

"The "thrust" of a rocket is of the "expansion of gases" accelerating mass away from the rocket. Conservation of momentum requires that the rocket accelerate as well."

Wrong. The rocket has air drag, like a sound wave hitting air ahead of it, which prevents acceleration from the force.

Similarly, weight is a force. My downward force on the floor does not cause the floor to accelerate or me to accelerate the other way: there is no acceleration because the forces are equal.

Take a refresher course in elementary mechanics from an A-level physics or applied maths book before pontificating such horseshit. Forces in equilibrium don't induce accelerations.

 
At 12:47 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

Nigel,

you say: "My downward force on the floor does not cause the floor to accelerate or me to accelerate the other way: there is no acceleration because the forces are equal."

True, but you could just as well say that there are equal and opposite accelerations.

However, your rocket at terminal velocity has an extra factor involved - there is movement in the direction that the forces are acting. In your analogy, the floor you are standing on is in a lift moving at constant velocity. Even though you are not accelerating, your vertical position is changing, as is your potential energy. Work is being done with/against the forces, so energy is being transfered.

In terms of your rocket, there are three entities; the tube that is the rocket, the air outside the rocket, and the gas at elevated pressure inside the rocket. As the rocket moves through the air, energy is lost to the "drag". The air gains energy (and heats up) and the rocket loses kinetic energy. This manifests as a force acting against the motion of the rocket, reducing its velocity. Since the rocket continues to move at the same velocity, there must be a process replacing the kinetic energy, and this must manifest as a force of the same magnitude acting with the motion of the rocket.

This force is exerted by the gas inside the rocket. This force transfers energy from the gas into the rocket, so obviously energy is removed from the gas. Furthermore, the transfer of energy has a related transfer of momentum. Effectively, the momentum of the air has been increased in the forward direction, so an equal amount of extra momentum must be imparted to the motion of the gas in the reverse direction.

Note that the air resistance is entirely a function of the velocity of the rocket - it would apply equally if the rocket had been launched unpressurised using a catapult. Likewise, the force due to the pressure of the gas would apply equally if the rocket were in a vacuum. The two processes are independent, and the fact that they are creating equal and opposite forces in this situation is entirely due to the constraint that the rocket is moving at constant velocity.

All of this is irrelevant to your "shockwave" scenarios, because the rocket is an impermeable barrier to the passage of the air/gas molecules, and its motion is a summation of the forces acting on it due to the individual motions of the very much smaller molecules.

Sound waves and the shockwaves from nuclear fireballs, etc, are due to the motions of individual molecules, which are colliding with other molecules of similar mass. Your "shockwaves" are the result of the very rapid formation of gas molecules with large kinetic energies in a restricted volume. These molecules necessarily have high velocities and will inevitably quickly leave the original volume. Thus there is an expanding shell of high-velocity molecule; the exact dimensions of the shell are governed by the original volume of the high energy gas and the range of velocities of the molecules.

The molecules were accelerated when they were initially brought up to speed. Afte that the intermolecular forces are sufficiently small as to be irrelevant and the only important interactions are the collisions between the high-energy molecules (which merely tend to reduce the velocity spectrum) and the collisions that occur with the lower-velocity molecules "outside", which tends to dissipate the shockwave into random heat.

The important point is that there is no "outward force" at the level of the individual molecules. They are given an initial "kick", which is eventually converted into random motion of the gas as a whole.

The whole notion of "pressure" is a statistical device to summarise gas properties in a simple, useful number for "macroscopic" purposes. It has a lot in common with electron drift velocity; neither is at all useful when applied to situations where the assumptions that underpin the statistics are not "in play".

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger nige said...

Force is never really present at the level of individual molecules anyhow, they don't gradually push, in the kinetic theory they collide and impart momentum.

You can drivel on about your fantasies, Kevin, but you won't convince me that my invention of the concept of force is superfluous. Perhaps if you first convince yourself that in the atomic picture, all forces are being communicated by electrons whizzing around, then you'll be able to convince me that I'm wrong.

As you'll see from the latest couple of posts to this blog (30 Nov 05), I'm still deluding myself into the believe that Newton's laws have some validity to forces...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home