Buttons 'n' Levers

The best of the rest from the Physics arXiv this week:

kfc 08/21/2010

9 Comments

Hylogenesis: A Unified Origin for Baryonic Visible Matter and Antibaryonic Dark Matter

Patterns of Individual Shopping Behavior

The Plateau of Gamma-ray Burst: Hint for the Solidification of Quark Matter?

Introduction To Quantum Fisher information

Realization and Properties of Biochemical-Computing Biocatalytic XOR Gate Based on Signal Change

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

One Idea Solves Dark Energy and Lithium Abundance Mysteries Quantum Zeno Effect Allows "Interaction-free" Switching

643 Days Ago
08/21/2010

Hi-lili Hi-lili Hylogenesis

A pile of new parameters, a new curve fit, and a physical test requiring many years of study to remain ambiguous. Is this what physics has become?

http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/

http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/

Given more than 3/4 million comparisons between a published title and a computer Mad-Lib, those skilled in the art average 59% correct ID.

The universe is a profusion of chiral symmetry breakings from matter-antimatter abundance to the Weak interaction to biological homochirality. A massed sector chiral vacuum background is the trivial origin. Chiral symmetry breakings would be contingent, not breakings. Strong interactions would obscure a trace chiral background, thus being the symmetry breakings.

Academic bloviation is punctured by empirical falsification. In 90 days a chiral vacuum background can be tested to 5x10^(-14) left-right difference/average in existing apparatus using off-the-shelf commercial materials,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg

Two experiments. The worst they can do is succeed.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

The polemic, with pictures.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/boojum.pdf

The scholarly version.

Theory predicts what observation tells it to predict. End the madness. Somebody should look.

643 Days Ago
08/21/2010

> The universe is a profusion of chiral symmetry breakings from matter-antimatter abundance to the Weak interaction to biological homochirality. A massed sector chiral vacuum background is the trivial origin. Chiral symmetry breakings would be contingent, not breakings. Strong interactions would obscure a trace chiral background, thus being the symmetry breakings.

This jolly obscure statement is a typical of contemporary physics. We know nothing of the universe because by looking at the stars optically (or em wave wisely) we do not know where they are as the gravitational agent. The standard model is invalid as relativity theory is inconsistent and we are mixing up at least three mutually contradicting concepts of photons. Annihilation and creation of particles is thus a complete nonsense which cannot be even theoretically stated. To make the matter even worse, positron and electron's energy is not quantised and photon's energy is quantised (if photon exist) and so the annihilation of electrons and positrons violates the conservation of energy. Using invalid theory they set up irrelevant invalid "experiments" at the cost of general public, most of whom have difficulty in putting food on the table and finding shelter to sleep, to conclude invalid results and to advance their occupational interest as Prof. Robert Wilson warned in his retirement speech from APS.

Just like Marxists they think that by repressing the critics they could keep going on forever.

Best regards,

AKT

643 Days Ago
08/21/2010

"We know nothing of the universe because by looking at the stars optically (or em wave wisely) we do not know where they are as the gravitational agent. The standard model is invalid as relativity theory is inconsistent and we are mixing up at least three mutually contradicting concepts of photons."

Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)

Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861

DI Herculis anomalous orbital precession reconciled with General Relativity

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7283//abs/nature08776.html

Nature 463 926 (2010)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929

0.1 mm height difference gives predicted GR time difference for height in a gravitational well within 7 ppb relative.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/articles/lrr-2006-3/

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/einstein_unruffled_relativity_passes_stringent_new_tests

http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039

Experimental constraints on General Relativity

GR exactly describes 1.74 solar-mass 465.14 Hz neutron star pulsar PSR J1903+0327 in a 95.17-day 0.437-eccentricity orbit with its 1.05 solar-mass star companion. 27% vs. 1.4x10^(-4)% gravitational binding energy, 1.8x10^11 vs. ~30 surface gees, 2x10^8 gauss vs. ~5 gauss magnetic field; superconductive compressed neutrons plus conjectured core compositions including hyperons, delta isobars, deconfined quark matter, Bose condensate, meson condensate (pion, kaon)... vs. proton-electron plasma; pulsar equatorial spin greater than 11% lightspeed each and all together validate GR predictions to the limits of observation.

GR is the simplest gravitation theory that is universally validated and without a single reported empirical falsification, predictions vs. observations, bench tops to cosmology. Any counterargument to GR must still be consistent with all prior predictions validated by observations in all venues at all scales. This includes the exquisite perfection of GR-corrected Global Positioning System from the first 1978 Block-I GPS satellite to the latest GPS IIF SV-1 satellite.

You are an intellectual eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a barrow, a havier, a gib, a lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a troll in a science blog. Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. Go away.

643 Days Ago
08/21/2010

Sorry to have spoiled your party. But the party is over.

What you wrote is nothing compared with a mountain of problems contemporary physics face. I summarised it as follows:

[I]. The SR is logically and mathematically inconsistent for the following reasons:

1. Assume that bikers A and B run in parallel with the same speed. Assume A emit a light signal towards B. According to the biker's perspective B receives the light signal in lieu of the Constancy of the Speed of Light. According to the perspective of an observer on the road, the light misses B as B moves on again in lieu of the CSL.

2. Assume a train runs on a track. When the front of the train and the rear of the train touch the track at F and R, assume lighting hits F and R. Then an observer located at the middle of the train will observe that F and R are hit at the same time as they are points of the train. But he will also observe that F is hit first and then R is hit as F and R are points of the track.

3. Assume that a train runs on a track. When an observer on the train is on the right bisector of AB lighting hits A and B. According to Einstein who used Galilean reasoning, this observer will observe that A and B are hit at different moment. This is how Einstein claimed that there is no universal simultaneity. But when we consider the CSL, the speed of light and light path is independent upon the motion of the emitter of light and so, this observer will observe that AS and B are hit at the same moment as A and B are points moving backward in the perspective of the observer. So, SR deduces both the loss of simultaneity and its negation.

4. In the thought experiment of Einstein to establish the length contraction, when we consider the point where light is emitted towards the moving mirror, there is no length contraction.

5. Einstein correctly argued that we can place synchronised clocks along a train track. Now assume a train runs on this track and when two operators one at the front and the other at the rear of the train see 12:00 they mark the track. Let A and B be the marked points. A ground level observer can measure the original length of the train by measuring the length of the line segment AB. However, due to the length contraction, he will also observe that the length of the train is shorter than AB.

6. SR is built from thought experiments which involved the events of light emission and light reception. However, at a more developed stage of the theory its light cone interpretation invalidates all such thought experiments as there is no causality between emission of light and reception of light.

7. SR is an axiomatic reasoning system with axioms {d=vt,PoR, CSL}. From d=vt and PoR we can deduce Galilean Transformation. GT is nothing but d=vt observed from different inertial frame. We can deduce Length Contraction and Time Dilation from SR = {d=vt,PoR,CSL}. By applying LC and TD to GT, we deduce Lorentz Transformation. So, SR deduces both GT and LT which again is a contradiction.

[II]. Relativistic theory of photons is invalid and inconsistent for the following reasons:

1). By assuming that photon has zero resp mass, Einstein managed to remove the problem of diverging relativistic mass and relativstic energy problem. He did not see that this still creates a mathematical contradiction at the length contraction formula:

d = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.

2). Photons are not quantum particles of light waves as Einstein claimed. There are two know quantisation know to physicists. Neither of them apply to light waves. First quantisation does not apply to light wave equations as they are not energy wave equations. Second quantisation does not apply to light waves as we get nothing new by Fourier expanding sinusoidal functions.

3). Uncertainty principle does not apply to photons. The so called energy-time uncertainty of light-photon is false as uncertainty principle applies only to non commuting self-adjoint operators. Time is not even observables (self-adjoint operator) in QM.

[III]. Relativistic mechanics of Einstein is inconsistent and invalid.

(1). Einstein did not prove the conservation of momentum in relativistic mechanics. He assumed it and from that he proved that p=mv where m is relativistic mass.

(2). He wrongly differentiated p by t as follows:

F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt.

The error is that he forgot that v in m is constant, a most fundamental assumption of the concept of inertial frames. This was needed to make sure that all frames share the same laws of physics. Once this is violated, virtually anything will happen and it did indeed happen as we will present in what follows:

(3). In relativistic mechanics, E^2/c^2 - p^2 is relativistic invariant. Also

E^2 = (m0c^2)^2+(pc)^2. From them we can conclude that E is relativistic invariant. From E=mc^2 we can conclude that E is relativistic variant.

(4). In relativistic mechanics, the direction of force applied and direction of acceleration caused by the force do not agree.

[IV]. Relativistic theory of waves is inconsistent. It concludes that

v_g = C^2/w

where v_g and w are group speed and phase speed of waves. This implies that unless wave has the same value for the group speed and phase speed which is c, either group speed or phase speed exceeds c. This contradicts SR. Relativists claim that this is no contradiction as the energy of wave travel with the group speed and so we can set the phase speed exceed c. This is not a logical reasoning as SR is a theory which rejects all wave mediums. It is a theory of vacuums and so, there is no room for considering the energy of waves.

Putting aside this fatal error, still considering the energy of waves does not help at all. We know that sound wave travelling air has the same value for group and phase speed which is not c.

[V]. There are many mutually contradicting concepts of photons. Planck defined them as energy quanta. Einstein defined them as quanta of em waves. Dirac defined them as quanta of em fields. All of them are different and contradict each other.

[VI]. GR is invalid.

1. Assume that A accelerates away from C with rate a and B accelerates away from C with rate b in opposite direction. Then A accelerates away from B with rate a+b. This cannot be understood using force. So, Einstein's PoE is false. This means that GR is invalid. Indeed, if PoE is valid, Einstein should have had no difficulty in unifying EM theory and GR.

2. Gravity makes stars move around in the universe due to the gravitational interaction among stars. GR fails to capture this gravitational dynamics of the universe.

[VII]. Relativistic astronomy is bunk.

1). Unless we are sure that the gravity and light travels in precisely the same path with precisely the same speed, we know nothing about our universe. This is because the optical location and gravitational location of stars are then all different. By observing the stars, we will never get any tangible information about the universe.

2). If space is curved due to the distribution of stars in the universe, we will never know or universe. This is because to know how the universe is curved due to the spacial distribution of stars, we have to measure the distance between stars. To do that we have to know how space is curved.

Best regards,

AKT

643 Days Ago
08/21/2010

Here is yet another idiocy of theoretical physicists who cannot think properly. To add salt to their injury, let me repeat how false theoretical physicists are even in empirical reasoning. Certainly I am talking about the infamous "But it works!" This and personal attack seems to be the only weapons they to have to "defend" their moronic theory.

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF EQUIVALENCE OF MASS AND ENERGY:

*****************

When we bombard lithium by fast moving protons, a lithium nucleus and a proton

combine to form an unstable nucleus which splits into two fast moving helium

nuclei. The sum of p and Li rest masses is 8.0216 amu. The total rest mass of

outgoing particles is 8.0030 amu. Thus the rest mass is not preserved. However,

energy is conserved in the over all nuclear reaction for "very precise

measurements" of the difference between the kinetic energy of incoming proton

and the total kinetic energy of the He nuclei gives

(delta)E=(2.770+(-)0.005)*10^(-12) [J]. The increase in the rest mass is 0.0186

amu. Then the increase in the rest energy is (delta)m0c^2 = 2.78*10^(-12) [J].

****************

This "experimental verification" has been globally accepted as the "victory" of

Einstein's SR and taught in standard textbooks. I wonder why this is empirical

verification at all. The only thing which is empirical here is the rest masses

of particles involved. The rest are just plugging in these empirical numbers to

the SR formulas. I wonder how do we empirically measure the relativistic

kinematic energy of particles empirically.

An argument like this is yet another example of the what Mitch called

"self-fulfilling argument" of Einsteinians which goes as follow: As SR is

correct SR is correct. It appears quite clear that the principle of empiricism

has been seriously violated in this kind of argument.

I read through many other "empirical verifications of SR" and found out that

virtually all of them have this very error. They are not what normal scientists

call empirical verification at all.

I have spent many years to conclude that Einstein's "theories" are theoretically

invalid. Now it appears that his theories are not even empirically valid.

I am going to reexamine the so called empirical verification of SR in the

forthcoming posts.

Uncle Al called one of a participant in this blog, "uneducatable idiot". The only thing which is moronic here is the activity of theoretical physics itself. Their "theory" is not and their "but it works" is false. The only thing left for them is as everybody knows persoanl attack.

Best regards,

AKT

643 Days Ago
08/21/2010

Here is yet another blow to the moronic "But it works" which Uncle AL presented here.

Now consider yet another experimental verification of SR in the setting of a

bubble chamber experiment.

Assume a beam of very high energy negatively charged K^- mesons was allowed into

a bubble chamber of a mixture of organic fluids so that there were large numbers

of the more ordinary particles such as protons, electrons, neutrons present in

the chamber. These K^- mesons will combine with the protons and neutrons to

produce pions and uncharged gamma^0 hyperons in the following atomic reactions:

K^- + p^+ -> Gamma^0 +pi^0

(E0)

K^- + n -> Gamma^0 + pi^-.

The charged particles electrically interact with the fluid molecules to produce

ionisation which leads to observable bubbles. Since Gamma^0 is electrically

neutral, their trajectory in the bubble chamber will not be visible. However, in

a very short period the Gamma^0 decays into a proton and a pi^- meson as

Gamma^0 -> p + pi^-. (E1)

They leave visible tracks in the chamber. The Pi^0 will decay into uncharged

photons which will not be visible in the chamber either. A magnetic field

applied to the chamber causes in curved paths for which the radius of the

curveture is proportional to the momentum.

Here the K^- tracks are easily identified as all the K^- mesons have the same

curveture. At a point say A, a K^- disappears due to one of the the equations

(E0). A Gamma^0 is produced, which travels to a point B where it decays as (E1).

Due to the opposite charge, the produced proton and pi^- will have track which

will curve in opposite directions. The produced proton and pi^- will slow down

due to their collision with the moluecules of the liquid in the chamber and come

to halt at points D and C respectively.

From this bubble chamber experiment, physicists "measure" the rest mass of the

invisible Gamma^0 particle as follows:

1. The invisible line AB represents the trajectory of the Gamma^0 particle.

Assuming the speed of this particle to be v_gamma and rest mass to be m0_gamma,

we calculate the relativistic energy of the gamma^0 particle to be

E_gamma = (m0_gamma*c^2)/sqrt(1-(v_gamma)^2/c^2)).

From the path length of the visible trajectory of pi^- and proton, we can

calculate relativistic energy E_pi of Pi^- and E_p of proton. Then due to the

conservation of energy, we have

E_gamma =E_pi + E_p.

Let theta_pi and theta_p be the initial angels relative to the line AB at which

pi^- and p are projected. Then using the relativistic conservation of momentum,

we have

v_gamma/c = (c*p_pi*cos(theta_pi)+c*p_p*cos(theta_P))

where p_pi and p_p are initial momentum of the pi^- and proton which can also be

calculated by the path length.

So we have,

m0_gamma*c^2 = (E_pi+E_p)*sqrt(1-((v_gamma)^2/c^2) ). (E3)

This formula allows us to calculate the rest mass m0_gamma.

Again here what is experimental is the visible path lengths of pi^- and proton

in the bubble chamber and angels theta_gamma and theta p. The rest are nothing

but just plugging these numbers into SR formulas to calculate the "rest mass" of

the invisible Gamma particle.

It is hard to understand why SR is verified empirically by this argument. All of

this simply means that IF SR is correct, the formula (E3) gives us empirical

calculation of the rest mass and it simply does not say that SR is valid at all.

Again what Mich called "self-fulfilling argument" is in action here: "As SR is

valid SR is valid."

I myself was pulled into believing the empirical validity of SR by reading

through these "empirical validation" of SR. The genius status of Einstein helped

too. As all of us have been told that Einstein was a genius and his theory of

relativity is so difficult and advanced that only three people in the entire

world can understand it, that being able to mechanically follow this kind of

"advanced" particle physics argument which "verifies" SR was a big boost on

students ego. It certainly helped young researchers not to question SR in depth.

Best regards,

AKT

643 Days Ago
08/21/2010

> Theory predicts what observation tells it to predict. End the madness. Somebody should look.

As Hume correctly said, building physical theory has two parts.

1. By applying induction on what we observed, we bang out extra-logical axioms of the theory, called laws of physics. This process can be understood as "proof by examples" for the laws banged out. There is nothing better physicists can do on this. This is essentially a process of speculation. From limited experiences, we stretch out to claim laws of physics. Empiricism is to govern this most disturbing part of building physical theories. It is not a process of finding truth but it is a process of reaching to agreement among us.

2. Once the axioms are bunged out, the deduction (prediction) process of the physical theory is precisely that of formal logical reasoning. This means that physical theories succumbs to the laws of logic in prediction process. This is where physicists have no understanding at all. They are those idiots ho think that in the proof by contradiction, there is something wrong with the proof itself. These arrogant idiots do not understand that there is nothing wrong with the proof itself. it is logically totally legitimate. The reason why we have contradiction is because our assumption is untenable.

3. The ignorance and stupidity of this group of arrogant individuals manifests even more amusingly in the development of SR. Einstein discovered that the Galilean transformation {d=vt, PoR} deduces Galilean Transformation which contradicts Constancy of Speed of Light. So, he added CSL to Galilean relativity theory to form SR which is an axiomatic theory with three axioms {d=vt, PoR, CSL}. That CSL contradicts a theorem GT of Galilean relativity theory simply means that CSL contradicts {d=vt, PoR}. So only an absolute idiot will add CSL to {d=vt, PoR, CSL} to "resolve the conflict between GT and CSL. To make the matter even worse this Einstein deduced LC and TD from {d=vt,PoR,CSL} and applied them to GT to deduce LT. Then he went on to denounce GT to proclaim that LT is the only correct coordinate transformation.

The same opportunism manifests in the relativistic mechanics too. Einstein excluded frames which accelerates as they change the laws of physics. He developed SR under this assumption. So, in the relativistic mass formula v is constant.

He went on to (not prove) but claim that p = mv. This came from the assumption of the conservation of momentum which he did not prove.

This was already bad enough. He went further on to claim that

F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt

and E = mc^2.

Here he violated the assumption that v is constant in m. So, he condemned the accelerating frames and framed SR which deduces relativistic mass m. Then he dumped the v constant assumption to move into dynamics using m.

The price for this error is severe. This causes inconsistency such as

1. From E^2/c^2 + p^2 being relativistic invariant and E = sqrt((m0c^2)^2+(pc)^2), E becomes relativistic invariant.

2. The direction of force and acceleration caused by the force are not the same anymore.

Einstein complained about mathematical physicists as those who can calculate but cannot think. Fine it appears that he was a good thinker. Those followers of Einstein appear to be even finer thinkers. It is a privilege that in this blog we have a gentleman like Uncle Al who blindly follow Einstein.

Best regards,

AKT

641 Days Ago
08/23/2010

/* physical theories succumbs to the laws of logic in prediction process. This is where physicists have no understanding at all... */

It can be illustrated by your stance to AWT (dense aether theory), which is solely based on non-formal logics. You common reaction is the same, like at the case of mainstream community: "show me the math" or "shut up and calculate"!

Therefore I can perceive your stance as somewhat hypocritical, as you're unable to follow theory based on nonformal logics anyway.

641 Days Ago
08/23/2010

Relativstic mechanics BUNK

I think physicists deserve taste of its own medicine which they have been giving to their critics from the position of the "king of science". Let me present what kind of bunk contemporary physics is. For that let me re-present my criticism on the relativistic mechanics which is a "standard" extension of SR to mechanics.

(1). Einstein did not prove the conservation of momentum in relativistic mechanics. He assumed it and from that he proved that p=mv where m is relativistic mass.

(2). He wrongly differentiated p by t as follows:

F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt.

The error here is that he forgot that v in m is constant, a most fundamental assumption of the concept of inertial frames. This was needed to make sure that all frames share the same laws of physics.

The absardity of this developement by Einstein is that on the one hand, he violates the requirement of v being constant giving up the covariance of the laws of physics. On the other hand he expects that F=dp/dt still holds. This is yet another opportunism of Einstein which manifests everywhere in his theory of relativity.

Regardless of Einstein's corrupted opprtunism, once this is violated, virtually anything will happen and it did indeed happen as we will present in what follows:

(3). In relativistic mechanics, E^2/c^2 - p^2 is relativistic invariant. Also

E^2 = (m0c^2)^2+(pc)^2. From them we can conclude that E is relativistic invariant. From E=mc^2 we can conclude that E is relativistic variant.

(4). In relativistic mechanics, the direction of force applied and direction of acceleration caused by the force do not agree.

All of this demolishes the "excuse" these liars of the cult tell on the Twins Paradox. They present a lengthy "intimidating" calculation of the so called relativistic mechanics to conclude Twins paradox is not a paradox by considering the case where only one twin moves away and come back. Dr. Chow of MIT, an active member of Courant Institute Mathematics Forum FOM, told me that this proof is expected to be produced by the students of physics at MIT and major American University Pysics Education. The sad reality is that all of such calculation is waste, pure nonsense as relativistic mechanics is invalid. The bloody "theory" of relativistic mechanics is inconsistent.

No matter whatever replacement to relativistic mechanics we might obtain, as long as such replacement asserts Time Dilation and Length Contraction, Twins paradox always prevail triumphantly pouring freezing water on the arrogant king of science. Assume twins A and B accelerates way symmetrically and come back to face each other, A and B will find each other younger.

Best regards,

AKT

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed