• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Thread split: Why learn physics by yourself/electric fields vs. magnetic fields

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Sorry I don't see what you expect me to say. As far as testing my knowledge, well, of course I can say that the magnetic field is a closed differential 2-form, and that the exterior derivative of its Hodge dual is (the dual of) the electric current.
I'm not testing you (I'm not that arrogant)- I just wanted to see which way your brain is bending in regards to magnetic fields.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the difference is between an electric and magnetic field? I personally think that accepted theories of charge, magnetism etc are way, way off the truth.

I don't want to hijack your thread though, so perhaps we should just leave it.
 

spoirier

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:05 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
111
---
Location
France
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Out of curiosity, what do you think the difference is between an electric and magnetic field?
????
I already said that electric and magnetic fields have exactly the same nature, as they are the components into which the electromagnetic field is split relatively to a given frame of reference.
I personally think that accepted theories of charge, magnetism etc are way, way off the truth.
I already implicitly replied this in my text:
I mean, there are many pseudo-scientists out there who cry against the establishment, accuse scientists of conformism, and claim to have made wonderful discoveries that refute the currently established theories. And usually indeed, such fringe people are wrong, while the current theories of physics are really seriously well-established.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

????
I already said that electric and magnetic fields have exactly the same nature, as they are the components into which the electromagnetic field is split relatively to a given frame of reference.
Sure, but why then are there two different names for the same thing? Which bit of the electro magnetic field is electric, and which bit is magnetic?

The whole thing makes no sense, imo.
 

spoirier

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:05 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
111
---
Location
France
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Sure, but why then are there two different names for the same thing? Which bit of the electro magnetic field is electric, and which bit is magnetic?

The whole thing makes no sense, imo.
:babytap:
For the exact same reason that there are 2 different names for "space" and "time", while in the depth of physical laws there is only one space-time.
Namely, for the sake of convenience to describe practical situations.
The electromagnetic field at each event (point of space-time) belongs to a 6-dimensional vector space. A choice of a coordinates system for space-time provides a basis for this vector space, thus 6 components for the value of the field at each event, to be grouped into the 3 components of the electric field and the 3 components of the magnetic field.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

To end this foolishness about how magnetic and electric fields being different :)

Electric fields and magnetic fields are different...

They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristic. They are inter-related in what we call the electromagnetic field.

elec_mag_field.gif

Permanent magnets don't have an electric field and static electricity doesn't have a magnetic field.


It's precisely the same analogy of space, time and space-time that Spoirier used earlier.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Electric fields and magnetic fields are different...

They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristic. They are inter-related in what we call the electromagnetic field.


Permanent magnets don't have an electric field and static electricity doesn't have a magnetic field.


It's precisely the same analogy of space, time and space-time that Spoirier used earlier.
I see.

So why do magnets have a magnetic field? :)
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I see.

So why do magnets have a magnetic field? :)

I could answer that literally - Because they are magnetic.

I suspect however, this is not the answer you are looking for. :D

Magnetic fields are generated by steady currents, electric fields are generated by stationary charges.

This means that electric fields and magnetic fields have completely different units.

EMF.jpg
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I could answer that literally - Because they are magnetic.

I suspect however, this is not the answer you are looking for. :D

Magnetic fields are generated by steady currents (electromagnetism), electric fields are generated by stationary charges.

This means that electric fields and magnetic fields have completely different units.
If magnetic fields are generated by steady currents, then where is the steady current in a regular magnet coming from?

Also, why would you use two units to describe the same field?

:)
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

If magnetic fields are generated by steady currents, then where is the steady current in a regular magnet coming from?

Permanent magnets don't have a moving current, but they do have a moving charge. The electrons of the atoms in a permanent magnet are moving and spinning. The spin is the main factor that determines the strength of a magnetic field in a permanent magnet. Each electron has it's own magnetic field, but the magnetic strength is determined on the overall spin of all the electrons.

The more electrons spinning the same direction produce a greater magnetic field. In an iron atom, more than half the electrons (15/26) are spinning the same direction so they produce an overall magnetic field. Iron is the most magnetic element.

Magnetic materials such as iron have magnetic domains which are localised areas of atoms that have the same alignment.

Permanent magnets have all their magnetic domains aligned which creates a strong magnetic field.

Also, why would you use two units to describe the same field?

:)

Because they are not the thing. It's the same reason you have volts and current for electricity.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Permanent magnets don't have a moving current, but they do have a moving charge. The electrons of the atoms in a permanent magnet are moving and spinning. The spin is the main factor that determines the strength of a magnetic field in a permanent magnet. Each electron has it's own magnetic field, but the magnetic strength is determined on the overall spin of all the electrons.

The more electrons spinning the same direction produce a greater magnetic field. In an iron atom, more than half the electrons (15/26) are spinning the same direction so they produce an overall magnetic field. Iron is the most magnetic element.

Magnetic materials such as iron have magnetic domains which are localised areas of atoms that have the same alignment.

Permanent magnets have all their magnetic domains aligned which creates a strong magnetic field.



Because they are not the thing. It's the same reason you have volts and current for electricity.
If magnetic fields are produced by spinning electrons, then it implies that the bigger the atom, the greater the magnetic field around it - which is not true. Nor does it explain why some materials will not accept a magnetic field at all, as is the case with bismuth.

You sound like you learned your lessons well, but I have my doubts about the guy who taught you. And the guy who taught him. And the guy who taught him :D
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

If magnetic fields are produced by spinning electrons, then it implies that the bigger the atom, the greater the magnetic field around it - which is not true. Nor does it explain why some materials will not accept a magnetic field at all, as is the case with bismuth.

You sound like you learned your lessons well, but I have my doubts about the guy who taught you. And the guy who taught him. And the guy who taught him :D

Firstly, no it doesn't. Iron has more than half its electrons spinning in the same direction which gives it its magnetic property. There are not many elements that have the majority of electrons spinning in the same direction and so your assumption is invalid.

Secondly, bismuth is actually diamagnetic and does react to a magnetic field albeit very weakly. It's used in a lot of levitation toys.
Bismuth has 83 electrons, many of which are paired in spin and rotation. These paired electrons cancel out their mutual magnetic fields which in turn, produce a low overall magnetic field.

I would also like to point out that magnetic fields are dipole (north and south) whereas electric fields can be monopole.

There isn't a magnetic charge in the known universe that produces a monopole magnetic field. Even if you chop a magnet in half, both pieces generate dipole fields

200px-CuttingABarMagnet.svg.png
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Firstly, no it doesn't. Iron has more than half its electrons spinning in the same direction which gives it its magnetic property. There are not many elements that have the majority of electrons spinning in the same direction and so your assumption is invalid.

Secondly, bismuth is actually diamagnetic and does react to a magnetic field albeit very weakly. It's used in a lot of levitation toys.
Bismuth has 83 electrons, many of which are paired in spin and rotation. These paired electrons cancel out their mutual magnetic fields which in turn, produce a low overall magnetic field.

I would also like to point out that magnetic fields are dipole (north and south) whereas electric fields can be monopole.

There isn't a magnetic charge in the known universe that produces a monopole magnetic field. Even if you chop a magnet in half, both pieces generate dipole fields

I'm not being trite, but how do you know 100% that it is the "spin" of the "electrons" that is causing the field?

Did someone take a photo?
Did they survey the electrons to ask what they were up to?

And you didn't answer my question about the correlation between increasing atomic size and magnetic field strength.

What you said sounds good on the surface, but is a theory.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I did answer it, you just brushed it off in your opening sentence...

Everything is a theory...

So far, the electromagnetism theory works well.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I did answer it, you just brushed it off in your opening sentence...

Everything is a theory...

So far, the electromagnetism theory works well.
I disagree.

It works well in understanding how to make pieces of paper stick to your refrigerator...but that's about it.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I disagree.

It works well in understanding how to make pieces of paper stick to your refrigerator...but that's about it.

Having studied electromagnetism for an entire semester at university, I'm amused at how wrong your over-simplification is.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 1:05 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I'm not being trite, but how do you know 100% that it is the "spin" of the "electrons" that is causing the field?

Did someone take a photo?
Did they survey the electrons to ask what they were up to?

The movement of charge creates a magnetic field. Atomic electrons have a charge, and they orbit their nuclei at nearly the speed of light in either a 'northward' or 'southward' direction depending on their quantum 'spin'; each electron therefore creates a tiny magnetic field, the direction of the polarity of which depends on the 'spin' of the particular electron. When two electrons spin in opposite directions, their magnetic fields, which can be modeled as waves, are opposite and therefore destructively interfere with one another and thereby do not give their atom an overall magnetic polarity; conversely, two electrons orbiting an atom with the same 'spin' create magnetic fields that constructively interfere with one another and thereby give their respective atom an overall magnetic polarity.

And you didn't answer my question about the correlation between increasing atomic size and magnetic field strength.

A big neutral atom and a small neutral atom are still neutral by definition, but a big polar atom will be more magnetic than a little polar atom provided that the big polar atom has more net electrons spinning in the same direction. Imagine that we could represent magnetism as a number, where each northwardly spinning electron adds 1, and each southwardly spinning electrons subtracts 1.

An atom with 5 northwardly spinning electrons and 5 southwardly spinning electrons would therefore have a magentism of zero--or, in other words, not have an overall magnetic polarity. Likewise, an atom with 50 northwardly spinning electrons and 50 southwardly spinning electrons would have a magnetism of zero--or, in other words, not have an overall magnetic polarity. However, an atom with 6 northwardly spinning electrons and 4 southwardly spinning electrons would have net magnetism of 2, and an atom with 60 northwardly spinning electrons and 40 southwardly spinning electrons would have a magnetism of 20; the proportion of spin direction is the same in both atoms, but the bigger one is more magnetic because it has more 'net' electrons.

-Duxwing
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Theory stinks. Nuclear atom theory stinks. Spinning electron theory stinks. I'm a bullshit artist, and I can detect bullshit a mile away - and that, my friend, is a bullshit theory.
 

DelusiveNinja

Falsifier of Reality
Local time
Today 1:05 PM
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
408
---
Location
Michigan
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Everything is a theory...

I thought about this this morning and I think I agree. Since nothing is true and you know the rest.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 1:05 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Theory stinks. Nuclear atom theory stinks. Spinning electron theory stinks. I'm a bullshit artist, and I can detect bullshit a mile away - and that, my friend, is a bullshit theory.

This conversation will go nowhere if you reject the current scientific consensus because of an intuition and then demand that we give you our credulity. Until you're ready to listen to the textbooks, seeya. :)

-Duxwing
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 3:05 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,252
---
Location
69S 69E
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I'm a bullshit artist, and I can detect bullshit a mile away.

Woof!
All this statement implies is that you're too stupid to comprehend the concept being put forth. Which you deal with by dismissing it, through projecting your own (lack of) mental capabilities onto another.

Arf!
Even dog smarter than George.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Woof!
All this statement implies is that you're too stupid to comprehend the concept being put forth. Which you deal with by dismissing it, through projecting your own (lack of) mental capabilities onto another.

Arf!
Even dog smarter than George.
I comprehend it just fine. I simply think that it is wrong, based on my own experiments and resultant theory.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 1:05 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I comprehend it just fine. I simply think that it is wrong, based on my own experiments and resultant theory.

Please present us your data, procedure, calculations, hypothesis, analysis, and "resultant theory".

-Duxwing
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Please present us your data, procedure, calculations, hypothesis, analysis, and "resultant theory".

-Duxwing
It isn't written in a form understandable by the casual reader, as it is scattered in various personal diaries/journals. It would take quite a while to put it all in order, because when I present it, I want to have written it compared and contrasted with current theory.

Too many projects, not enough time.
 

Systems

Worshipper of Banjulhu
Local time
Today 7:05 PM
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
64
---
Location
Denmark
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

It isn't written in a form understandable by the casual reader, as it is scattered in various personal diaries/journals. It would take quite a while to put it all in order, because when I present it, I want to have written it compared and contrasted with current theory.

Too many projects, not enough time.

This one, however, could very well result in a nobel prize.. You really should give it a go you know...
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

This one, however, could very well result in a nobel prize.. You really should give it a go you know...
I'm not motivated by things like that.

I'll do it eventually though. It just takes time. The more experiments you do so as to nail it all down, the more understandable that particular journal becomes. So I'll keep chipping away until it makes enough sense to other people.
 

Systems

Worshipper of Banjulhu
Local time
Today 7:05 PM
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
64
---
Location
Denmark
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I'm not motivated by things like that.

I'll do it eventually though. It just takes time. The more experiments you do so as to nail it all down, the more understandable that particular journal becomes. So I'll keep chipping away until it makes enough sense to other people.

So bullshitting on intpf seems a more productive use of your time to you?


I don't even know why I let myself get bated to be honest ^^ So I'll just leave it at that.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

So bullshitting on intpf seems a more productive use of your time to you?


I don't even know why I let myself get bated to be honest ^^ So I'll just leave it at that.
Just so that you understand, I work on this stuff constantly, though never a whole week at a time on one job.

I'll do an experiment, jot some stuff down, do some stuff with my business, go to the gym, do some more stuff on the business, come up with a new experiment to work out another aspect, see who said what on a couple of forums etc.

So like I said, it'll get done eventually. You can't be creative 100% of the time - you burn out
 

spoirier

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:05 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
111
---
Location
France
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Now it's clear your are just a crank like many others, pretending to criticize physics because you could not understand it.
Please know that there is no problem with the currently established theories of physics, which are perfectly correct.
There is just a little difficulty in pedagogical matters, which is what I'm working on.
There is no need to make up the idea of a problem to be solved. There is no problem to be solved about what is an electromagnetic field. It is already clear.

See also:
The Crackpot Index
My text about cranks
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 1:05 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Now it's clear your are just a crank like many others, pretending to criticize physics because you could not understand it.
Please know that there is no problem with the currently established theories of physics, which are perfectly correct.

The present physical theories still need work: Relativity and QM don't get along, and the scientific community calls Dark Matter and Dark Energy "Dark" because they don't understand them despite their being calculated to comprise much more of the universe than normal matter and energy.

There is just a little difficulty in pedagogical matters, which is what I'm working on.
There is no need to make up the idea of a problem to be solved. There is no problem to be solved about what is an electromagnetic field. It is already clear.

See also:
The Crackpot Index
My text about cranks

You seem exceedingly certain of your claim despite evidence to the contrary.

-Duxwing
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Now it's clear your are just a crank like many others, pretending to criticize physics because you could not understand it.
Please know that there is no problem with the currently established theories of physics, which are perfectly correct.
There is just a little difficulty in pedagogical matters, which is what I'm working on.
There is no need to make up the idea of a problem to be solved. There is no problem to be solved about what is an electromagnetic field. It is already clear.

See also:
The Crackpot Index
My text about cranks

I don't recall being rude to you, nor do I recall discussing anything that I am working on - and yet you are quite happy to call me a "crank".

If you had time to write " the crackpot index" and "my text about cranks", then surely you have time to explore your curiosity in your field.

Perhaps you already have everything you need right here and now - a laptop, an internet connection, and an audience for your moaning about how unfair it is for special snowflakes like you.
 

spoirier

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:05 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
111
---
Location
France
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I don't recall being rude to you
That's true, so what ? Do you think I am rude to you ? Sorry but I cannot see how I can try to be more helpful. You decided to waste your time trying to develop ideas that won't lead you anywhere. I try to help you stop wasting your time by informing you on the situation: that physicists already succeeded to find the right theory of electromagnetism and do not need your help.
This is a fact that may sound rude to you, since you have invested your emotions into the belief that you found valuable ideas, and you started to identify yourself with your ideas, so that you feel any criticism to your ideas as a personal attack against you. But now I give you the chance, to accept the facts and stop wasting your time, and that is a chance I give you to avoid the inevitable result that no matter what I may wish or try, anyway this fact (that physicists already found the right theory of electromagnetism and don't need your help) will come back to you, so that it will become even harder to you in the future than it may seem now, after you would have invested still more of your energy into these ideas that won't lead you anywhere.

Are you really a thinker rather than feeler ? Such misinterpretations of claims of facts as if they were personal attacks just expressing or motivated by some sort of animosity to a person, seems more an attitude of feelers than thinkers, even if admittedly it may happen to thinkers too.

, nor do I recall discussing anything that I am working on - and yet you are quite happy to call me a "crank".
What's this story about my feelings ? Where did I ever express happiness about this ? If not, why do you imagine this ? I reported facts, which are matter of facts and have nothing to do with whether they may make you or I happy or upset.

It is not my facts. My own person has nothing to do with this, I have no kind of responsibility for these facts. Of course you did not attack me, so what ? since these facts have nothing to do with me, even less with your attitude towards me.
The success of currently known theories of electromagnetism is a well-known fact, accepted by all physicists.

If you had time to write " the crackpot index"
The Crackpot Index was written by John Baez, not I.
The present physical theories still need work: Relativity and QM don't get along, and the scientific community calls Dark Matter and Dark Energy "Dark" because they don't understand them despite their being calculated to comprise much more of the universe than normal matter and energy.
Of course I know it, so what ? This remark is completely out of subject.

The subject here was : do we correctly understand electromagnetism ?
And the answer is totally yes.
Of course, understanding electromagnetism does not mean understanding absolutely everything in the universe, so what ?
What the f**k is this idea that just because we do not absolutely understand everything, we must consider that all what is already known should just go to the trash?
Such an idea has nothing to do with science.
It is rather a religious idea.
It is the view of Christians who, to avoid any critical discussion about their faith, just ask you the question : Do you know God personally ? No ? You don't know God ? Then all your arguments are worthless since without God, all your thoughts are fallible, bye bye.

This impossibility to conceive any intermediate situation between divine omniscience and total ignorance.

If science was possible and successful, on the other hand, it is because people had the courage to consider the possibility to develop knowledge step by step. That we don't need to give up and reject every minute everything we already know just because we are not God, as it is still possible to know and verify something, and then something more, and more... until the accumulated knowlege eventually becomes huge.

You seem exceedingly certain of your claim despite evidence to the contrary.
All evidence is on my side. But you imagine otherwise as you misinterpret everything.
Please tell me : do you understand physics better than I ? Do you understand general relativity and quantum physics well ?
Those who do, will confirm what I just wrote. (If I remember well, the amazingly high success of our understanding of electrodynamics was reported by Richard in [nomedia="http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_feynman.html"]Richard Feynman: Physics is fun to imagine | Video on TED.com[/nomedia], but I cannot check now - namely, the agreement between theory and measurement for the magnetic momentum of the electron, which involves the theory very deeply in details).
You imagine otherwise, because you refer to some of their reports which you misinterpret.
They report that there are many things we don't know. Of course. Because the things we don't know are what they are working on, so they are important for their work.
But it does not mean that it has anything to do with a possible challenge to the things that are already well-known, such as electromagnetism.

This discussion is just a pitiful but remarkable confirmation of this point that I reported in that speech in preparation:
Indeed, there were times when my contributions in online forums were just dismissed without any care to check the arguments, by participants who saw me there as a stupid arrogant crank when my claims did not fit what they liked to hear and were ready to see as serious claims.

Including when I was just trying to report the current state of scientific knowledge on a given question, to people who didn't know it and couldn't believe it.(...)
In all that, was my academic status ever considered as a possible motivation to still try to take me seriously ? Not the least bit.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 1:05 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Of course I know it, so what ? This remark is completely out of subject.

I had incorrectly interpreted that you were asserting that the Standard Model is consistent and complete.

The subject here was : do we correctly understand electromagnetism ?
And the answer is totally yes.
Of course, understanding electromagnetism does not mean understanding absolutely everything in the universe, so what ?
What the f**k is this idea that just because we do not absolutely understand everything, we must consider that all what is already known should just go to the trash?
Such an idea has nothing to do with science.
It is rather a religious idea.
It is the view of Christians who, to avoid any critical discussion about their faith, just ask you the question : Do you know God personally ? No ? You don't know God ? Then all your arguments are worthless since without God, all your thoughts are fallible, bye bye.

This impossibility to conceive any intermediate situation between divine omniscience and total ignorance.

If science was possible and successful, on the other hand, it is because people had the courage to consider the possibility to develop knowledge step by step. That we don't need to give up and reject every minute everything we already know just because we are not God, as it is still possible to know and verify something, and then something more, and more... until the accumulated knowlege eventually becomes huge.

Whoa, whoa, chill out. :) I didn't make a claim of total ignorance: I was just surprised by what I thought you were saying, which was that our current understanding of physics was perfect, and I was attempting to demonstrate that it wasn't.

All evidence is on my side. But you imagine otherwise as you misinterpret everything.

I ultimately misinterpreted your thesis, but you didn't qualify your assertion that the current models were perfect; ergo, I interpreted them as being universal claims.

Please tell me : do you understand physics better than I ? Do you understand general relativity and quantum physics well ?
Those who do, will confirm what I just wrote. (If I remember well, the amazingly high success of our understanding of electrodynamics was reported by Richard in Richard Feynman: Physics is fun to imagine | Video on TED.com, but I cannot check now - namely, the agreement between theory and measurement for the magnetic momentum of the electron, which involves the theory very deeply in details).
You imagine otherwise, because you refer to some of their reports which you misinterpret.
They report that there are many things we don't know. Of course. Because the things we don't know are what they are working on, so they are important for their work.
But it does not mean that it has anything to do with a possible challenge to the things that are already well-known, such as electromagnetism.

This discussion is just a pitiful but remarkable confirmation of this point that I reported in that speech in preparation:

Qualify your statements. We are otherwise in agreement. :)

-Duxwing
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

And this is why you shouldn't talk about your inventions until you have enough prototypes for everybody to take home and play with.
 

NullPointer

Member
Local time
Tomorrow 5:05 AM
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
46
---
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Spoirier, I think Duxwing misinterpreted what you said because it wasn't clear from your post whether you were talking about electromagnetism, or physics in its entirety.

Please know that there is no problem with the currently established theories of physics, which are perfectly correct.

I think it would have been clearer if you'd more explicitly mentioned you were talking about electromagnetism. To your credit, you did subsequently say, more specifically:

There is no problem to be solved about what is an electromagnetic field.

Hopefully that helps clear up why Duxwing wasn't specifically referring to electromagnetism in his reply.
 

Systems

Worshipper of Banjulhu
Local time
Today 7:05 PM
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
64
---
Location
Denmark
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

And this is why you shouldn't talk about your inventions until you have enough prototypes for everybody to take home and play with.

The problem is rather that you have nothing to show at all..
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,535
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

JustGeorge, Systems is right on the money here. A nobel prize will give credibility and resources to every idea you'll ever have. Completion of this one idea would hasten completion of all of your others, and the rest of the scientific community could stop wasting their time with their misguided empiricism. You completing this sooner rather than later would save people billions. The recognition this would grant you would give you any lifestyle you desired. Don't tell me you don't want it, particularly since there's so very little stopping you from picking one up (there might be a less than exciting ceremony).
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,535
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Do all ENTP's have delusions of grandeur?

You have everything to gain by going large with your claims. The only reason you'd sit on your hands talking about how you could if you wanted to is if you didn't really have anything to show. What other possible motivation could you have?
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Do all ENTP's have delusions of grandeur?

You have everything to gain by going large with your claims. The only reason you'd sit on your hands talking about how you could if you wanted to is if you didn't really have anything to show. What other possible motivation could you have?

Bullshit you have everything to gain. Been there, done that. You know what happens? They turn on you, call you a crank, say that you're crazy etc. Then, after they've dragged you through the mud and given you a few hundred new white hairs and high blood pressure, they slowly, slowly come around to your point of view - usually after the guy who was in charge of making your life hell has been reappointed someplace else.

I've gone toe to toe with the government over a few issues (some very recently) plus professional boards, and the same thing happens. First they ridicule you, then they start with the threats, then theres a big fight with lots of committees and meetings, and then gingerly, on a different but related issue, they ask for your advice.

And that's just a shitty little government department, let alone the entire edifice of physics, with long bearded professors whose tenures depend on everything staying as it is. No way. No way in hell.

If you like, I'll finish it and give it to you to learn inside out. You can present it, and you can have all the fights. Just reference me somewhere in a footnote.

Bright eyed little dude who thinks that he can present an idea that makes other people look like idiots, and thinks that they'll welcome him and say "good on you for being so smart." Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft. Life has some BIG slaps waiting for anyone with that plan.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 1:05 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Bullshit you have everything to gain. Been there, done that. You know what happens? They turn on you, call you a crank, say that you're crazy etc. Then, after they've dragged you through the mud and given you a few hundred new white hairs and high blood pressure, they slowly, slowly come around to your point of view - usually after the guy who was in charge of making your life hell has been reappointed someplace else.

That's no fun. :( I hope that you're feeling better now. Although calling someone crazy and a crank does nothing to reveal the truth, so doing does not invalidate the arguments of those doing the calling: I'm still waiting for your reply to my rebuttal of your argument that elements with higher atomic numbers are more magnetic than elements with smaller ones, and I feel like you're ignoring me.

I've gone toe to toe with the government over a few issues (some very recently) plus professional boards, and the same thing happens. First they ridicule you, then they start with the threats, then theres a big fight with lots of committees and meetings, and then gingerly, on a different but related issue, they ask for your advice.

Your repeatedly being met with such a reaction should evince that your behavior--for example, ignoring my rebuttal--is more likely to be the cause of these fights than the entire world being against new ideas and therefore against you, one who brings them. In particular, this comment makes me think that you took your disagreements with them very personally.

And that's just a shitty little government department, let alone the entire edifice of physics, with long bearded professors whose tenures depend on everything staying as it is. No way. No way in hell.

My understanding of research departments indicates a contrary conclusion: professors' tenures depend on their producing a constant flow of new research papers, and their reputations grow with every theory that they overturn.

If you like, I'll finish it and give it to you to learn inside out. You can present it, and you can have all the fights. Just reference me somewhere in a footnote.

Perhaps a different method of developing and presenting your ideas would be more effective than the current one: for example, I've not once seen you doubt your conclusions or admit that one of your arguments was wrong after it was demonstrated to so be, and doubting one's conclusions and admitting error is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

-Duxwing
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I'm not sure which post you're talking about, dux. I might have missed it in the flurry. BUT DONT YOU START with a million little quotes if I do, okay.

My experience with professional boards is a little different. When the newspapers called my old university (one of the times I made a fuss), they denied having taught me. The univeristy "couldn't find a record" of my having attended.

18 months later, I was proven 100% correct. (HA!...bitches). You think that the board or university offered an apology? You think they retracted any statements? Nooooo. Nothing to see here. No one talk about it. Especially don't talk about the European Council conducting an investigation that vindicated what that loud little aussie was saying, and were taking people to court over it.

So my experience with universities is a tad different than yours.

Also, this time I do have a plan. The plan is not to talk about it, until it's time to talk about it. That's why there are no details in this thread. I could have scanned a sketch, jotted a couple of formulas, and instead of arguing on the net, several people on this thread likely would have been writing a CAD file for a 3D printer.

So you see, I'm confident for a reason, dux :)
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 1:05 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I'm not sure which post you're talking about, dux. I might have missed it in the flurry. BUT DONT YOU START with a million little quotes if I do, okay.

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Use. Tiny. Quotes!

Cannot. Resist. Urge. To. Talk. Like. William Shatner!

:D

You held that large atoms are more magnetic than smaller ones; however, the ratio of electron spins, not the sheer number of electrons, determines magnetism.

My experience with professional boards is a little different. When the newspapers called my old university (one of the times I made a fuss), they denied having taught me. The univeristy "couldn't find a record" of my having attended.

18 months later, I was proven 100% correct. (HA!...bitches). You think that the board or university offered an apology? You think they retracted any statements? Nooooo. Nothing to see here. No one talk about it. Especially don't talk about the European Council conducting an investigation that vindicated what that loud little aussie was saying, and were taking people to court over it.

So my experience with universities is a tad different than yours.

Hahaha! Oh, man, that's so bad: they disowned you! :D. But the joke's on them because you were finally vindicated, and I'm glad about that. :) And um... hehe... *scratches back of my head* I've yet to go to university and instead was referring to second-hand knowledge. I should have better worded my sentence, sorry! :o

Also, this time I do have a plan. The plan is not to talk about it, until it's time to talk about it. That's why there are no details in this thread. I could have scanned a sketch, jotted a couple of formulas, and instead of arguing on the net, several people on this thread likely would have been writing a CAD file for a 3D printer.

So you see, I'm confident for a reason, dux :)

If your project concerns physics, then I suggest compiling your hypothesis into a coherent whole and then asking Architect to review it; however, it instead seems to concern 3D printing. I remain unsure of what that reason for being confident is.

-Duxwing
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Use. Tiny. Quotes!

Cannot. Resist. Urge. To. Talk. Like. William Shatner!

:D

You held that large atoms are more magnetic than smaller ones; however, the ratio of electron spins, not the sheer number of electrons, determines magnetism.
I did no such thing.

I brought up a hole in the theory, in that the idea that electron spin ratio determining magnetism is wrong.

The reasoning is simple - as atoms get bigger, the number of electrons increases, as does their proximity to the nucleus. Therefore, logically speaking, for that theory to be correct, the larger the atom, the more out of balance the whole would be, and therefore, there would be examples of very magnetic, very large atoms - which does not hold true, as iron, which is much smaller than atoms on the big end of the periodic table, is more magnetizable than they are.

Further, if the idea that electron spin ratio producing magnetism were true, wouldn't that mean that hydrogen would be an extremely magnetic atom? After all, it is only supposed to have one electron. That means that it is 100% spinning in one direction.

Or how about lithium? 3 electrons. How do you balance the spin of 3 electrons? You can't. There would be severe imbalances in the direction of electron spin, and therefore a high degree of magnetic activity. Is there? No.

How about ions in solution? Ions have one or more electrons taken away as they float around. That would cause a huge imbalance in electron spin, and high magnetic activity, right? Except that it doesn't happen.

This stuff about electron spin ratio determining magnetism is bunk.

Does spin and charge have to do with it? Yes. Is it about electrons and ratios? No.

Hahaha! Oh, man, that's so bad: they disowned you! :D. But the joke's on them because you were finally vindicated, and I'm glad about that. :) And um... hehe... *scratches back of my head* I've yet to go to university and instead was referring to second-hand knowledge. I should have better worded my sentence, sorry! :o

No, the joke is still on me. They wont apologize. They wont acknowledge their error. So when you google my name, you get 5000 hits about me being wrong. Except that I wasn't. It'll take years for public opinion to turn, and one day, when I'm really old, people will look back and say "how could they have believed this nonsense back then? The people who disagreed were obviously correct" the way we look at thalidamide or x rays being good for you today.

If your project concerns physics, then I suggest compiling your hypothesis into a coherent whole and then asking Architect to review it; however, it instead seems to concern 3D printing. I remain unsure of what that reason for being confident is.

-Duxwing

:)
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I did no such thing.

I brought up a hole in the theory, in that the idea that electron spin ratio determining magnetism is wrong.

The reasoning is simple - as atoms get bigger, the number of electrons increases, as does their proximity to the nucleus. Therefore, logically speaking, for that theory to be correct, the larger the atom, the more out of balance the whole would be, and therefore, there would be examples of very magnetic, very large atoms - which does not hold true, as iron, which is much smaller than atoms on the big end of the periodic table, is more magnetizable than they are.

This logic is flawed because it is based on the assumption that more electrons equals more magnetism. This is false.

Further, if the idea that electron spin ratio producing magnetism were true, wouldn't that mean that hydrogen would be an extremely magnetic atom? After all, it is only supposed to have one electron. That means that it is 100% spinning in one direction.

Uhm... Hydrogen has a very strong magnetic moment and lines up in a magnetic field. It's the key element we focus on for MRI scans.

This stuff about electron spin ratio determining magnetism is bunk.

Does spin and charge have to do with it? Yes. Is it about electrons and ratios? No.

It's funny really because the magnetic moment of an electron is the most accurately verified prediction in the history of physics (more than 10 significant figures).

Magnetism isn't just about the spin of electrons, but electrons are a key part in calculating the magnetic momentum of atoms, molecules and materials. See below.

Wikipedia said:
Typically, the overall magnetic moment of a molecule is a combination of the following contributions, in the order of their typical strength:
  • magnetic moments due to its unpaired electron spins (paramagnetic contribution), if any
  • orbital motion of its electrons, which in the ground state is often proportional to the external magnetic field (diamagnetic contribution)
  • the combined magnetic moment of its nuclear spins, which depends on the nuclear spin configuration.

We use the superposition principle.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 2:35 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Re: Why learn physics by yourself

This logic is flawed because it is based on the assumption that more electrons equals more magnetism. This is false.
no, it based on the assumption that more electrons = more opportunity for imbalance, not only due to the number of atoms, but the spacing.

It doesn't happen that way. There are more factors involved, and the field looks different to what is commonly described.

If it were that simple, curie temperatures wouldn't be so significant.

It seems pretty clear (from what I'm doing) that magnetism depends more on the whole mass of atoms, rather than the atoms themselves.

I'm doing a terrible job at articulating it today, but magnetism as we interact with it does not happen on a sub atomic level. It happens on a crystalline or molecular level and up.

Uhm... Hydrogen has a very strong magnetic moment and lines up in a magnetic field. It's the key element we focus on for MRI scans.
Sure, but according to the spin theory, it should be extremely magnetic. It isn't.

As above, it's what is around the individual atom that causes the manifestation that we call a magnetic field.

It's funny really because the magnetic moment of an electron is the most accurately verified prediction in the history of physics (more than 10 significant figures).

I'm still not sold on the idea of electrons existing as part of a nuclear atom. Spinning charged particle, yes. Name electron, orbiting a nuclear...not so much.

Magnetism isn't just about the spin of electrons, but electrons are a key part in calculating the magnetic momentum of atoms, molecules and materials. See below.

We use the superposition principle.

I have read all of that. Look this isn't going to go anywhere without me pointing to what I have done and saying "now you explain that, genius". Just bloody well wait, would you.
 
Top Bottom