Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger  ... (1) Physics has made no major progress in the last sixty years or so - the longest period in modern history. It is unable to bring gravity and the standard model together (as in quantum gravity) and is deperately searching for a new paradigm which will enable it to move forward from the current impass. String theory is a desperate attempt to bring this about but is not delivering the goods. Most current books on popular physics include a section on the current impass but, in particlar read Lee Smolin's 'The Trouble with Physics' and Peter Woit's 'Not only Wrong'. ... |
I'll go do my homework. In the meantime, as I recall, you and I are fond of Einstein's curvature of space idea rather than gravity and gravitons. (Right?) I believe it may be more fruitful pursuing Einstein's lead. It simplifies the "number of players" in a ToE which assists in the reduction.
I was hoping to find an idea using angular momentum spinning around a dipole structure in relation to magnetism. However, Uranus is being difficult:
Also, an electromagnet provides a tool for starting, stopping, and playing with magnetism. How do we hold such power? I am curious about magnetism with other configurations than just a simple iron bar wrapped in wire. If the central bar was hollow, how would it (if any) affect the result? What if it was wrapped with various insulating materials? What if the core was filled with different materials? What if the central bar was "rifled".
My gut sense is that magnetism and Einstein's curvature of space hold the keys. That somehow, particles and subparticles are just mirages of a deeper truth.
As frequency gets higher, EMR becomes more particle-like with photons at one end and x-rays at the other. Electrons are considered one of the simplist of particles. Do the just have "spin" (angular momentum)? Or do they have a frequency? When carrying a piggyback photon, they jump to a higher shell and then spit our the photon, right? Then they scurry back to the lowest shell.
Meanwhile, lasers were pointed at each other, and electrons and positrons emerged. This implies the stuff of a positron and and electron is just refried (or respun) photon. In other words, electrons, positrons, and photons are essentially the same thing with different spin factors.
Is all of this still "textbook"? If not, gimme a link to the latest info.
Felix, here's your homework assignment:
http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/lodeston.htm
I think this is the doorway to the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger ... (2) David's aether appears less specific to me but why don't you ask him? ... |
Again, more homework. "I'll be back," as my California governor would say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger ... (3) I don't think he (Fredrick) likes it but you should address the question to him ... |
More homework. "I'll be back."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger ... (4) GR = General Relativity; SR = Special Relativity; LR = Lorentzian Relativity; QG = Quantum Gravity; SM = Standard Model; BB = Big Bang; BH = Black Hole; CBR = Cosmic Background Radiation; EM = electro magnetism; EMR = Electro Magnetic Radiation; SH = Stephen Hawking; Wiki = Wikipedia; WPD = wave particle duality; SF = strong force; WF = weak force; IMHO in my humble opinion; GSOH = good sense of humour!
Hope this helps |
It does. Thanks!