I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them.
But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. Math is the language of physics, and there is no better comprehension of physical reality but through it. There is no other language in which to depict those models! It is not an afterthought bolted on later. Sent from my iPhone. On May 27, 2011, at 3:53, "Mark Iverson" <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > Don't you get any enjoyment from creative, out-of-the-box thinking? > Do you simply accept hook line and sinker what establishment teaches you? > If that's the case, then what are you doing on vortex? :-) > > Most here are quite familiar with 'textbook' physics, and that it is quite a > useful set of rules... > It has put men on the moon and millions of transistors on a very small slab > of sand!! However, most > here also realize that there are significant problems with it, and the whole > purpose is to explore > those problems... If you haven't figured it out yet, this isn't a mutual > admiration society for > establishment thinking. ;-) > > Now to get to your question: > "How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find > satisfactory?" > > I know this is going to really stretch your brain cells, and will likely > cause undue stress, but you > asked... > > We were all taught that the fundamental particles that make up an atom are > electrons, protons and > neutrons... and that there was this concept of electrical 'charge'... And > that electrons had a > negative charge and protons a positive charge... And that like charges repel, > unlike attract. So > far, pretty basic stuff. > > Then we discover Cooper pairs... two electrons bound together! WTF!!!! The > fundamental RULE says > that like charges repel!!! Gee, I guess that RULE isn't quite reflective of > ALL electron > interactions! My contention is that the lack of a physical model has > resulted in an incomplete > mathematical model; a mathematical model that eventually is violated by some > new observation... So > then the theorists work feverishly, perhaps for decades, trying to manipulate > and modify and > 'renormalize' their equations in order to explain the new observation. Well, > chances are good they > will succeed, NOT because they are right, but because mathematics is such a > diverse field that they > eventually succeed in shoving a square peg into a round hole. But, it may or > may not result in true > understanding! If that was the case, then we would have been able to explain > superconductivity by > now... And yet it has been studied intensively for many decades and they > still don't know WTF is > going on... Why? Because they are starting with a flawed, abstract model for > the electron! > > Back to the example of what I'd find satisfactory... > Here's a simple physical (not mathematical) model which would allow for the > existence of two like > charges being attracted/bound to one another... > Assume that the vacuum of space is a medium which is under tremendous > pressure and has extremely low > viscosity when it comes to movement within that 'medium'. Set up an > oscillation in this medium, and > you could see a very fast, periodic oscillation between a higher-pressure > area and a lower-pressure > area... Not unlike the compressional waves in air or water, but with a twist > that there is a form of > surface tension that restricts the higher/lower pressure areas to a small > spherical area. Another > image that comes to mind, although not entirely accurate, is the oscillations > of a water droplet in > zero-G. Now visualize the electron as a kind of dumb-bell shaped structure, > or dipole shaped if that > sounds more sophisticated, one end being the higher pressure area and the > other the lower pressure > area... The higher and lower pressure areas are NOT static, but are > oscillating in a linear fashion, > and its happening so fast that we cannot possibly discern their true physical > manifestation. Now > imagine two of these coming near each other but their high/low pressure areas > are 180 degrees out of > phase... One's HP area is next to the others LP area and vice-a-versa... > Doesn't take a genius to > see that these two entities would just want to couple together naturally! > Cooper-pair. > > The Point being... > The behavior in this case is simply a result of the makeup of the physical > structures. > > Is there any doubt that one could find a mathematical model for this physical > model??? No doubt at > all... And it would probably be a whole lot simpler and easily extensible > compared to what we have > now. > > What is missing from much of physical theory is a physical model first... > Before the mathematics. > After relativity and QM came along, the mathematical physicists began to > dominate theoretical > physics and the importance of having a foundation of a physical model > disappeared. > > -Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:48 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? > > How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory? > >
