On Apr 21, 5:37*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:25:41 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:00*pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Timo wrote:

How is it a "step beyond"? All we have is a mathematical model of
observable effects of electrons. Where is there any hint of "mechanism"?

The electron is the mechanism.

A very poor "mechanism". No better than "field". Worse, even. Why are you
happy with "electron" as "mechanism" but not "field"? (Perhaps a good time
to actually try to define what you mean by "mechanism"?)

In fact, I would challenge Jan to characterize an electron in such a
way that distinguishes it from a field. What are the properties of an
electron that make it more "real" than a field? Be very careful with
the answer, Jan.

You relativists really are a primative lot. You are stuck on the bottom rung of
physics and can't raise your tiny little minds above it.

The point is, there is an obvious link between 'matter', 'charge' and 'field'.
The mathematics is well known.
Jan and I wish to speculate on the physics of that link.

Where the distinction between the mathematics of the link and the
physics of the link is WHAT, exactly? This is where I challenged Jan
to be a bit more complete, and I'd be entertained by your spluttering
an attempt as well.




PD

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Apr 21, 5:54*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:52:56 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:02*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Its predictions will be the same as those already known.
The only way to investigate Watter is to start with the known maths and
construct a model that will produce it.

That's how physics works.

Uh, no, that is not how physics works. A new model gets developed into
*new math* and in particular makes predictions that are *not* made by
theories to date. It is in fact the distinctive predictions of the new
model that make it testable against experiment -- since it makes
claims that are quantitatively *different* than what current models
make, then the measurement of that quantity thereby tells you whether
the new model is right and the current models necessarily wrong, or
vice versa.

THAT is how physics works.

That's one way...a model is developed from observations and then tested with
maths.....but it is not applicable in this instance. The maths are already
known but the model is not.
Any physical model that IS conceived will be tested against the known maths..

Sorry, that ain't science. Don't know which of your fake degrees
taught you this way, but you ought to get your fake money back.




Co-opting the math of a current theory and retaining all of its
predictions and imbuing it with an "alternate explanation" is
decidedly *not* how physics works. That is humbuggery. You can bugger
hums all you like, if that's all you want to do. Just don't pretend
it's doing physics.

You are backward, draper.

Pity you don't like the facts, Rabbidge. Please proceed with your
buggering hums. It's highly entertaining.


PD

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Apr 21, 6:04*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:47:30 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 5:37*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:25:41 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:00*pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

You relativists really are a primative lot. You are stuck on the bottom rung of
physics and can't raise your tiny little minds above it.

The point is, there is an obvious link between 'matter', 'charge' and 'field'.
The mathematics is well known.
Jan and I wish to speculate on the physics of that link.

Where the distinction between the mathematics of the link and the
physics of the link is WHAT, exactly? This is where I challenged Jan
to be a bit more complete, and I'd be entertained by your spluttering
an attempt as well.

We don't know the physics, Draper. That is what we are trying to determine..

So you admit you don't know the difference between the mathematics of
the link and the physics of the link. All you care to project is that
there is something missing and leaving you unsatisfied, but you can't
say what.


All we know is that it must exist.

WHAT must exist? If you don't know what it is, please explain how
you're going to recognize the physics when you stumble upon it.


That's what Aristotle said about thunder and lightning, remember.....or was if
Confuscious?

Well, you're certainly confusedious. Are you using Aristotle as your
standard for recognizing a physical model, Rabbidge? He wasn't so good
at it, you know.


PD

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Apr 21, 6:29*pm, wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:47*pm, PD wrote:



On Apr 21, 5:37*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:25:41 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:00*pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Timo wrote:

How is it a "step beyond"? All we have is a mathematical model of
observable effects of electrons. Where is there any hint of "mechanism"?

The electron is the mechanism.

A very poor "mechanism". No better than "field". Worse, even. Why are you
happy with "electron" as "mechanism" but not "field"? (Perhaps a good time
to actually try to define what you mean by "mechanism"?)

In fact, I would challenge Jan to characterize an electron in such a
way that distinguishes it from a field. What are the properties of an
electron that make it more "real" than a field? Be very careful with
the answer, Jan.

You relativists really are a primative lot. You are stuck on the bottom rung of
physics and can't raise your tiny little minds above it.

The point is, there is an obvious link between 'matter', 'charge' and 'field'.
The mathematics is well known.
Jan and I wish to speculate on the physics of that link.

Where the distinction between the mathematics of the link and the
physics of the link is WHAT, exactly? This is where I challenged Jan
to be a bit more complete, and I'd be entertained by your spluttering
an attempt as well.

PD

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

New matter is born out of the fields and masses of the old accelerated
particles. This is particle creation in colliders.

And in resistive circuits, the current is approximately proportional
to the applied voltage difference. Your contribution to the
Irrelevancy Board is accepted for publication.

PD

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:00:41 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:

Calling something "electron" isn't a "mechanism". Or do you think it is?
Given that we don't know what an electron _is_, beyond its measured
properties, all we have is a name and a mathematical model.

It is a step beyond playing just with the basic math that has no physical
way or model, or mechanism, of HOW things happen, what does it.

How is it a "step beyond"? All we have is a mathematical model of
observable effects of electrons. Where is there any hint of "mechanism"?

The electron is the mechanism.

A very poor "mechanism". No better than "field". Worse, even.

You are confusing some issues I think.
Those are 2 seperate things, electrons are the 'thing' and field is the mathematical
representation of the forces you expect.

Not the same animal by a long shot.


Why are you
happy with "electron" as "mechanism" but not "field"? (Perhaps a good time
to actually try to define what you mean by "mechanism"?)

Well, put it very simply: It is easier to think in little balls moving
around, knowing their charge, their preferences (such as to repel each other),
their mass, etc.
It allows you to visualise.
AND THEY REALLY EXISTS!
Sure you cannot grasp the electron tube, or the CRT you mentioned, without electrons
flying around.
Neither semiconductors, 'holes' too.
You 'could' start with math, try with math only, but it would be a incomprehensible mess.



Sounds a bit like the medium is the message... but really, in electronics
all I play with are electrons.
Without the concept of electrons nothing would be comprehensible.

Almost all of it would be comprehensible. Electronics has about as much to
do with electrons as photonics has to do with photons.

Well, been in that field now for about 60 years, you are wrong :-)
I have seen EEs make statements like that, and they somehow disappeared from the
workplace... doing other things... Without electrons, or thinking electrons,
they are doomed.


Most of electronics
is about EM waves and EM power going up and down the circuit.

Well, not really.
We talk about volts and charge, rise times, nano seconds, impedances,
currents, frequencies, never about some vague bull**** like 'EM power'.


This happens
at approx. c, while the electrons move at a few mm/s.

Wrong, may in some conductor, but in the CRT you mentioned, and many other
electronic items, they may move close to c (well not very close, but
at very high speed anyways).
There was some discussion about using relativity in CRT design here some years ago.
I think at that time some big company was looking for somebody for CRT electron
gun design.
Of course now that is all over with LCDs taking over.


OK, there are all the fun quantum devices, like transistors and diodes (or
vacuum tubes even). But from an electronics perspective, you don't need to
know that, all you need is the black box model of the devices.

Wrong, yes,. the modern kids use simulators, spice models, but hell you better
know what happens in those devices, or you are stuck once you leave uni, and
have to make a real design.


From the math .. forget it, math is an engineering tool to get
quantitives. ;-)

Well, yes. Isn't this obvious?

Note the ';-)' I know Sam Wormhole no longer bytes, dunno if he even did read it.
Was poking fun at him a bit.
Math is that engineering tool, but also facilitates doing things, think FFT for example.


Because it's central to your original statement that, in the absence of
"mechanism", physics will not advance? _You_ introduced "mechanism",
didn't, and haven't defined "mechanism" (or "advance"), but appear to
continue to defend your original thesis.

Bottom line" "mechanism", as usually understood, is not reality; it's
beyond reality, beyond experimental verification.

Well, I disagree.
Of course from a purely philosophical POV we will likely _never_ know 'reality'
(whatever that may be), as we can only look so deep (now looking for Higgs),
and why should there be a bottom?
The answer to everything?
As to 'mechanism' let's say model, look at all those graphical simulations
of little balls flying about, such a form of visualisation you
could call 'mechanism', and it helps to understand what happens,
simulations are not reality, I agree with you there, but electrons are.
But it is still a 'mechanism'.


Fact remains we have no time machine and no warp drive.
But the mathematicians dreamed up those.
So where is reality? Not with playing with incomplete math.

So, what is your complaint? Please, be explicit! Are you complaining that
"avid mathematicians" are theorising about "warp drives" (which you've
already indicated is a wonderful and glorious aim)? Or just that the warp
drives don't work in reality?

Exactly!


In which case, complain to reality, not the
avid mathematicians.

It makes them look sort of a bit let's say "Phantasies".



Seriously, how can you simultaneously complain about the lack of practical
time machines, and theoretical work expended on the theory of time
machines?

What I stated was that with Einsteins (incomplete) equations you can play and make time machines,
but do no practical inventions that really work.

I personally think a lot of those mathematicians are incompetent in many other fields then their small
math pet area, look at gravity probe B, 25 years in the making.
From the first time I did read about it, my question was: How are they going to control
those balls? (basic mechanics).
I also was one of the first to point out here that that experiment went wrong, because I know how
those scientist react when they see things that do _not_ match their models.


If you could show a machine that changed gravity, or the weight of an object,
then yes we would have progressed.

That was the answer you asked for...

Oh? But no sign of a yes or no answer? Please, make it clear!


Why not just answer the question? I'm not asking about the area of "what
gravity IS, the mechanism", I'm asking about physics in general,
especially that part of it that makes use of Newtonian gravity. Did
physics progress, based on Newton's mathematical model of gravity, despite
the lack of mechanism?

Not a bit in that area :-)
Or did you see a Higgs lately?


We can change gravity and weight in the same way that we can change
electric fields, charges, and electric forces. We understand the effects.

No we cannot.

Oh? We don't understand the effects?

I doubt it :-)

You are jumping items, I simply stated you cannot change the weight or inertia of
an object, you have been unable to come up with a machine that can do that.
Period.


You are getting a bit irritating, and makes one feel like wanting to terminate the exchange,
because I mentioned, and gave a link, to the ESA experiment TWICE.

Mentioning != proposing. And the original mention was tangential to the
topic. Will look if time permits.


Never more then the EM field, never faster then c.

By how much do the _electromagnets_ increase the speed of the particles?


That depends on the timing, the field strength.
Tick tick tick, like a clock, wrong timing and they slow down.

On Apr 22, 4:11*am, Jan Panteltje wrote

You are confusing some issues I think.
Those are 2 seperate things, electrons are the 'thing' and field is the mathematical
representation of the forces you expect.

Not the same animal by a long shot.

Why are you
happy with "electron" as "mechanism" but not "field"? (Perhaps a good time
to actually try to define what you mean by "mechanism"?)

Well, put it very simply: It is easier to think in little balls moving
around, knowing their charge, their preferences (such as to repel each other),
their mass, etc.
It allows you to visualise.
AND THEY REALLY EXISTS!

Well, this is where I think there is room for some contention.
Electrons are NOT little balls imbued with charge and mass. They don't
behave consistently like little balls, they don't bear all the
properties of little balls, and a little ball description does not
accommodate what they do.

So despite a little ball image being easy to visualize, it is known to
be insufficient and inaccurate.

This is why I asked you to be careful in distinguishing the reality of
a field from the reality of an electron.

Sure you cannot grasp the electron tube, or the CRT you mentioned, without electrons
flying around.
Neither semiconductors, 'holes' too.
You 'could' start with math, try with math only, but it would be a incomprehensible mess.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Timo wrote:

Calling something "electron" isn't a "mechanism". Or do you think it is?
Given that we don't know what an electron _is_, beyond its measured
properties, all we have is a name and a mathematical model.

It is a step beyond playing just with the basic math that has no physical
way or model, or mechanism, of HOW things happen, what does it.

How is it a "step beyond"? All we have is a mathematical model of
observable effects of electrons. Where is there any hint of "mechanism"?

The electron is the mechanism.

A very poor "mechanism". No better than "field". Worse, even.

You are confusing some issues I think.
Those are 2 seperate things, electrons are the 'thing' and field is the mathematical
representation of the forces you expect.

Not the same animal by a long shot.

"Electron" is what we _call_ the thing. We have a mathematical model of
how they behave. We have no mechanism of why they behave that way.

Why are you
happy with "electron" as "mechanism" but not "field"? (Perhaps a good time
to actually try to define what you mean by "mechanism"?)

Well, put it very simply: It is easier to think in little balls moving
around, knowing their charge, their preferences (such as to repel each other),
their mass, etc.
It allows you to visualise.
AND THEY REALLY EXISTS!

Sure, they exist. OK, and you like to visualise them as little balls. But
surely "mechanism" means more than "easily visualised"! Where is the
"mechanism"? All that you do with this picture of electrons is squeeze up
a bunch of Maxwellian charge into a little ball, add on the experimentally
measured electron mass (while subtracting the theoretically calculated
infinite self-energy). There is no "why" at all, just mathematical models
of observed phenomena.

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls. Visualising photons as little balls can also be
very misleading at times.

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.
Easily visualised pictures are nice, but you need to be careful with them
when, fundamentally, they're wrong.

Such easily visualised pictures can be useful, even when wrong. But I'm
wary of calling any such thing a "mechanism", or trying to claim it as
some kind of fundamental explanation, especially when it's known to be
just an approximate picture.

Sounds a bit like the medium is the message... but really, in electronics
all I play with are electrons.
Without the concept of electrons nothing would be comprehensible.

Almost all of it would be comprehensible. Electronics has about as much to
do with electrons as photonics has to do with photons.

Well, been in that field now for about 60 years, you are wrong :-)
I have seen EEs make statements like that, and they somehow disappeared from the
workplace... doing other things... Without electrons, or thinking electrons,
they are doomed.

Most of electronics
is about EM waves and EM power going up and down the circuit.

Well, not really.
We talk about volts and charge, rise times, nano seconds, impedances,
currents, frequencies, never about some vague bull**** like 'EM power'.

Power and signals. Doesn't matter what word you use, it's still mostly
about power and signals.

This happens
at approx. c, while the electrons move at a few mm/s.

Wrong, may in some conductor

In normal, everyday conductors. The conductors that make up the majority
of many electronic circuits.

but in the CRT you mentioned, and many other
electronic items, they may move close to c (well not very close, but
at very high speed anyways).

How many CRTs in a TV? How much length of metallic conductor?

OK, there are all the fun quantum devices, like transistors and diodes (or
vacuum tubes even). But from an electronics perspective, you don't need to
know that, all you need is the black box model of the devices.

Wrong, yes,. the modern kids use simulators, spice models, but hell you better
know what happens in those devices, or you are stuck once you leave uni, and
have to make a real design.

Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

By how much do the _electromagnets_ increase the speed of the particles?

That depends on the timing, the field strength.
Tick tick tick, like a clock, wrong timing and they slow down.

By how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a charged particle?

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:28:00 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 21, 6:04*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:47:30 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 5:37*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Where the distinction between the mathematics of the link and the
physics of the link is WHAT, exactly? This is where I challenged Jan
to be a bit more complete, and I'd be entertained by your spluttering
an attempt as well.

We don't know the physics, Draper. That is what we are trying to determine.

So you admit you don't know the difference between the mathematics of
the link and the physics of the link. All you care to project is that
there is something missing and leaving you unsatisfied, but you can't
say what.

That's right Draper. You are getting the picture at last.

All we know is that it must exist.

WHAT must exist? If you don't know what it is, please explain how
you're going to recognize the physics when you stumble upon it.

Draper, a PHYSICAL explanation of the mathematics of fields MUST EXIST.

That's what Aristotle said about thunder and lightning, remember.....or was if
Confuscious?

Well, you're certainly confusedious. Are you using Aristotle as your



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:41:02 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 22, 4:11*am, Jan Panteltje wrote

You are confusing some issues I think.
Those are 2 seperate things, electrons are the 'thing' and field is the mathematical
representation of the forces you expect.

Not the same animal by a long shot.

Why are you
happy with "electron" as "mechanism" but not "field"? (Perhaps a good time
to actually try to define what you mean by "mechanism"?)

Well, put it very simply: It is easier to think in little balls moving
around, knowing their charge, their preferences (such as to repel each other),
their mass, etc.
It allows you to visualise.
AND THEY REALLY EXISTS!

Well, this is where I think there is room for some contention.
Electrons are NOT little balls imbued with charge and mass. They don't
behave consistently like little balls, they don't bear all the
properties of little balls, and a little ball description does not
accommodate what they do.

Nonsense draper. The charged ball idea is pretty useful in most applications.

So despite a little ball image being easy to visualize, it is known to
be insufficient and inaccurate.

This is why I asked you to be careful in distinguishing the reality of
a field from the reality of an electron.

that's what this thread is all about.

What physical model fits the infinite 'field' surrounding a 'charged little
ball'?

Sure you cannot grasp the electron tube, or the CRT you mentioned, without electrons
flying around.
Neither semiconductors, 'holes' too.
You 'could' start with math, try with math only, but it would be a incomprehensible mess.





Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:23:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 21, 5:54*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:52:56 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:02*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Its predictions will be the same as those already known.
The only way to investigate Watter is to start with the known maths and
construct a model that will produce it.

That's how physics works.

Uh, no, that is not how physics works. A new model gets developed into
*new math* and in particular makes predictions that are *not* made by
theories to date. It is in fact the distinctive predictions of the new
model that make it testable against experiment -- since it makes
claims that are quantitatively *different* than what current models
make, then the measurement of that quantity thereby tells you whether
the new model is right and the current models necessarily wrong, or
vice versa.

THAT is how physics works.

That's one way...a model is developed from observations and then tested with
maths.....but it is not applicable in this instance. The maths are already
known but the model is not.
Any physical model that IS conceived will be tested against the known maths..


How would you know. You're just a ****ing engineer. You merely apply models and
maths already developed by us physicists.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....